Spacetime - formal description of No Rip/Tear

  • Thread starter Thread starter Julian M
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Spacetime
Julian M
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Could someone point me in the direction of the relevant differential geometry/topology terminology/definitions/explanation etc. to express the idea that spacetime cannot be "torn".

Methinks it's "diffeomorphic invariance" but, even if it is, a few nice words and/or an example (or two...) of what's allowable and what isn't would be welcome.

And then, if it's not asking too much, how would I go about proving that two manifolds were inequivalent?

Specific example (based on spacetime surgery for creating wormholes):

1. Take a standard simply connected spacetime manifold M
2. Consider the two situations
2a excise a pair of spheres (radius 1) centred at x1 = 1 and x2 = 10 and identify the surfaces of the two spheres.
2b ditto, but at x1 = 1 and x2 = 20

Being very specific that the x values are coordinate values and not distances (i.e. you can't expand/shrink the interval because the two x2s are different points) , are 2a and 2b inter-convertible (if so, how etc.)?

I hope this is a sensible question...

Thanks, Julian
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Julian M said:
And then, if it's not asking too much, how would I go about proving that two manifolds were inequivalent?

From Chapter 3 of http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll3/Carroll_contents.html: "The notion of two spaces being diffeomorphic only applies to manifolds, where a notion of differentiability is inherited from the fact that the space resembles R^n locally. But "continuity" of maps between topological spaces (not necessarily manifolds) can be defined, and we say that two such spaces are "homeomorphic," which means "topologically equivalent to," if there is a continuous map between them with a continuous inverse. It is therefore conceivable that spaces exist which are homeomorphic but not diffeomorphic; topologically the same but with distinct "differentiable structures." In 1964 Milnor showed that S7 had 28 different differentiable structures; it turns out that for n < 7 there is only one differentiable structure on Sn, while for n > 7 the number grows very large. R^4 has infinitely many differentiable structures.

For methods to see if two manifolds with metric are isometric, see http://books.google.com/books?id=YuTzf61HILAC&dq=olver+invariants&source=gbs_navlinks_s

Ray d'Inverno has a nice page about the isometry question here http://www.personal.soton.ac.uk/jav/karlhede.html .
 
Last edited:
Thanks atyy -

I have the Sean Carroll (the information in quote you gave has, I think, ended up in the Wikipedia article on Diffeomorphism), and have just looked at the (scary) d'Inverno stuff. The Olver (where I could see bits) is obviously relevant too... so they are all, I suppose, perfectly good answers to the equivalency question in all generality.

I think however they're too sophisticated for me, and probably too heavy-duty for the problem at hand, but the reply is appreciated.
 
Is the "no tear" idea related to the idea that if you foliate spacetime into a series of spacelike surfaces, the topology should never change from one surface to another?
 
Good question JesseM

My first thought was: yes, I think I am saying that in classical relativity I thought the topology should be constant on each spacelike hypersurface from minus to plus timelike infinity. In which case, part of the question is "what's the proper way of describing such topological invariance in the language of GR?" Which rule(s) say(s) you can/can't do this?

But then I thought: I'm not sure whether the topology is the problem. I have a vague recollection that there is a certain type of manifold surgery that can change the topology, and thus the question is - is that sort of thing allowed in GR? If (not), why (not)?

The problem is, IIRC, it is (mathematically) possible to shrink one hole down to nothing and at the moment of disappearance to create another infinitesimally small hole somewhere else. The topology is unchanged but the holes are in different places. Well, that's part of the problem: another part is that usually manifolds have distances rather than specific locations, but spacetime does (it has "events", if not utterly empty).

The attachment shows a red and a green wormhole with the standard embedding. The question is can you turn red <-> green without changing distances. I don't think that can be done in GR but I don't have a sound basis for that judgement.
 

Attachments

  • Wormhole embedding.jpg
    Wormhole embedding.jpg
    8.4 KB · Views: 563
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Does the speed of light change in a gravitational field depending on whether the direction of travel is parallel to the field, or perpendicular to the field? And is it the same in both directions at each orientation? This question could be answered experimentally to some degree of accuracy. Experiment design: Place two identical clocks A and B on the circumference of a wheel at opposite ends of the diameter of length L. The wheel is positioned upright, i.e., perpendicular to the ground...
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...

Similar threads

Replies
18
Views
5K
Back
Top