Jump to content

The supposed fabric of Space-Time


geordief

Recommended Posts

(just as a warning all my ideas here are second hand in that I have mostly gleaned them from the internet and the likes of Scientific American over the years)

 

I do have a fairly specific question (I hope) concerning the title of my thread

 

.

 

I have become accustomed to the idea that the "fabric of space-time" is a misnomer and that we are really talking about an analogy.

 

Space-time ,as I think I have learned is a mathematical model of the universe and the universe itself is ..the universe.

 

 

Anyway ,when I come across the idea that the "fabric of space-time" can be "torn" to the extent that even "wormholes" can (theoretically ) be formed my wish is to disbelieve this possibility as an example of the analogy being carried too far and ..........really this sounds only like science fiction to me.

 

I prefer to believe that ,under those and like conditions what really happens is ...we don't know because the equations have run out. :eyebrow:

 

I very rarely seem to come across this view point (or bias?). Do I share a respected view with the scientific community or do these ideas of worholes and "tears in the fabric of space-time" actually have a "respected" following ( and do I simply have my lack of proper scientific/mathematic education to blame for my blinkered vision -which might not be a first ? :unsure: )

 

Or have I just created a false dilemma somehow?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is very easy to create a connection (used in a looser sense than the strict mathematical definition of a 'connection') between two separated parts of a mathematical object.

 

Whether such a connection has any reality, or is just a mathematical curiosity, is another matter.

 

What number comes after 12?

 

Have you heard of a Mobius strip or a Klein bottle?

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have become accustomed to the idea that the "fabric of space-time" is a misnomer and that we are really talking about an analogy.

The phrase, the fabric of space time, is a verbal expression that seeks to convey as much as possible of the concept that can only be correctly and accurately captured in mathematical terms. It is not, as I understand it, an analogy, but an example of dumbing down mathematics and physics so it might be partially grasped by ignoramuses such as ourselves.

 

Space-time ,as I think I have learned is a mathematical model of the universe and the universe itself is ..the universe.

And there is a great difference between the territory and a map of that territory and an arrangement of cutlery on a tabletop that is analogous to the territory. A well surveyed and produced map is an accurate representation (model) of the territory.

 

Anyway ,when I come across the idea that the "fabric of space-time" can be "torn" to the extent that even "wormholes" can (theoretically ) be formed my wish is to disbelieve this possibility as an example of the analogy being carried too far and ..........really this sounds only like science fiction to me.

In science it is typically counterproductive to choose what you believe, or disbelieve, in the same way you might select a carpet colour. Science and the universe are largely indifferent to your views.

 

I prefer to believe that ,under those and like conditions what really happens is ...we don't know because the equations have run out. :eyebrow:

Do you know the equations well enough to say this is what happens?

 

 

Do I share a respected view with the scientific community or do these ideas of worholes and "tears in the fabric of space-time" actually have a "respected" following ( and do I simply have my lack of proper scientific/mathematic education to blame for my blinkered vision -which might not be a first ? :unsure:

As I understand it wormholes are a theoretical possibility. Their existence,however, has never been demonstrated. I suggest that even if the majority of physicists doubt their reality, they do so on the basis of solid theoretical considerations, not a preference belief. That would make your position and their position quite different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The equations ( and even the verbal description ) are just that, mathematical models.

Usually there are clear indicators when the model ceases to apply ( or as you put it the 'equations have run out' ), infinities are one such indicator.

So while the mathematical model may allow for wormholes and such, what we usually find is that some other 'speculative' property or effect is required to make them work ( see exotic matter/negative energy and Kip Thorne ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I of course accept your criticisms Ophiolite .

 

Perhaps ,though you have answered my question in the main when you say "the majority of physicists doubt their reality, "

 

Whatever about my own lack of rigour I am glad that this seems (if you are right) to be the prevailing view.

 

I would find it unsettling otherwise.

 

PS your "Do you know the equations well enough to say this is what happens?" was a rhetorical question perhaps , since I said towards the end of my post " do I simply have my lack of proper scientific/mathematic education to blame for my blinkered vision? " -which concedes that point , I think.(although that might have come across as false modesty instead of being ,perhaps an overestimation of my capabilities)


It is very easy to create a connection (used in a looser sense than the strict mathematical definition of a 'connection') between two separated parts of a mathematical object.

 

Whether such a connection has any reality, or is just a mathematical curiosity, is another matter.

 

What number comes after 12?

 

Have you heard of a Mobius strip or a Klein bottle?

The Mobius strip , yes I have heard of it. I don't follow what you mean by "what number comes after 12 ?".

 

I am also unclear as to what would constitute "two separated parts of a mathematical object." but perhaps I understand your overall meaning.

Edited by geordief
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps ,though you have answered my question in the main when you say "the majority of physicists doubt their reality, "

 

Whatever about my own lack of rigour I am glad that this seems (if you are right) to be the prevailing view.

 

I would find it unsettling otherwise.

Curiously I was unsettled by your cherry picking of my post. I am confident it was not done consciously, but you have misinterpreted my words to support your belief, a belief you have because you prefer it to the alternative.

 

I did not say "the majority of physicists doubt their reality" I very clearly said "even if the majority of physicists doubt their reality". That gives the sentence an entirely different meaning from the one you have assigned to it by inappropriate editing.

 

I mention this to help you guard against this unconscious tendency to cherry pick and interpret with bias in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't follow what you mean by "what number comes after 12 ?".

 

1 comes after 12, of course. Look at a clock.

 

It is an abstract example of what you are asking. In this case it is called modular arithmetic.

 

Modular arithmetic is a counting technique whereby we count the fabric of a continuuum of numbers up to a certain number (12 in this case) and then start again, effectively bringing 13 in coincidence with 1 (or 0 if you include it).

 

This idea also underlies the answer to your second question.

 

 

I am also unclear as to what would constitute "two separated parts of a mathematical object." but perhaps I understand your overall meaning.

 

 

 

1 are 13 are the separated parts of a number continuum, but since they are both abstract we can only bring them together in the abstract.

It is the object of much speculation as to whether this could occur or we could do this for a physical object, ie the 'fabric of spacetime'.

 

The Mobius strip and Klein bottle are famous examples of this in lower dimensions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curiously I was unsettled by your cherry picking of my post. I am confident it was not done consciously, but you have misinterpreted my words to support your belief, a belief you have because you prefer it to the alternative.

 

I did not say "the majority of physicists doubt their reality" I very clearly said "even if the majority of physicists doubt their reality". That gives the sentence an entirely different meaning from the one you have assigned to it by inappropriate editing.

 

I mention this to help you guard against this unconscious tendency to cherry pick and interpret with bias in the future.

 

 

Apologies for truncating your quote (for my benefit) .Still for my purposes I still think my interpretation was close to what you were saying (that is the majority view amongst physicists in your opinion, isn't it ?)

 

I would guard against that "cherry picking" if I could but I am not so confident in my intellectual abilities (I am very indisciplined in that regard and there is really little hope for me)

 

When I was younger ,my father gave me a copy of "How to think" by C.E.M. Joad which I was quick to dismiss. A lifetime of intellectual indiscipline has reinforced that decision and I have now come to the point where a change of heart would be ineffective :)

 

By the way this is the 5th or 6 th draft (all very different) so I have attempted to (over-?) address your point.

 

Edit :thanks for the editing Swansont -I am just getting used to the layout

Edited by geordief
fix quote tags
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi geordief, there is an error with your quote function, so that your reply appears to be part of my quote. Could you correct that please and if not sure how to do so, ask a moderator to handle it.

 

Now, as to your reply, which I thank you for: it is most definitely not my opinion that most physicists doubt the existence of wormholes. I do not see how you have managed to extract such an opinion from my statement. My statement was intended to convey the following:

 

Let us take something towards one extreme, where we imagine the situation in which the majority of physicists doubt the existence of wormholes, then even in such an extreme scenario (one that I don't think is the case) they would do so on the basis of solid theoretical considerations, not, as you do, as a preference belief.

 

The key words were "even if". In my experience the phrase "even if" strongly suggests that the writer doubts what they are envisaging, but is doing so "for argument's sake". I'm not sure how you missed this.

 

P.S. I think your father was on the right tracks. And "it is never too late to learn".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer to believe that ,under those and like conditions what really happens is ...we don't know because the equations have run out.

 

This is a reasonable informal characterization of what singularity means (even though not strictly accurate) but it is not a valid description of wormholes. Whether they actually exist or not, they are valid solutions to the equations of GR. (They may not exist because they are unstable except in the presence on non-physical things like negative energy, for example.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok

I will counter that "even if" is actually ambiguous and can (also) be understood as accepting the truth of the phrase that follows.

 

I am fairly sure I have heard it used that way but accept now that that is not how you used it.

Edited by geordief
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.