Is my theory about spacetime merging correct?
The “Multilayered Temporal Spacetime Theory”
states that a sufficiently strong curvature of spacetime could cause it to "wrap itself up," or become multi-layered. This would create another dimension, as one would simultaneously move forward and backward in time, in which there would be a different perception of time. In this multi-layered spacetime, it would be possible to move in two directions along the time axis. However, if one were to curl spacetime even further, one could also move in two dimensions in time.
There would be no clearly defined future or past, since every movement in space also results in movement in time. Spacetime would essentially overlap, allowing one to move forward and backward in time simultaneously.
(3 votes)
Loading...
Is that your theory, or do you have it from somewhere? In any case, the description sounds faulty when the theory comes from someone else, I would suspect that the error comes from you;)
In the case of »winding«, a maximum countable infinite number of »layers« result, but a new dimension yields over-countable many »layers«. No new dimension is obtained by wrapping in.
The connection is now completely unclear.
Time perception is subjective and has what to do with our brain, etc., not with “the universe” and its structure.
This would mean, literally, that the time no longer acts as its own dimension, so that Less Dimensions and no more.
So somehow totally illogical. But perhaps I understood something wrong (because you explained it imprecisely or wrong?).
If you think that my arguments are not valid, describe your theory more precisely. Or ask if you don’t understand.
Dimensions are not wool blankets, and space-time curvature does not make a spiral. Even the higher-dimensional Branes of String Theory are not “wound” in this sense.
This is nothing new: in the case of black holes, the world lines after the ART behind the event horizon are no longer time-like, but space-like – unlike the areas outside the event horizon. There is thus no free spatial direction anymore, one can only move as an observer towards singularity, but in time free…
What becomes space-like is actually the timeline, not the world lines. The radial coordinate is time-like in the interior.
I don’t know the theory, but when does a curvature of space time described by you as “sufficient”? The space time is, for example, very strongly curved at speeds near the speed of light. In order to move back in time, you should definitely be faster than the light. Otherwise, this is not possible. Why should one move forward and back at the same time, just because the space time becomes multi-layered? I don’t understand the end. It’s like this in our world. With each movement we travel to the future, in comparison to a body resting in the inertial system. Time dilation and so on. We’re moving in time. The future and the past still exist.
Nope. It changes, but this can be described as a linear (»uncurved«) transformation. Curve comes to the highest in acceleration, but intrins Curve only in the presence of mass (and this then has to do with “speed” nix).
Sounds very rude. The questioner has probably turned himself into a “special article” that he has not fully understood.
You’re right. For me, crumble, for example, the occurrence of time dilatation was meant. The term curved is perhaps not chosen correctly.
The axis is not negative (what should mean), but in the formula there is a minus sign where one would expect a plus sign in the Euclidean geometry.
The minus sign is there because it results from the formulas of the theory of relativity, and because the special theory of relativity coincides with the empirical observations (of course as a limit for uncurved space time …).
PS: Have you read?
Why is the t-axis negative?
Time dilatation has something to do with coordinate transformation in moving observations.
Like a tree that stands on the left of me, is less far left and more forward, when I turn (and thus my coordinates) to the left, not only the spatial coordinates change when moving, but also the time coordinates.
There is no simple coordinate rotation as in space during movement. In the room:
… no matter how the axes x, y and z are selected, as long as they are all perpendicular to each other.
If you take the time (»t-axis«), it says:
… a minus sign before the time. If the distance becomes less in the future at a time of space (because I move on to it [or to me] and the “here” is closer in the future), the time interval to it is also reduced. But the differential is always the same.
When two observers are removed from each other, each one in its coordinate system will measure that the time is slower in the other (»time dilation«).
The nix has to do with “in time before and back”. This would be possible if physical over-light speed is possible. But so far, every “niff” has shown that this is not working.
I think time travel (and therefore overlight speed) are impossible.
I can only advise to leave the drugs out of the body in young years.
Full consent.
The chemist says:P
Right! He’s doing the drugs, and he can only do three sets and stoichiometry. But he remains on the ground of the facts. The spiders with time are amusing but quite fruitless. Especially since most contributions here come to GF on this topic of users who have very limited knowledge of physics and especially of non-classical.
I don’t think of any kind of discouraging statements. If someone has an idea, and they’re still so crazy, he’s supposed to be able to express them and expect a serious answer.
You got a serious answer from me. But it is not particularly encouraging.
This is clear to me and we agree with it. I thought here first that you were the questioner, and therefore referred to my answer, which I am of course discouraging in a different sense than you had meant.
Your answer could prevent the FS from continuing its mindset even if it leads in a completely wrong direction (keyword crackpot hypothesis).
But that’s not what I mean with “muting”. The answer under which we write comments here is appropriate, because FS is to dispense with it, at least Asking questions about topics such as astrophysics because he might fear that he will be ridiculed for it.
Ups: @SlowPhil: just make it clear that the contribution did not come from the questioner I had addressed.
The last is true, of course. The rest… Well, it is definitely nice to imagine such a universe 😉