In order to "visualize" this vortex of sort. First: imagine a circular paper. (like a thin disc) Second: imagine you fold each end into the center of the circle as if you would wrap something in it. (note that circle has infiniteish ends/corners) Third: (in case you pulled off the second) Imagine that there is a sphere (like a beach ball) And you fold it's layer the same way like in the second part into it's center. (also note that the layer have infinite points to start the folding). Good luck.
@FritosAndMtDew When it warps space, it creates whats called a 'gravity well', which is kind of what that dip in the plane is. Anything that approaches the planet will drift towards it, similar to how an object getting near to the dip in the plane will roll into it.
No, the example in the video was from a single perspective - there would also be a dimple/dent in spacetime to the north of our planet too and from every other angle for that matter. You have to convert it to 4 dimensions but this video is simplest way to explain the principle. There's no up or down - what doesn't help either is that planets in our solar system tend to have their axis' in the same plane which makes things look like there's an 'agreed' up and down.
To represent the fourth dimension, the wire frame would have to be flat, not curving around the earth. You could only see one or two slices at a time. Each wire running from the center to the outside would represent a specific time. The lines would eventually collapse in and be inperceivable in the diagram. Ie, the squares would collapse. The latitudinal lines would represent the actual time vectors.
@legindyoll I've only taken an undergraduate introduction course, so I'll try to explain from what I know. Space-time is 4-dimensional. Most humans can only visually imagine a 3-dimensional world. The mesh pictured in this animation is only 3-dimensional and does not "accurately" depict space-time. But yes, it is multi-dimensional. The vortex affects all four dimensions of space time (time, X, Y, Z).
@JiffyNo0b Demonstrations of how a wormhole might work depends on a flat plane but the wormhole itself doesn't. The demo shows a 2d plane curved in a third, independent dimension, a wormhole relies on three dimensional space (or 4D space-time) being curved through another dimension which we don't experience directly.
When they show this grid, the protruding part at the south pole always sitting on the bottom of the page as though gravity were pulling it to the floor. It's like the earth is sitting in a bowl. Is there not one over the top? Is the earth pushed up at the south pole? If the bottom of the grid split, would the earth fall through south pole first?
people are to lazy to animate it visually for us but yes there should be. this experiment wasn't anything profound though. until we can detect gravitons like the LHC has detected higgs bosons then we still have no 100% proof. all they are really saying is 99.9% they are sure.for example at 00:32 to 00:37 they state it "appears" to be distorted. this means they know there are such small margins in the data recorded from the study that there could be something they missed. perhaps a supercharged wave beam from a supernova penetrated the spacecraft and knocked the gyro's off so slightly that it was undetectable so the data they received from the gyro had anomalies. many phenomenon could cause this to happen. the rest of the data seemed to be in line with the theory of relativity but because of the anomalies they have to say "appears" I am sure many scientists reviewed the data and the way the data was captured and found what I just said to be true. the team had to invent new technologies to measure the gyros so there will always be an air of insecurity when they make these claims
You are true to some extent but their is more and above explanation is not proper information of curvature of spacetime. people always speak of curvature of space-time yet they only assume their is only curvature of space. This is big misconception of spacetime curvature. Curvature of spacetime is not bending of space around a mass but a path taken by the moving body is curved. Assume a small mass approching a big mass. Under influence of gravity the small mass doest take straight line path towards a larger mass but curves along the path as it reaches larger mass. Reason it doest follow straight line path is difficult to understand but it doest mean that jus space is curved. During its motion, in time, the path taken by the small mass is curved. Hence we call it as space-time curvature and not curvature of space
@FritosAndMtDew In addition, The thing thats so mind boggling annoying about gravity is that its has infinite reach. What kinda force can do that?! Gravity is definitely the easiest force to identify with, but the hardest one to figure out how it works.
@bicnarok In the 3 spatial dimensions, you're right. Space is not a flat plane. But Space-time is an idea that exists in the 4th dimension. This makes it impossible to depict in a video or in some other form of viewing it in our 3 dimensions. Also, the idea that it is like a trampoline (or more commonly a bed sheet) is inaccurate to what space-time actually is. This idea is just an easy to understand analogy that represents the "fabric" of space-time. The "dent" is not in our 3 dimensions.
I had enough of hearing the name of Einstein with every single video about space or relativity. One doesn't have to mention his name ten times in every single presentation. It's a kind of a celebrity worship gone way out of control.
@kel0we Yes but quantum entanglement has no relationship with the speed as which electrons interact. Electrons interact with photons which travel at the speed of light. I don't know where you saw they communicate faster than this? Entanglement is something else which explains that the state of a system of quantum particles (any particle respecting QM) exist whatever distance they are from each other. Speed of information between particles is not violated by the EPR experiment.
It doesn't mean anything other than perception is completely relative. The difference in time passge on earth is only relative to other parts of space-time. If you go to any other parts of space-time the rate of change will alter in other places, relative to you, but your perception of the passage of time etc would be exactly the same. Perception is relative because space, time, matter and everything are one thing and we're all It (fundamental existence/reality itself). *Everything* is relative.
Could Quantum Physics represent a process that forms the passage of Time itself? This theory is based on just two postulates, 1.The first is that the quantum wave particle function represents the forward passage of time itself photon by photon, quanta by quanta or moment by moment. 2. The second is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle is the same uncertainty we have with any future event.
Right... quantum electrodynamics relies on S.R, and is the most exact theory that we have ever developed withing it's intended range. It spits out predictions that can be measured with such high precision that it is amongst the most rigorously tested theories there is. There are also a number of other effects that are predicted to high precision by relativity, such as spin-orbit coupling and the thomas precession terms in atomic spectra, which depend on the properties of the Lorentz transform.
@FritosAndMtDew I guess I didn't explain it fully. Masses attract other masses by the force of attraction, in ADDITION to warping spacetime. The more 'mass'-ive the object, the larger the force of attraction. Nobody knows WHY masses cause attraction, they just do. String theory states that there are things called Gravitons. The Higgs Boson (what the Large Hadron Collider is looking for) may also explain why masses attract eachother.
One question I'm wondering is, in which plane does the vortex act, or does it act in all planes. If it does act in all planes, does that mean that the vortex is multi-dimensional?
now all we need is a little blue box that's bigger on the inside with a time machine built inside so we can harness the vortex and use it for time travel!
What i don't understand is that we all say that there's no top neither bottom in space. But in all gravity web/field we draw, we put it under the planets/stars/etc. So is this field flat ? Which would mean that there is some kind of bottom in space..
I have an original idea (which may completely be wrong). Is it possible that the expansion universe is really just the stretch of spacetime or Higgs Boson. Image a 1 cubic meter of space on Earth, because the bottom of the cube is closer to the ground it feels a greater force compared to the top of the cube which will cause the cube to stretch. However, the force which stretchs this spacetime/HiggsBoson only affect itself (other spacetime). Meaning the Universe is shrinking but because we are
As TiagoTiagoT said - it is just a simple way of trying to represent a 4d happening. I can picture the 4d graph without motion - but trying to picture what is happening here with motion (over time) is very difficult. What I find interesting is the fact that gravitational pull can have a spin. The fact that gravity can be spun would suggest to me that it is 'something' grab-able - if only we had a large net that existed in the right dimensions...?
this might be too difficult to explain without understanding all of the analysis, but doesn't this method hint at some sort of absolute direction or orientation to the whole space-time "fabric"? In the video, Earth seems to be resting over this vortex grid, and I am assuming that the orientation of the device shifts only when it is within the vortex. Is that true? If not, does that vortex exist from all directions?
This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics of light and time! This is based on just one equation (E= ˠ M˳C²) ∞ the Lorentz contraction of space and time is between the energy and mass. The greater the energy the greater the contraction of space and the slower time will run. Mass will increase relative to this and each ref-frame can be seen as a vortex in space formed by the rate that time flows. The brackets represent the boundary condition of the ref-frame within infinity!
I recently did a paper on GPS inaccuracies. One of them is relativity errors. The 3D image would require the outside wire frame to spin slightly slower then the wire frame near the earth. Time at the earth runs slightly faster then the time on the satellites. I believe it has been proven, by putting two atomic clocks on a satellite, one that set for ground time and one for relativity compensation. In orbit Ground time lost sync with ground, compensation clock was in sync with ground.
Okay this is getting out of control. Lets put down some simple things. First: 4th Dimension is a value in the mathematical equasion, it's not a phisical place somewhere. Second: Up or Down in space is always given from a third center point. Each point is each particle you observe. Everything else is generalization for easier calculations (including imaging) Third: The disortion of time. Disortion is the effect witch gravity has on the particle making it travel/spin/orbit slower.
Fourth dimensional reality is a group of four interrelated variables, where 3 dimensions (volumetric reality) are in time, and affected by gravity, a force that depends on the proportion of the amount of matter. Our time on Earth is thus minutes, hours, days, years, etc, because of the size of the Sun and the gravity it exerts on our planet, and off course many other factors. Now, my point is, that Time is not one and only, it is affected by the place in the Universe where is measured because of the gravitational forces. The time vortex is an example. The grid under the Earth is in fact not like "one checkered sheet below our planet, in fact, it is everywhere. It is presented like that in this video because it is a simplification in order to illustrate the point, but the "curvature of time-space" is everywhere in the Universe. We can see the light of Stars that have already faded, so, in fact, in that other region the light of that Star is not there anymore nor the Star. They don't exist anymore, it is the future already, and we would have to travel faster than light, if possible, to go to the future, that is, to that region of the Universe where that Star in particular is no more. Light is affected by gravity too.Time is not independent of light, nor matter, though we tend to think of it as if it were an independen entity.
Just been given it some thought, its generally taken that everything has a source aka comes from somewhere so surly space-time came from somewhere? could it be that space & time are just two of many measuring systems to separate individual objects in different universes or something like that? It's very vague so I'm not going to develop it because that's assumptious, but anyone got any thought of where space-time came from? and what is beyond it?
If you're referring to watch?v=mhG3R66wFpg , I took a quick glance at it. I think the mistake made is that the force vector has a time component. You're going to get a second term when Lorentz transforming it. With that said, dynamics in S.R. can be a very hard subject if you're using the wrong mathematical tools. Einstein's mathematical framework in his 1905 paper is very unwieldy. Formulating everything in terms of 4-vectors and using the Minkowski inner product is a huge improvement.
where on different theory's, I'm in a universe with 11 dimensions, although I do agree with you that 4 suffice to carry the metaphor over. gravity a messy thing to play with in both.
I'm not really sure I understand the purpose of the question. Einstein proved mathematically that space and time are woven into a 4 dimentional elastic space-time. That's The General Theory of Relativity. So I guess you can say that is a concrete mathematic example. Einstein has shown light bands around a gravity source. I just said that if light does in fact bend, isn't it possible that it would eventually bend enough to come back 180 degrees? It's not far fetched.
This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics of light and time! This can be based on just two postulates 1. Is that the quantum wave particle function Ψ or probability function represents the forward passage of time itself 2. Is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w-function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event within our own ref-frame that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!
They need to somehow show the space-time graph better. It doesn't terminate above the South Pole: its center point is at the Earth's gravitational center.
So now instead of finding planets by watching if stars wobble (kind of crued imo), this method can be used to detect other planets or large objects that are close to our size just by looking for a "twist" in the space fabric, if we found ours we could find others.
@douguette1 "Albert was the laziest dog and he never ever bothered at math." -Einstein's highschool math teacher. Somehow he had the ability to just visualize complex math realities. I think he had the mind of an artist or a poet. He seems to be that rare artist who computer scientists always refer to when talking about the "elegance" of a solution.
@AmpleLight That's an interesting point of view. I've actually experienced what you're talking about. I wrote a whole album during a long period of sleep deprivation, and had some very interesting, and terrifying, visions when my father died. I don't recommend it, you understand, but it can be done. However, I've always read that Einstein insisted on getting at least ten hours of sleep a night. He said that he could not think without it. Probably from experience...
It's hard to tell. According to measurements made, the universe is flat, but I have a theory for that. The universe continues to be curved, but the fabric is flat but non-uniform, being curved in the presence of massive bodies. Also use this scheme to be two-dimensional, making it easier to observe and understand that one of three.
i would actually love to see what heppens if that's true... and what glory we might feel if we all come out alive and sane... and what part of the universe we might pop out of
To all the haters of science: Science is an evolution of thoughts. Knowing this to be true, keeps someone in the future from having to prove and therefore they can dedicate their time to advance thoughts and possibly come up with a useful application. At some point in the past someone made the comment " Great you made a resistor, now what?" Today everyone takes posting comments on the internet for granted
We know that even light would bend around a gravity source. This is what we see as gravity pulling on an object at a distance but it's really moving in a straight line but following the curve of space-time. What if we don't see as many galaxies as we think we do. What if we are seeing the same ones over and over again but at different points in their history because the light from those galaxies is hitting us directly and bending back to us from different heavy gravity sources?
@douguette1 Some of what you say is true, there are those great mathematicians who were incompatible with their ed system. And Einstein was one. Before he was even allowed to become a Professor at an American Univ, after he had become famous, they insisted that he go back and start over studying math, and really get good at it. That was a requirement for him. Because they considered him nearly mathematically illiterate. "A stumbling block is a step up." I was illiterate in 3rd grade.
Gravity pulls the particles within an nucleon/molecule/etc in a direction. The stronger it pulls there the harder for those particles to move the other way to complete theire circle.(time slow effect) The harder they move the less energy they have to repel nearby nucleons. The less repel cause them to stack togather more.(increased mass effect) The more they stack togather cause gravity to be more dense.(exponential cruve) At infinite they don't move (time stops) and probably become black holes.
True, it might be possible. But with all the space between objects in space i doubt that could occur, bending 180 degree is a bit fetched. But it surely bend enough to to create the effect you say depending of the angle we look at the galaxies/stars. And there is also a possibility that dark matter (supposed to be gravity from another dimension affecting our own) might also curve light and give some illusions. But i believe a perfect or near 180 deg. bending of light must be extremely rare.
(1) In 300-400 years, we will be amazed at how rudimentary our understanding of space-time and gravity was in 2015. (2) So, "the universe" is expanding into.. what..?
generally speaking the the definition of "universe" is - some number of stars and all other astronomical objects that reside in vacuum (vacuum is also stuff), and all this stuff together expands into infinite "nothingness" that is "outside" the vacuum, actually there can be infinite number of infinite universes of different sizes, because "nothingness/space/area" is infinite (but not vacuum) it is proposition
The universe is not expanding into anything. That is to say, the Big Bang did not occur in a pre-existing void (well... not according to current theory anyway) like a firecracker going off in an empty room. There is no specific 'centre' of the universe in a manner of speaking. The Big Big was not a 'where' but a 'when.' If you wish, you may regard every point in the universe as the 'centre.' Space itself is expanding creating more of itself and dragging us along with it. Note: Our universe *may* (underline that) exist in a higher dimensional 'multi-verse/mega-verse/meta-verse/omni-verse' (whatever you want to call it) with other 'Big Bangs' going off as you read this. It is not a new theory but it is gaining some traction because it would help clean up some nagging issues that have been bothering cosmologists and quantum theorists for a while.
Nicholas Hylton ***** And one more thing to consider... if our current cosmological science is so good... why do we need a GIGANTIC error term/constant (ie. dark matter) in the equations, to explain why we can't find 80% (Eighty Percent!) of the cosmos' mass that theoretically should be there...(?)
Ok so maybe 180 degrees is a bit much. But think about how big space is and maybe light bends 30 degrees around one source and another 30 percent around another. Astronomers now use galactic lensing to see much farther. And that light bends around a source. One can only imagine how space itself must be distorted around that section of the universe. Black holes in the center of galaxies can make light do a 180. It may not be as rare as we think.
@ThePivotloversable Have you conducted an experiment that demonstrates that there is no such vortex? Have you conducted an experiment that disproves relativity? Can you show us your data so that we might try to verify your findings?
@FritosAndMtDew Again, we don't know WHY masses attract eachother, or why masses can stretch and warp space as proven by observation. Einstein knew masses attracted other masses, but even he didn't know why they did it. If you looks up the 'Standard Model', it shows the 12 elementary particles (quarks, bosons and leptons), the missing one being the Higgs boson, which if found will determine how/why objects have mass. Gravitons are another theory but conflict Relativity with Quantum mechanics.
It is space time, it is causing what is referred to as a vortex, but it ain't a space-time vortex. I'm no expert on relativity but I do know earth does not "sit" or "make an impression" on a "space-time fabric". a space-time fabric is only a term to represent what space-time actually is, you can easily confuse people just by saying "space time fabric". Please put more effort into these sort of things to stop people from getting confused.
I've been looking at the "dimpled trampoline" graphic all my life, but it's begun to bother me as of late. Is it just a conceptual aid? I can't help but think the lines of distortion should resemble a twisted pucker embedded in foam rubber, instead of the classic distorted plane. Be gentle, I'm just a throwback Victorian dabbler.
I'm actually realizing what this is all about. (Not looking for any arguments here, folks, just putting out my opinion.) What we have is a 3D object making a 4D dimple (like a cueball on a sheet of fabric) in 3D space. ;)
This doesn't tell us anything other than, something is moving. We knew this already. In the geocentric theory, it could as easily be space that's moving. Ever seen a pole in water? If you were stuck on that pole and had no other way, one could say, "we are moving in water" and the other could say, it's the water that's moving. And all the others who think the pole is moving in water, call the ones who think they water is what's moving crazy. Funny little pole we live on huh...
respect due to someone that works to have their ideas examined within the field, regardless of some dead physicist did it or not. This is not a matter of opinion. Science is not a philosophy based around niceties. I would rather seem him leave dejected than remain unwilling to learn or question his own poorly conceived notions.
So what does this mean? Does the meaning just apply to high-level physics stuff or is there a meaning more understandable by the general population? Or at least people a little smarter than the general population?
space time vortex comes up in the lines 16 of the alien wow seti signal equations and Einstein's theories as well. Gravity Probe B is mentioned as newer not yet created machinery, seeing into the future the Maya predicted in 1977 what we would be making...
@TheLackofattack Your right it isn't the best example of space time being warped. We actually know space time is warped because time moves slower here on Earth than it does in space. In fact we have to send a time correction to GPS sattellites in order to compensate. Timing is everything with GPS and even being .01 second off will make a GPS error of 60+milies and that makes GPS useless. The military figured this out when they first sent out GPS satellites. That's an easier example
Its not hard to detect the big bang. All you need to do is change the channel on a tv or radio to in-between channels. 1% of the noise comes from the big bang.
@GrandMasterJuan You'd have to ask Einstein. But I believe it's analogous to what happens to people as they leave childhood behind. We seem to cease relying on imagination (one of the only sources of input children constantly have) and begin to rely more and more on experience (something children have very little of). Einstein retained his imagination, and seemed to have relied on it for his theories in a realm in which we had little experience.
Why, when they show this graph, is the earth sitting in the bottom of the graph like a basketball in a punch bowl? Why is the south pole always at the bottom? Is there gravity in space? Does this graph not extend over the north pole? I can't buy the analogy of someone sitting on a trampoline because gravity pulls the subject down. That can't be analogous to the earth in space unless the earth is being pulled down at the south pole.
If we see a galaxy 5 million LY's away, we know that the light from it will also emit away from us. What if that light bends around a gravity source back to us at say 1 Billion LY's away? Then we would see two galaxies in different positions where one would be 5 million LY distant and the other 2 Billion LY's distant. They would look similar because they are both say spiral, but we would be seeing the one galaxy at two different times in it's own history and never know they are one in the same.
can we take a shuttle, orbit around until we get to the south poll, rocket away south and see if we endup in another galaxy since their is a black hole? maybe
6 words
Time
And
Relative
Dimension
In
Space
1 word. Acronym
Your so c.o.o.l
Imagine all the Whovians freaking out about a Time Vortex...xD
In order to "visualize" this vortex of sort.
First: imagine a circular paper. (like a thin disc)
Second: imagine you fold each end into the center of the circle as if you would wrap something in it. (note that circle has infiniteish ends/corners)
Third: (in case you pulled off the second) Imagine that there is a sphere (like a beach ball) And you fold it's layer the same way like in the second part into it's center. (also note that the layer have infinite points to start the folding).
Good luck.
fabric of timespace. It's more like a rug, really.
You know that moment when you finally understand something you've known about for years? Friggin sweet.
@FritosAndMtDew When it warps space, it creates whats called a 'gravity well', which is kind of what that dip in the plane is. Anything that approaches the planet will drift towards it, similar to how an object getting near to the dip in the plane will roll into it.
No, the example in the video was from a single perspective - there would also be a dimple/dent in spacetime to the north of our planet too and from every other angle for that matter. You have to convert it to 4 dimensions but this video is simplest way to explain the principle. There's no up or down - what doesn't help either is that planets in our solar system tend to have their axis' in the same plane which makes things look like there's an 'agreed' up and down.
I think this is one of the best and breathtaking scientific fairy tale story of all time!.
To represent the fourth dimension, the wire frame would have to be flat, not curving around the earth. You could only see one or two slices at a time. Each wire running from the center to the outside would represent a specific time. The lines would eventually collapse in and be inperceivable in the diagram. Ie, the squares would collapse. The latitudinal lines would represent the actual time vectors.
@legindyoll I've only taken an undergraduate introduction course, so I'll try to explain from what I know. Space-time is 4-dimensional. Most humans can only visually imagine a 3-dimensional world. The mesh pictured in this animation is only 3-dimensional and does not "accurately" depict space-time. But yes, it is multi-dimensional. The vortex affects all four dimensions of space time (time, X, Y, Z).
Also the video is not free. It takes your time. This is the reason people sometimes get a little angry at videos - for wasting their time.
Good video series. The only thing I find wrong is the inconclusiveness on how Earth will be effected by the mentioned conditions.
@JiffyNo0b Demonstrations of how a wormhole might work depends on a flat plane but the wormhole itself doesn't. The demo shows a 2d plane curved in a third, independent dimension, a wormhole relies on three dimensional space (or 4D space-time) being curved through another dimension which we don't experience directly.
@bicnarok Yes. The dent is actually centered toward the center of mass, but its hard to perceive 3D space being 'pinched' from all directions
When they show this grid, the protruding part at the south pole always sitting on the bottom of the page as though gravity were pulling it to the floor. It's like the earth is sitting in a bowl. Is there not one over the top? Is the earth pushed up at the south pole? If the bottom of the grid split, would the earth fall through south pole first?
people are to lazy to animate it visually for us but yes there should be. this experiment wasn't anything profound though. until we can detect gravitons like the LHC has detected higgs bosons then we still have no 100% proof. all they are really saying is 99.9% they are sure.for example at 00:32 to 00:37 they state it "appears" to be distorted. this means they know there are such small margins in the data recorded from the study that there could be something they missed.
perhaps a supercharged wave beam from a supernova penetrated the spacecraft and knocked the gyro's off so slightly that it was undetectable so the data they received from the gyro had anomalies. many phenomenon could cause this to happen. the rest of the data seemed to be in line with the theory of relativity but because of the anomalies they have to say "appears"
I am sure many scientists reviewed the data and the way the data was captured and found what I just said to be true. the team had to invent new technologies to measure the gyros so there will always be an air of insecurity when they make these claims
You are true to some extent but their is more and above explanation is not proper information of curvature of spacetime.
people always speak of curvature of space-time yet they only assume their is only curvature of space. This is big misconception of spacetime curvature. Curvature of spacetime is not bending of space around a mass but a path taken by the moving body is curved. Assume a small mass approching a big mass. Under influence of gravity the small mass doest take straight line path towards a larger mass but curves along the path as it reaches larger mass. Reason it doest follow straight line path is difficult to understand but it doest mean that jus space is curved. During its motion, in time, the path taken by the small mass is curved. Hence we call it as space-time curvature and not curvature of space
So are all space objects within a space-time vortex?
Probably with sheets of brass and iron. Brass resists the magnetic flux while iron conducts the flux around the object to be protected.
@FritosAndMtDew In addition, The thing thats so mind boggling annoying about gravity is that its has infinite reach. What kinda force can do that?! Gravity is definitely the easiest force to identify with, but the hardest one to figure out how it works.
*tardis engines wooshing*
@bicnarok In the 3 spatial dimensions, you're right. Space is not a flat plane. But Space-time is an idea that exists in the 4th dimension. This makes it impossible to depict in a video or in some other form of viewing it in our 3 dimensions.
Also, the idea that it is like a trampoline (or more commonly a bed sheet) is inaccurate to what space-time actually is. This idea is just an easy to understand analogy that represents the "fabric" of space-time. The "dent" is not in our 3 dimensions.
I had enough of hearing the name of Einstein with every single video about space or relativity. One doesn't have to mention his name ten times in every single presentation. It's a kind of a celebrity worship gone way out of control.
@kel0we Yes but quantum entanglement has no relationship with the speed as which electrons interact. Electrons interact with photons which travel at the speed of light. I don't know where you saw they communicate faster than this? Entanglement is something else which explains that the state of a system of quantum particles (any particle respecting QM) exist whatever distance they are from each other. Speed of information between particles is not violated by the EPR experiment.
It doesn't mean anything other than perception is completely relative. The difference in time passge on earth is only relative to other parts of space-time. If you go to any other parts of space-time the rate of change will alter in other places, relative to you, but your perception of the passage of time etc would be exactly the same. Perception is relative because space, time, matter and everything are one thing and we're all It (fundamental existence/reality itself). *Everything* is relative.
Could Quantum Physics represent a process that forms the passage of Time itself?
This theory is based on just two postulates,
1.The first is that the quantum wave particle function represents the forward passage of time itself photon by photon, quanta by quanta or moment by moment.
2. The second is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle is the same uncertainty we have with any future event.
Right... quantum electrodynamics relies on S.R, and is the most exact theory that we have ever developed withing it's intended range. It spits out predictions that can be measured with such high precision that it is amongst the most rigorously tested theories there is.
There are also a number of other effects that are predicted to high precision by relativity, such as spin-orbit coupling and the thomas precession terms in atomic spectra, which depend on the properties of the Lorentz transform.
Good explanations of Einstein's Relativity. The visuals show the time space vortex well. Time does change in fourth dimension.
@FritosAndMtDew I guess I didn't explain it fully. Masses attract other masses by the force of attraction, in ADDITION to warping spacetime. The more 'mass'-ive the object, the larger the force of attraction. Nobody knows WHY masses cause attraction, they just do. String theory states that there are things called Gravitons. The Higgs Boson (what the Large Hadron Collider is looking for) may also explain why masses attract eachother.
One question I'm wondering is, in which plane does the vortex act, or does it act in all planes. If it does act in all planes, does that mean that the vortex is multi-dimensional?
now all we need is a little blue box that's bigger on the inside with a time machine built inside so we can harness the vortex and use it for time travel!
What i don't understand is that we all say that there's no top neither bottom in space. But in all gravity web/field we draw, we put it under the planets/stars/etc. So is this field flat ? Which would mean that there is some kind of bottom in space..
I have an original idea (which may completely be wrong). Is it possible that the expansion universe is really just the stretch of spacetime or Higgs Boson. Image a 1 cubic meter of space on Earth, because the bottom of the cube is closer to the ground it feels a greater force compared to the top of the cube which will cause the cube to stretch. However, the force which stretchs this spacetime/HiggsBoson only affect itself (other spacetime). Meaning the Universe is shrinking but because we are
As TiagoTiagoT said - it is just a simple way of trying to represent a 4d happening. I can picture the 4d graph without motion - but trying to picture what is happening here with motion (over time) is very difficult. What I find interesting is the fact that gravitational pull can have a spin. The fact that gravity can be spun would suggest to me that it is 'something' grab-able - if only we had a large net that existed in the right dimensions...?
this might be too difficult to explain without understanding all of the analysis, but doesn't this method hint at some sort of absolute direction or orientation to the whole space-time "fabric"? In the video, Earth seems to be resting over this vortex grid, and I am assuming that the orientation of the device shifts only when it is within the vortex. Is that true? If not, does that vortex exist from all directions?
This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics of light and time! This is based on just one equation (E= ˠ M˳C²) ∞ the Lorentz contraction of space and time is between the energy and mass. The greater the energy the greater the contraction of space and the slower time will run. Mass will increase relative to this and each ref-frame can be seen as a vortex in space formed by the rate that time flows. The brackets represent the boundary condition of the ref-frame within infinity!
I recently did a paper on GPS inaccuracies. One of them is relativity errors. The 3D image would require the outside wire frame to spin slightly slower then the wire frame near the earth. Time at the earth runs slightly faster then the time on the satellites. I believe it has been proven, by putting two atomic clocks on a satellite, one that set for ground time and one for relativity compensation. In orbit Ground time lost sync with ground, compensation clock was in sync with ground.
Okay this is getting out of control. Lets put down some simple things.
First: 4th Dimension is a value in the mathematical equasion, it's not a phisical place somewhere.
Second: Up or Down in space is always given from a third center point. Each point is each particle you observe. Everything else is generalization for easier calculations (including imaging)
Third: The disortion of time. Disortion is the effect witch gravity has on the particle making it travel/spin/orbit slower.
Fourth dimensional reality is a group of four interrelated variables, where 3 dimensions (volumetric reality) are in time, and affected by gravity, a force that depends on the proportion of the amount of matter.
Our time on Earth is thus minutes, hours, days, years, etc, because of the size of the Sun and the gravity it exerts on our planet, and off course many other factors. Now, my point is, that Time is not one and only, it is affected by the place in the Universe where is measured because of the gravitational forces. The time vortex is an example. The grid under the Earth is in fact not like "one checkered sheet below our planet, in fact, it is everywhere. It is presented like that in this video because it is a simplification in order to illustrate the point, but the "curvature of time-space" is everywhere in the Universe.
We can see the light of Stars that have already faded, so, in fact, in that other region the light of that Star is not there anymore nor the Star. They don't exist anymore, it is the future already, and we would have to travel faster than light, if possible, to go to the future, that is, to that region of the Universe where that Star in particular is no more. Light is affected by gravity too.Time is not independent of light, nor matter, though we tend to think of it as if it were an independen entity.
Just been given it some thought, its generally taken that everything has a source aka comes from somewhere so surly space-time came from somewhere? could it be that space & time are just two of many measuring systems to separate individual objects in different universes or something like that?
It's very vague so I'm not going to develop it because that's assumptious, but anyone got any thought of where space-time came from? and what is beyond it?
If you're referring to watch?v=mhG3R66wFpg , I took a quick glance at it. I think the mistake made is that the force vector has a time component. You're going to get a second term when Lorentz transforming it.
With that said, dynamics in S.R. can be a very hard subject if you're using the wrong mathematical tools. Einstein's mathematical framework in his 1905 paper is very unwieldy. Formulating everything in terms of 4-vectors and using the Minkowski inner product is a huge improvement.
where on different theory's, I'm in a universe with 11 dimensions, although I do agree with you that 4 suffice to carry the metaphor over. gravity a messy thing to play with in both.
It's because the mass of that object not gravity is what bends space-time search up this video to learn more
I'm not really sure I understand the purpose of the question. Einstein proved mathematically that space and time are woven into a 4 dimentional elastic space-time. That's The General Theory of Relativity. So I guess you can say that is a concrete mathematic example. Einstein has shown light bands around a gravity source. I just said that if light does in fact bend, isn't it possible that it would eventually bend enough to come back 180 degrees? It's not far fetched.
This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics of light and time!
This can be based on just two postulates
1. Is that the quantum wave particle function Ψ or probability function represents the forward passage of time itself
2. Is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w-function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event within our own ref-frame that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!
They need to somehow show the space-time graph better. It doesn't terminate above the South Pole: its center point is at the Earth's gravitational center.
@MrJohn1966elliott The moon does spin, but its rotation and revolution are the exact same (about 28 days) so we always see one side of it.
i'm still confused about warped space time...what will hppen to one second, a minute or an hour of a clock if its warped?
So now instead of finding planets by watching if stars wobble (kind of crued imo), this method can be used to detect other planets or large objects that are close to our size just by looking for a "twist" in the space fabric, if we found ours we could find others.
@douguette1 "Albert was the laziest dog and he never ever bothered at math." -Einstein's highschool math teacher.
Somehow he had the ability to just visualize complex math realities. I think he had the mind of an artist or a poet. He seems to be that rare artist who computer scientists always refer to when talking about the "elegance" of a solution.
ya maybe, but than wouldn't the field of the antimagnets affect the pendulums ?
what exactly is a space-time vortex? what does it do?
@AmpleLight That's an interesting point of view. I've actually experienced what you're talking about. I wrote a whole album during a long period of sleep deprivation, and had some very interesting, and terrifying, visions when my father died. I don't recommend it, you understand, but it can be done.
However, I've always read that Einstein insisted on getting at least ten hours of sleep a night. He said that he could not think without it. Probably from experience...
It's hard to tell. According to measurements made, the universe is flat, but I have a theory for that. The universe continues to be curved, but the fabric is flat but non-uniform, being curved in the presence of massive bodies. Also use this scheme to be two-dimensional, making it easier to observe and understand that one of three.
If the Earth is in the time vortex and it is spinning. What is the time vortex look like since the Earth is tilted 23.5*?
I think It is a safety net in case the earth gets to heavy and falls down
+Rjsh Hooba WOW WE HAVE AN EINSTEIN IN THE MAKING HERE!
-_-
To where? No space time isnt 2d, it distorts space time.
magnificent design..., people like us are not made to understand the unknown... take it and leave it...
I'll take my Space-Time Vortex with mustard please Mr. Everitt.
..No wonder the Doctor always returns to Earth... ..Hey, what's that sound...?
i would actually love to see what heppens if that's true... and what glory we might feel if we all come out alive and sane... and what part of the universe we might pop out of
To all the haters of science: Science is an evolution of thoughts. Knowing this to be true, keeps someone in the future from having to prove and therefore they can dedicate their time to advance thoughts and possibly come up with a useful application. At some point in the past someone made the comment " Great you made a resistor, now what?" Today everyone takes posting comments on the internet for granted
We know that even light would bend around a gravity source. This is what we see as gravity pulling on an object at a distance but it's really moving in a straight line but following the curve of space-time. What if we don't see as many galaxies as we think we do. What if we are seeing the same ones over and over again but at different points in their history because the light from those galaxies is hitting us directly and bending back to us from different heavy gravity sources?
yes thats true, however that said energy is related to space-time.
@douguette1 Some of what you say is true, there are those great mathematicians who were incompatible with their ed system. And Einstein was one.
Before he was even allowed to become a Professor at an American Univ, after he had become famous, they insisted that he go back and start over studying math, and really get good at it. That was a requirement for him. Because they considered him nearly mathematically illiterate.
"A stumbling block is a step up."
I was illiterate in 3rd grade.
Gravity pulls the particles within an nucleon/molecule/etc in a direction.
The stronger it pulls there the harder for those particles to move the other way to complete theire circle.(time slow effect)
The harder they move the less energy they have to repel nearby nucleons.
The less repel cause them to stack togather more.(increased mass effect)
The more they stack togather cause gravity to be more dense.(exponential cruve)
At infinite they don't move (time stops) and probably become black holes.
How did they keep Earth's magnetic field from penetrating the spacecraft?
This spacetime vortex must have something to do with the Fibonacci ratio that can be seen almost everywhere in Nature?
man if he was alive today and gets access to today technology he would find lot of things
True, it might be possible. But with all the space between objects in space i doubt that could occur, bending 180 degree is a bit fetched. But it surely bend enough to to create the effect you say depending of the angle we look at the galaxies/stars. And there is also a possibility that dark matter (supposed to be gravity from another dimension affecting our own) might also curve light and give some illusions. But i believe a perfect or near 180 deg. bending of light must be extremely rare.
(1) In 300-400 years, we will be amazed at how rudimentary our understanding of space-time and gravity was in 2015.
(2) So, "the universe" is expanding into.. what..?
generally speaking the the definition of "universe" is - some number of stars and all other astronomical objects that reside in vacuum (vacuum is also stuff), and all this stuff together expands into infinite "nothingness" that is "outside" the vacuum, actually there can be infinite number of infinite universes of different sizes, because "nothingness/space/area" is infinite (but not vacuum) it is proposition
The universe is not expanding into anything. That is to say, the Big Bang did not occur in a pre-existing void (well... not according to current theory anyway) like a firecracker going off in an empty room. There is no specific 'centre' of the universe in a manner of speaking. The Big Big was not a 'where' but a 'when.' If you wish, you may regard every point in the universe as the 'centre.'
Space itself is expanding creating more of itself and dragging us along with it.
Note: Our universe *may* (underline that) exist in a higher dimensional 'multi-verse/mega-verse/meta-verse/omni-verse' (whatever you want to call it) with other 'Big Bangs' going off as you read this. It is not a new theory but it is gaining some traction because it would help clean up some nagging issues that have been bothering cosmologists and quantum theorists for a while.
Nicholas Hylton ***** And one more thing to consider... if our current cosmological science is so good... why do we need a GIGANTIC error term/constant (ie. dark matter) in the equations, to explain why we can't find 80% (Eighty Percent!) of the cosmos' mass that theoretically should be there...(?)
Ok so maybe 180 degrees is a bit much. But think about how big space is and maybe light bends 30 degrees around one source and another 30 percent around another. Astronomers now use galactic lensing to see much farther. And that light bends around a source. One can only imagine how space itself must be distorted around that section of the universe. Black holes in the center of galaxies can make light do a 180. It may not be as rare as we think.
what ever is true, when you go into space time slows down, that's a fact and it can be observed we can't escape that
Way to go Albert!
@ThePivotloversable Have you conducted an experiment that demonstrates that there is no such vortex? Have you conducted an experiment that disproves relativity? Can you show us your data so that we might try to verify your findings?
Wow whats is the space time vortex
any mathematics or concrete example of this ?
@FritosAndMtDew Again, we don't know WHY masses attract eachother, or why masses can stretch and warp space as proven by observation. Einstein knew masses attracted other masses, but even he didn't know why they did it. If you looks up the 'Standard Model', it shows the 12 elementary particles (quarks, bosons and leptons), the missing one being the Higgs boson, which if found will determine how/why objects have mass. Gravitons are another theory but conflict Relativity with Quantum mechanics.
substitute science for technology then if it makes you happy
Don't forget to put some Feta cheese on my gyro please.
It is space time, it is causing what is referred to as a vortex, but it ain't a space-time vortex. I'm no expert on relativity but I do know earth does not "sit" or "make an impression" on a "space-time fabric". a space-time fabric is only a term to represent what space-time actually is, you can easily confuse people just by saying "space time fabric". Please put more effort into these sort of things to stop people from getting confused.
what will happen if we piss when we travel forward with velocity of light?? will it glow due to doplers effect..??
Science is my drug. I just hope I won't die of too much of it.
I've been looking at the "dimpled trampoline" graphic all my life, but it's begun to bother me as of late.
Is it just a conceptual aid? I can't help but think the lines of distortion should resemble a twisted pucker embedded in foam rubber, instead of the classic distorted plane.
Be gentle, I'm just a throwback Victorian dabbler.
Is Dr Sbaitso the narrator?
does anyone know how they were able to block earths magnetic field ???
I'm actually realizing what this is all about. (Not looking for any arguments here, folks, just putting out my opinion.)
What we have is a 3D object making a 4D dimple (like a cueball on a sheet of fabric) in 3D space. ;)
This doesn't tell us anything other than, something is moving. We knew this already. In the geocentric theory, it could as easily be space that's moving. Ever seen a pole in water? If you were stuck on that pole and had no other way, one could say, "we are moving in water" and the other could say, it's the water that's moving. And all the others who think the pole is moving in water, call the ones who think they water is what's moving crazy. Funny little pole we live on huh...
respect due to someone that works to have their ideas examined within the field, regardless of some dead physicist did it or not. This is not a matter of opinion. Science is not a philosophy based around niceties. I would rather seem him leave dejected than remain unwilling to learn or question his own poorly conceived notions.
@tkuzzz His name is "Data"
1=2? What are you talking about?
So what does this mean? Does the meaning just apply to high-level physics stuff or is there a meaning more understandable by the general population? Or at least people a little smarter than the general population?
Guys, Google with " Vortex Double spiral waves black holes" you my find aome interesting and exciting stuff on these matters there.
Best,
Yehiel
space time vortex comes up in the lines 16 of the alien wow seti signal equations and Einstein's theories as well. Gravity Probe B is mentioned as newer not yet created machinery, seeing into the future the Maya predicted in 1977 what we would be making...
@TheLackofattack Your right it isn't the best example of space time being warped. We actually know space time is warped because time moves slower here on Earth than it does in space. In fact we have to send a time correction to GPS sattellites in order to compensate. Timing is everything with GPS and even being .01 second off will make a GPS error of 60+milies and that makes GPS useless. The military figured this out when they first sent out GPS satellites. That's an easier example
Its not hard to detect the big bang. All you need to do is change the channel on a tv or radio to in-between channels. 1% of the noise comes from the big bang.
@GrandMasterJuan You'd have to ask Einstein.
But I believe it's analogous to what happens to people as they leave childhood behind. We seem to cease relying on imagination (one of the only sources of input children constantly have) and begin to rely more and more on experience (something children have very little of).
Einstein retained his imagination, and seemed to have relied on it for his theories in a realm in which we had little experience.
inside the universe it appears to be expanding.
Why, when they show this graph, is the earth sitting in the bottom of the graph like a basketball in a punch bowl? Why is the south pole always at the bottom? Is there gravity in space? Does this graph not extend over the north pole? I can't buy the analogy of someone sitting on a trampoline because gravity pulls the subject down. That can't be analogous to the earth in space unless the earth is being pulled down at the south pole.
Would you care to provide a reference to your 1=2 claim?
Okay, that makes sense. Although that seems moderately intuitive, in my opinion.
"The vortex is real and we are in it." Night Vale feelings, anyone?
If we see a galaxy 5 million LY's away, we know that the light from it will also emit away from us. What if that light bends around a gravity source back to us at say 1 Billion LY's away? Then we would see two galaxies in different positions where one would be 5 million LY distant and the other 2 Billion LY's distant. They would look similar because they are both say spiral, but we would be seeing the one galaxy at two different times in it's own history and never know they are one in the same.
can we take a shuttle, orbit around until we get to the south poll, rocket away south and see if we endup in another galaxy since their is a black hole? maybe