FABRIC OF SPACETIME! YOU PINKIE LEVEL CHAOS!! What are YOU?!!! Are you a continuous fabric??! Or are you made of gravitons??! Or some weird loops????! Do you emerge from strings????! What approximates you the best and when???! How to merge these perspectives in various regimes on you?!?!!! GAAAAAAAAAH stop CONFUSING US tell us YOUR NATURE!!!!
@Cirrus Light
Maybe what she’ll create is something akin to a naked singularity, a hole in spacetime but with no gravitational event horizon to shield the rest of the universe from it
The thing I’m thinking of is just altering spacetime topology in general. Topology is the math of shapes and their connectivity/overarching geometry. A teacup is the same as a donut, for example, because if you imagine a donut made of playdough, you can shape it into a teacup without tearing it anywhere.
When you break a hole in something, you alter its topological shape/topology.
A wrinkled blanket is just a morphed flat sheet - bent, curved, but not broken.
The difference between “ordinary” continuous, normal spacetime and a wormhole is a topological difference in shape. So that’s one example of what you could get by tearing and stitching spacetime in a certain way.
As for just a single tear/puncture - I’m not sure what that would entail by itself.
The singularity of a black hole is a discontinuity - it’s an infinitely small pinprick of a hole in spacetime, so I think you can say it’s an altered topology, though physicists generally think (afaik) that that description of reality is non-physical - ie, that the singularity described in that way is just an artifact of an incomplete theory, because singularities are basically never actually physical, and almost always just artifacts of an incomplete description of reality.
For example, there are singularities even in Newtonian gravity: F = GM1M2/R^2, as R goes to zero, F goes to infinity, and that’s a singularity. But it’s non-physical because planets, stars, etc. have their mass spread out through their volume, so that equation no longer describes reality once you get below the planet/star’s/etc.‘s surface. Same is true of electric charges (charged particles inhabit a probability cloud, and even when they’re state-collapsed, there’s the uncertainty principle), sources of radio waves (antannaes have a non-zero volume), and essentially every other singularity in physics.
So, General Relativity (GR) describes a singularity in black holes, but it’s probably just because we’re missing more knowledge to build a fuller picture. And it doesn’t really mean GR is wrong any more than the singularities in Newton’s Gravity means Newton was wrong, it just means we’re missing part of the picture.
But, even within the context of a singularity existing in a black hole doesn’t necessarily mean all singularities are black holes - though certain hypothesis make it seem very likely that probably they are.
…but again, a singularity is a boundary of spacetime, but I don’t know if all boundaries in spacetime (ie, what a “tear” in spacetime would be, in topological ) are necessarily singularities, or if you could just have a boundary without any associated curvature (ie, gravity that would form a black hole).
…Maybe you can see why I just went with a dumb kneejerk response at first. I think I was on my phone at the time :p
(Also iirc I think I left that comment mostly to remind myself to come back and write a fuller response later on my laptop, lol)
See, now, am I tho only one who would find this funnier without the “of space and time”?
It… It’s just because, I feel like whenever someone does something along those lines.
It’s like, say, someone makes fun of a preist for shouting, by saying “I guess he’s going to send me to yell”, then immediately following it up with, “y’know, because yell sounds like hell, which is what he was talking about, and where I would go for mocking a preist (and also for making bad puns)”
Does anyone else feel like that too…?
No…?
Just me…? Maybe my dad…?
Okay, Sweetie… Maybe it’s dumb, but it’s also necessary for our existence so don’T GO RipPING AWaY AT ITOH MY GO̵D́ ̡S͟W͝E̷ET̶IȨ B̵͞҉E͝L͢L̸È̵͜ ̴̛S̶͞T́̀OP̵͏ P̢̡̨̛͝L̴̨Ę̴͝A̵̢̡͝S̵̨͡Ę̕͜–
Edited
Maybe what she’ll create is something akin to a naked singularity, a hole in spacetime but with no gravitational event horizon to shield the rest of the universe from it
Edited
Well, “a wormhole” was kinda a dumb kneejerk response.
The thing I’m thinking of is just altering spacetime topology in general. Topology is the math of shapes and their connectivity/overarching geometry. A teacup is the same as a donut, for example, because if you imagine a donut made of playdough, you can shape it into a teacup without tearing it anywhere.
When you break a hole in something, you alter its topological shape/topology.
A wrinkled blanket is just a morphed flat sheet - bent, curved, but not broken.
The difference between “ordinary” continuous, normal spacetime and a wormhole is a topological difference in shape. So that’s one example of what you could get by tearing and stitching spacetime in a certain way.
As for just a single tear/puncture - I’m not sure what that would entail by itself.
The singularity of a black hole is a discontinuity - it’s an infinitely small pinprick of a hole in spacetime, so I think you can say it’s an altered topology, though physicists generally think (afaik) that that description of reality is non-physical - ie, that the singularity described in that way is just an artifact of an incomplete theory, because singularities are basically never actually physical, and almost always just artifacts of an incomplete description of reality.
For example, there are singularities even in Newtonian gravity: F = GM1M2/R^2, as R goes to zero, F goes to infinity, and that’s a singularity. But it’s non-physical because planets, stars, etc. have their mass spread out through their volume, so that equation no longer describes reality once you get below the planet/star’s/etc.‘s surface. Same is true of electric charges (charged particles inhabit a probability cloud, and even when they’re state-collapsed, there’s the uncertainty principle), sources of radio waves (antannaes have a non-zero volume), and essentially every other singularity in physics.
So, General Relativity (GR) describes a singularity in black holes, but it’s probably just because we’re missing more knowledge to build a fuller picture. And it doesn’t really mean GR is wrong any more than the singularities in Newton’s Gravity means Newton was wrong, it just means we’re missing part of the picture.
But, even within the context of a singularity existing in a black hole doesn’t necessarily mean all singularities are black holes - though certain hypothesis make it seem very likely that probably they are.
…but again, a singularity is a boundary of spacetime, but I don’t know if all boundaries in spacetime (ie, what a “tear” in spacetime would be, in topological ) are necessarily singularities, or if you could just have a boundary without any associated curvature (ie, gravity that would form a black hole).
…Maybe you can see why I just went with a dumb kneejerk response at first. I think I was on my phone at the time :p
(Also iirc I think I left that comment mostly to remind myself to come back and write a fuller response later on my laptop, lol)
Edited
But with no second mouth wouldn’t that mean it would just drain out into the void, like s-3001
A wormhole, presumably :q
Well whatever it is she’s about to rip it, causing god knows what
Bonus points for a Thrackerzod voice.
I just read this like it was some crappy 1950’s B-movie.
…OF SPACE AND TIME!
It… It’s just because, I feel like whenever someone does something along those lines.
It’s like, say, someone makes fun of a preist for shouting, by saying “I guess he’s going to send me to yell”, then immediately following it up with, “y’know, because yell sounds like hell, which is what he was talking about, and where I would go for mocking a preist (and also for making bad puns)”
Does anyone else feel like that too…?
No…?
Just me…?
Maybe my dad…?