mooeypoo Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 I'm not entirely sure this post should be on this specific forum, so if not, please move it to where it SHOULD be. I'm just not 100% familiar with the entire subject. I just finished watching a startrek episode (yes, I'm a geek, we already know that, deal with it) and I started thinking. The idea of a "folding" universe is something we hear about a lot in Startrek episodes but not ONLY in startrek. It's a theory I've heard a lot that if you take two points in the universe and would like to travel faster - you need to actually "shorten" your journey and do it by "FOLDING" space. It's explained visually by drawing two dots on a piece of paper, and then folding it. Something like this: But it doesn't make sense. The universe is not flat like a paper, it's 3Dimentional. Like a layer-cake, if you want the same kind of visual presentation. Therefore, if you want to "FOLD" it - then the space between the point is actually LONGER not shorter, you just SQUASHED the spage between it. If I want to go on with visual aids, it should be SOMETHING like this: So, what we did was NOT shorten the ride we just THINK we do. in fact, if we take into concideration that the universe is not VOID it's a substance (which, as far as I know, is a leading assumption), then if we look at it, we actually did something similar to THIS movement: So, basically, if we "FOLD" space we might "shorten" the distance but we must travel through a MUCH MUCH higher density (whether those are clouds of dust, planets, or whatever it is the universe is made of). So we need to actually use a MUCH MUCH higher velocity. Or EXTREMELY higher amount of energy to pass the extra amount of "matter". It doesn't make sense. Even when we try to calculate distances in 3Dimentions, the QUICKEST route would be the route taken in the 'lowest' dimention. We can't use ONE dimention since we only have a dot on one dimention, so we use 2. A line. Not a curved one... Am I wrong here? It really doesn't make sense the entire theory of folded space, but since the entire scientific world uses it - I am guessing the WRONG person here is me. So please, if anyone can show me why this actually DOES make sense, I would appreciate it. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alt_f13 Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html Watch this. In particular parts 1 and 2 of chapter 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 The paper example in the first place is correct. It's illustrating the way 3D space folds in 4D space by folding 2D space in 3D space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheetah Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 And one dimension gives a line. Two dimensions give an area. Think this is interesting though. If one could fold space one wouldn't need to breal the speed of light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 Cheetah said in post # :And one dimension gives a line. Two dimensions give an area. Think this is interesting though. If one could fold space one wouldn't need to breal the speed of light. Wormholes baby yeah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted February 27, 2004 Author Share Posted February 27, 2004 It doesn't make sense, though. You will still have to pass through more "matter" and therefore either travel with higher speed, or stretch yourself to pass through it better.... by the way, alt_f13, the site is AWSOME I'm in the middle of watching the movie that is why I didn't answer yet ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 mooeypoo said in post # :It doesn't make sense, though. You will still have to pass through more "matter" and therefore either travel with higher speed, or stretch yourself to pass through it better.... No, you don't. Your pictures with the green dots don't apply Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted February 28, 2004 Author Share Posted February 28, 2004 Okay, do you mind EXPLAINING the things you write? I am asking a question because I *don't understand* something. You saying "no, you don't" helps me about <--> this much. No, actually, it helps me less. I don't get why it doesn't apply. We're SUPPOSED to be talking abuot a three dimentional space - there might not be DOTS in space but it was the only visual way i could think of to visualize matter in a three dimentional appearance. Now, please, if I'm wrong (which is completely possible that's why I am asking this question) - PLEASE explain why. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 The point is that it's happening in four dimentions. We can't visualise four dimentions, so to make it easier to comprehend, people us an analogy of a 2D sheet of paper. There's no reason to use a 3D representation, because it's not happening in 3D either, and 3D just makes it confusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted February 28, 2004 Author Share Posted February 28, 2004 That might be the reason I'm confused... still, though.. how can you fold a 4Dimentional space WITHOUT taking into account that since its multi-dimentional, the matter (and time, for that matter, if we talk about 4D) is FOLDED TOO.... I don't get it.. :\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 The paper thing is just an analogy to make sense of it, I'm pretty sure astrophysicists don't actually sit around with bits of graph paper and The Idiots' Guide to Origami. The basic premise as I know it is that you can fold 3D space in another (4th) dimension to bring distant points together. The paper analogy to fold 2D space in 3D space. Your analogy was to fold 3D space in 3D, which is leaving out the concept that folding occurs in an extra dimension, rather than within the three space dimensions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alt_f13 Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 It's simmilar to North, South, East and West. There's only 4 directions in which you could travel on the surface, +x, -x, +y, -y, ie two dimensions. If you were to dig a hole through the Earth and somehow swim to the other side, you would have used the third dimension to traverse the two, cutting the distance down. If you believed the world was flat, you would find that you just swam in a strait line from point A to point B when they first appeared to be on the same flat plane. The universe may be like the Earth, in that it bends around on an invisible dimension we may (or may not, in Earth's case) be able to traverse. Who knows, it may be a spherical, uniform transition like the traversable inside of the Earth! Remember, the third dimension on the surface of the Earth is not visible to us either, essentially, but with the proper (super advanced and implausible) equipment we could use it to cut travel time down by taking advantage of the dimension. And hey, we might even be "digging" into the fourth dimension already, but just don't notice it yet!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted February 28, 2004 Author Share Posted February 28, 2004 Ahhhhhh haaaaaaaaaa... Thanks alt, that was VERY helpful I'm still watching those movies, by the way - it's a really great site. So we can't control those "curves" in space ... if space is infact folding (like you gave the example of similar to earth..) then the "space-folding" we are theoretically using for ships to go through lesser distance - is something we can't control over... Actually, isn't what you're explaining wormholes? And so we can't CREATE those "passage-ways", between to stars, or "dots on the universe", because we can't actually curve the "surface" of the universe ourselevs... Did I get it right? ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alt_f13 Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 But we MIGHT be able to curve the surface of the universe, and if we are not able to create wormholes, we may be able to stretch and bend spacetime in a fashion that would still allow us to use naturally occuring wormholes. We just don't know for sure yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted March 1, 2004 Author Share Posted March 1, 2004 I've watched the movies, and actually started watching other movies in that site, it's an AWSOME knowledge-base, thanks a lot alt And now I realise a bit more what this means. Still, though, just to be 100% certain that I get it right: What I've seen in the "startrek" episode about folding the time-space to travel faster is actually something that relates to wormholes only, and not to something we can forcefully create by "folding the universe" ourselves, but something that happens through the 'natural fold' of the universe. So, even if we COULD create wormholes, it would only be for CERTAIN places - as the universe is folded, and we won't be able to decide to ourselves how to "fold" it custom-made .. I got it right, right? Thanks again, alt_f13 that was REALLY helpful. If you know any more of these sites I'd love getting them ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gampin Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 I read in Sci Am or Discover that the 3D galaxy could be imagined being located on a very bumpy piece of paper, with its length and width being one flat plane and the dips and crests of the paper visualized in the third dimension. With galaxies on this piece of paper, you have the universe. The fourth dimension would be stacks of these bumpy pieces of paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alt_f13 Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 mooeypoo said in post # : I've watched the movies, and actually started watching other movies in that site, it's an AWSOME knowledge-base, thanks a lot alt And now I realise a bit more what this means. Still, though, just to be 100% certain that I get it right: What I've seen in the "startrek" episode about folding the time-space to travel faster is actually something that relates to wormholes only, and not to something we can forcefully create by "folding the universe" ourselves, but something that happens through the 'natural fold' of the universe. So, even if we COULD create wormholes, it would only be for CERTAIN places - as the universe is folded, and we won't be able to decide to ourselves how to "fold" it custom-made .. I got it right, right? Thanks again, alt_f13 that was REALLY helpful. If you know any more of these sites I'd love getting them ~moo Well, here is another documentary site I enjoyed. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/view/ As for the folded space, you got it, as far as concept is concerned. But the universe may be folded along many planes that would allow us many paths to the same place, or not... we just don't know for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted March 1, 2004 Author Share Posted March 1, 2004 Yeah. Excellent Cool, thanks !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 I understand what Alt is saying, but where does the opinion that the universe is a bubble come from? It sounds urealistic to me, and when something sounds unrealistic it is usually wrong. I am hardly ever wrong about my first feeling about something. Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Unrealistic compared to what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted March 1, 2004 Author Share Posted March 1, 2004 The universe is not really a bubble, its just existing in multiple dimentions that MIGHT make it "twist" on itself - either like a bubble, a string, or a ball. And that's the point of the theory, that's where it's coming from. At least from what I gathered. From my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong), then assuming the presense of wormholes is impossible without relying on this specific theory. By the way, Pinch, you should really watch those movies alt posted for me - they are EXTREMELY helpful in understanding this even if you don't support the theory itself. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 I watched them before when they were on TV. I'll have another look at them, but they annoy me with what seems like worst guess scenario complex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted March 1, 2004 Author Share Posted March 1, 2004 I actually liked them. I wasn't 100% convinced but it sounds like a plausible theory. It kindof fits - explaning the phenomenas on the universe pretty well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Nah I just watched 30 seconds, and I hated it. I hate that flat view of space, with the bending to explain gravity. It's not my opinion that gravity works like that. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted March 1, 2004 Author Share Posted March 1, 2004 Okay... uhh.. Probably for another discussion.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now