damaging space-time

[foofighter]

according to relativity, objects warp space time with their gravity, some like black holes to an immense degree. as they travel through space, they are moving from one point to another, thus new and different spacetime is distorted, while the original spacetime they occupied is left without any more gravitational force acting on it from that object. is there spacetime damage in regions subjected to immense gravity that we can observe, and if so, does it heal itself after the object has passed into new spacetime and moved away from the original point?

[Gypsy Cake]

I'm not a specialist but I would guess that space-time is the way of imagining how a complex system would affect new objects etc entering. It is the objects in the system affect the new objects while space-time is just an abstract way to visualise the affects. Therefore it cannot be damaged because it is what it is; as decided by the system your looking at.

[ajb]

I am not sure if this is what you were thinking of, but maybe you should look up gravitational waves. They were the only thing that sprung into my mind reading your post.

 

Also, maybe topological defects but they are not usually gravitational in origin.

[swansont]

according to relativity, objects warp space time with their gravity, some like black holes to an immense degree. as they travel through space, they are moving from one point to another, thus new and different spacetime is distorted, while the original spacetime they occupied is left without any more gravitational force acting on it from that object. is there spacetime damage in regions subjected to immense gravity that we can observe, and if so, does it heal itself after the object has passed into new spacetime and moved away from the original point?

 

(I'm not a GR expert)

 

I don't think you can have a region where gravity is no longer acting, if it was acting there at one time. The situation you seem to be describing has to be due to an acceleration; the object can be considered at rest in its own frame otherwise, so there would be no moving distortion.

 

Spacetime is what it is, and follows the laws of nature. What would you consider "damage?"

[ajb]

What would you consider "damage?"

 

That's what I am not clear on, but I guess he means some kind of residual space-time geometry after the fact. The only thing like that what I can think of are gravitational waves. The space-time could "vibrate" for a while (I suppose). Other than that I am stumped.

[someguy]

mass distorting space time is like a weight in a trampoline wherever the weight is the environment around it is distorted if it moves the space around it reverts back to its original state. if not planets could not orbit consistently. well.. they could be running in a groove but for that groove to establish in the first place would be impossible and when foreign bodies like comets and asteroids fly through the solar system it would affect the planets as they move through that part of space, maybe only slightly, but over time planets would end up colliding with each other because there would be a minor adjustment every time they move through that part of space.

[foofighter]

so from this i take that as unrealistic as warp drive is, the spacetime damage from warp drive would be equal if not more improbable? (on star trek there is some times spatial damage from WD)

[Martin]

so from this i take that as unrealistic as warp drive is, the spacetime damage from warp drive would be equal if not more improbable? (on star trek there is some times spatial damage from WD)

 

foofighter,

I'm trying to understand what to suggest to you. You say your background is "elementary education". what does that mean? Are you pre-highschool, pre-middleschool? How old are you? What science books have you read?

 

I ordinarily don't think of SciFi and StarTrek as science.

 

Larry Krauss wrote a book called the Physics of Star Trek. It might be good entertainment, but it also might be misleading and confusing---I don't know because I never read it.

 

If you are interested in learning some real physics---maybe as it relates to cosmology---then let us know where you stand so we can suggest things that make sense for you.

[foofighter]

elementary education - that is my college major. i am 21, but have little real knowledge of physics. obviously star trek isn't real - i know that. i was just wondering if high energy forces as far as we know can damage space time in anyway. this led to the quesiton that if we ever do invent warp drive, wat would the implications be? wat should i do to learn more about physics? do you suggest learning calculus before touching physics? wat would be the proper approach? thanks

[insane_alien]

you are going to have to define what you mean by damage.

[Royston]

Going by the OP, I think I might know the problem. If you assume that space-time has some fixed background e.g imagine a three dimensional lattice and introduce a sphere moving within it, the lattice distorts inwards at the position of the sphere, and leaves a residual effect due to it's motion (the damage.)

 

However, space-time isn't some seperate fixed entity in which objects move in, it's a product of those objects and their motion. So there can't be any damage, because space-time is defined by the effects of motion of objects e.g gravity waves, it's very dynamic.

 

Saying that Foofighter probably had something completely different in mind.

[insane_alien]

yeah, space-time isn't a physical object so you can't shatter it, break it, rip it or kill it. which i think is along the lines of what foofighter is imagining.

[swansont]

so from this i take that as unrealistic as warp drive is, the spacetime damage from warp drive would be equal if not more improbable? (on star trek there is some times spatial damage from WD)

 

That's damge to "subspace" IIRC, which is fine, since that's completely made up. It's SciFi.

 

To "damage" spacetime, you'd have to have it behave in a way inconsistent with the laws of nature. Which is, by definition, impossible.

[foofighter]

yea thats what i meant - thanks guys