Glitch in Matrix of spacetime as deliberate unbridgeable limitation to a long distance travel ( theoretical physics, general relativity, quantum mechanics)

Did Nikola Tesla found out that somebody already folded space before? Why the egyptologists eat dirt so pertinaciously? No, I am not kidding. This is all involved in the problematic how to make the long distance travel even possible.

Text is very long and you will go crazy reading it. I will not talk about Nikola Tesla and what happened to his mind after he made certain realizations. He ended up going insane while trying to fathom these things. You live in the future he made for you. But he was unable to go beyond the horizon. So I leave his ghost to you.

I am just asking questions on a fly, there is no finite conclusion, because we don't have necessary technology, but all these questions contain some sort of the info I put here are very interesting to read about.

All answers are from the Google. Also, provided blockquoted text doesn't necessary need to be the best explanation or the latest interpretation.

So, when we look at the things, both small and huge, the observable micro is followed by us in a near real time, but observable macro is by interpretation seen in the past. Why?

What is in place that we can follow up ( or see) the particles , scale of sizes so much smaller than us, in a near real time, but when we try to follow up things on macro scale, like planets, systems, galaxies - we hit a wall? Our size? Or something else? Laws are there. But, why?

There are endless debate, numerous things, but how about just cover a small part of it with simple questions and see what is the most interesting thing?

First, formulate things about time completely different. What small thing we can actually follow up, or see? What is the smallest observable thing or a particle that has been confirmed in real time?

> The smallest confirmed particle is the electron neutrino.

So, how big it is? How much does it weight?

> From the current understanding of particle physics, all particles are point-like and hence volumeless.

Ok, but how do we annotate the size of that thing?

> Neutrinos are the smallest massive particles that we have currently measured and catalogued. The average electroweak characteristic size is r2 = n × 10−33 cm2 (n × 1 nanobarn), where n = 3.2 for electron neutrino, n = 1.7 for muon neutrino and n = 1.0 for tau neutrino; it depends on no other properties than mass.

OK, jezzzz... It is already complicated. But we can't actually see that. What is the smallest thing that we can actually see?

> The smallest thing that we can see with a 'light' microscope is about 500 nanometers which is 200 times smaller than the width of a hair. Bacteria is about 1000 nanometers.

That is pretty big. What about all those small things? Can we see atom?

> Even the most powerful light-focusing microscopes can't visualize single atoms. What makes an object visible is the way it deflects visible light waves. Atoms are so much smaller than the wavelength of visible light that the two don't really interact.

So how do we assume it is there? Or he became something else? Or he moved out but we still paying rent...? LOL How can we really observe it and know it is there?

> You cannot see an atom with a light microscope. However, in 1981, a type of microscope called a scanning tunneling microscope (STM) was developed.

> The scanning tunneling microscope (STM) works by scanning a very sharp metal wire tip over a surface. By bringing the tip very close to the surface, and by applying an electrical voltage to the tip or sample, we can image the surface at an extremely small scale – down to resolving individual atoms. ( Edit: calculations are made by a computer model)

So, we see things with the light, but we can observe with other things too. Light is said to be the fastest of them all? What is the speed of light?

> The speed of light in a vacuum is 186,282 miles per second (299,792 kilometers per second), and in theory nothing can travel faster than light.

What is the speed of electron neutrino, the smallest confirmed particle?

> Neutrinos are subatomic particles that have almost no mass and can zip through entire planets as if they are not there. Being nearly massless, neutrinos should travel at nearly the speed of light, which is approximately 186,000 miles (299,338 kilometers) a second.

So, they are not so fast. What is the size of a photon?

> A Photon is the Quantum of Electromagnetic Radiation while an atom is the fundamental constituent of all the Matter. ... Its size may be similar to the size of subatomic particles like Electron but it's smaller than an atom.

>In this way you could say the “size” of photon is basically the width of its wavelength. The wavelength of green light is about 500 nanometers, or two thousandths of a millimeter.

So, we don't perceive it, we perceive like a whip of energy, but not a particle itself? What about the white light? Is it bigger, smaller, what it is by nature?

> White light is combined form of all visible lights and each light has its own frequency frequency.

So a bigger thing like photon travels faster than smaller thing like electron neutrino plus bigger thing at the visible light energy can't go though the matter even when it is taken that a photon is EM radiation... but other energy levels of photon are not that fast, but can go through the matter...? Eh, that's a mess. Does all these EM have photons? Not only the light?

> Radio waves, gamma-rays, visible light, and all the other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum are electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation can be described in terms of a stream of mass-less particles, called photons, each traveling in a wave-like pattern at the speed of light.

So, it is the same thing, just juiced up with different amount of energy?

> So photons are different particles possibly of the same type as they're all electromagnetic radiation and differ only in energy content. By the way, different photons have different energies not energy levels. Only composite particles have energy levels like atoms and molecules.

So, it is like a bovine, just a different breed? Or it is the same cow, but you gave it steroids? Can they be influenced by anything?

> Although photons have no mass, they do have energy, and the gravity of a black hole (or any other gravitating body) will attract them. According to Einstein's theory of gravity, it is energy, not mass, that feels the gravitational force.

So if you have a Black Hole, the photons can't escape? They are just heard of bovines stampeding to a slaughter house? Or just few bovines, the other came to their senses...?

> Black holes are sites of immense gravitational attraction. Classically, the gravitation generated by the gravitational singularity inside a black hole is so powerful that nothing, not even electromagnetic radiation, can escape from the black hole.

What can escape black hole, energy or particle?

> Though no light can escape from a black hole itself, we can detect when matter is pulled into a black hole. As the matter falls toward the black hole, it gains energy and heats up, emitting ultraviolet light, X-rays, and gamma rays.

> Since general relativity states that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, nothing inside the event horizon can ever cross the boundary and escape beyond it, including light. ... Thus, nothing that enters a black hole can get out or can be observed from outside the event horizon.

So, the visible light, photons of visible spectrum can't escape before event horizon, they are all that sort of stupid cows, but all those other things can, but just before event horizon. That's a final cut? Can one black hole escape another, and if collided what escapes? Do they shatter? Explode?

> Thanks to recent groundbreaking observations, we now know that two colliding black holes produce gravitational waves - ripples in the fabric of space-time. ... When the two black holes collide, the waves hit a crescendo. Then they gradually subside as the black hole jiggles into its new mass.

So those two jiggle like a jello and finally they are cool with all that? Nothing explodes? Disappointing... What are the gravitational waves? New flavor of photons, or the new bovines escaping the cut?

> Gravitational waves are 'ripples' in space-time caused by some of the most violent and energetic processes in the Universe. ... These cosmic ripples would travel at the speed of light, carrying with them information about their origins, as well as clues to the nature of gravity itself.

Gravitational waves are capable escaping black hole, that is what is important, all the other stuff is a pile of ... we don't need that lol. So they hit the speed and escape. What are they made off?

> These are sort of unique, because we've only seen the wave-like part of them, never the particle-based part. However, just like water waves are waves that are made of particles, we fully expect that gravitational waves are made of particles, too.

Well, that's a bean I was looking for... What about those particles ( gravitons)?

> So far no one has been successful in making gravitational theory consistent with quantum field theory. This is an area of very active investigation, but in the absence of positive results, there is no confirmation of gravitons.

Something escaping, nobody knows what... Let me tell you. These have some hooves ... Are gravitational waves faster than light?

> Kopeikin and Fomalont concluded that the speed of gravity is between 0.8 and 1.2 times the speed of light, which would be fully consistent with the theoretical prediction of general relativity that the speed of gravity is exactly the same as the speed of light.

So we have the photon for EM but we don't know if we have graviton for gravity, nobody knows what those are but they are expected to be as fast or as juiced up as the photons.
Are they dangerous for living beings? I don't want being last idiot standing and a herd of stampeding juiced up bovines from unifying black hole wipes me clean from existence... What sun block cream do I need? Neutrogena Ultra Dry-Touch?

> While gravitational waves can carry a great deal of energy, they only interact weakly with matter.

> Gravitational waves transport energy as gravitational radiation, a form of radiant energy similar to electromagnetic radiation.

> When a gravitational wave passes by Earth, it squeezes and stretches space.

Gamma rays weekly interact with the matter too. Is this the similar way of interaction? Does a graviton acts same like photon towards living tissue?

> Gamma rays are ionizing radiation and are thus biologically hazardous. Due to their high penetration power, they can damage bone marrow and internal organs.

> As Fermilab senior physicist Don Lincoln wrote in a post: “Gravitons are a theoretically reputable idea, but are not proven. So if you hear someone say that 'gravitons are particles that generate the gravitational force,' keep in mind that this is a reasonable statement, but by no means is it universally accepted.

OK, then graviton might be very small, very fast, not influenced or interacted by almost anything?

> Many physicists assume that gravitons exist, but few think that we will ever see them. They are notoriously hard — perhaps impossible — to observe in nature.

So there are things that can be faster than photon, but impossible to prove. Why is photon so fast?

> Some people say that the reason a photon travels at light speed the moment it is created is because it is a massless particle, and therefore must always travel at the speed of light. ... All quantum objects are partly waves and therefore can have a speed the moment they are created.

So the electron neutrino is smaller than photon, but travels less fast because it is particle, but not one like the photon that is a particle but acts as a wave. Graviton presumably, maybe can travel equal or speculative faster, but it is impossible to prove as a particle, so it can't be seen as anything but the gravitational wave.

> The special theory of relativity implies that only particles with zero rest mass may travel at the speed of light.

So, if graviton is somewhere here, it would not exist as a mass, it would be a none-exist. Is there any way to use that to observe Universe or macro-Verse? How could we perceive Universe either further back in time or further on with something that is none-exist?

> Many models of the Universe suggest that there was an inflationary epoch in the early history of the Universe when space expanded by a large factor in a very short amount of time. If this expansion was not symmetric in all directions, it may have emitted gravitational radiation detectable today as a gravitational wave background. This background signal is too weak for any currently operational gravitational wave detector to observe.

What is spacetime? Is it a real thing or can it explain that puzzle between the real time, speed up and slow down models?

> Space-time is not a real thing. Space-time is only a theoretical mathematical model used to help explain some elements of the universe. The universe does not have to do what the theory claims, the theory has no power over the universe. It is only a explanation for how the universe appears.

Ok, Universe appears to have the certain two things that are either not a dimensional per se, the same as gravity is not particle based, or a thing or easily explainable force either.
First is the matter and it seems to be made of things that are drunk or oddly enough positioned in relations within velocity towards each other. Matter and motion are inseparable. So these small things are buzzing around harmoniously within velocity and they make Exist real. It is palpable and detectable to us.
The second one is called the time, and it is considered the greatest limitation to velocity. Whatever you want to go on a grand scale, you suddenly have a problem with the time.
Which is odd even more, because the part where the matter comes in place it uses the time just fine.
Somehow it looks like that we need to overcome the concept of linear time to travel anywhere or we might need to overcome a concept of 3D reality to realize where we are at this given moment and where we are going.

Time is vague term, but our motion is definitely pointed at something, even if we do not know where 'Here' is.

Can Space fold?

> Space folding is a fictional method of instant space travel whereby the space folds so that the start and end points of the trip coincide/touch, and the travel takes no time.

> Could the space of our universe fold over like that so that points that are far apart on the paper touch? One cannot rule that out. But even if such a thing could happen, there is the question of how to take the "short cut". It would require what is called a "Minkowski wormhole" (a kind of bridge in space) to connect the two points A and B. The laws of gravity, as written down by Einstein, allow Minkowski wormholes to exist, but ONLY if there exists some kind of matter whose energy and momentum is unlike that of any kind of matter ever seen and extremely unlikely to exist in the real world. For this reason, physicists think that travel great distances by "folding space" is highly unlikely to be possible.
But suppose it were possible. There would be no limit to how far one could travel in space in almost an instant. But even stranger, one could also travel backwards in time, because a wormhole (if they such things existed) could connect a point A at one time to a point B that was at an earlier time. That is, one could travel anywhere in space and time. That means you could get somewhere before you even departed! As to what would happen to our bodies in the process, I do not know exactly. It would depend on the size of the wormhole. The gravitational effects inside the wormhole would probably be immense and destroy a human being going through.
Fortunately, such things are almost certainly not allowed by the laws of physics.

OK, great. Sounds messed up enough to be interesting. Can time be bent?

> Also, under Einstein's theory of general relativity, gravity can bend time. ... When anything that has mass sits on that piece of fabric, it causes a dimple or a bending of space-time. The bending of space-time causes objects to move on a curved path and that curvature of space is what we know as gravity.

So, the theory that time can be bent is more accepted or even understood than the one in which space can be folded?

>This concept of bending spacetime sprung from Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, which introduced the idea that wormholes could, in theory, act as a bridge between two points that would otherwise be very distant. Because of spacetime’s flexibility, a wormhole could link two different points in its fabric.

So, we have some sort of explanation.
My question would be following : If you fuel something with gravitons ( or alike) that presumably do not affect matter or can't be detected by any Exist methods, because it is formulated more like none-Exist , and bang it up to travel faster than light, faster that the photons that are border-line none-Exist in SpaceTime fabricated model ... do you see where I am going ? ... the time flipping stops so the only photons ( and alike) are timeless but time still continues ticking for all things external that have mass, that dynamically adding up and are changing thought the entropy/negentropy... yadda yadda yadda.

We shoot up the spaceship and it appears on the Ganymede after 43 minutes is not a result I was hoping for but nobody wouldn't complain if it was possible.

In actuality this means that time doesn't exist if something traverses the limitations. But neither our concept of the matter, space or time would continue to exist. This what I just said is considered a complete heresy. And my brain needs a band aid...

Can gravitons affect time? ( well gravity based on this model obviously can)

> Gravitons are not usually thought of as affecting the curvature of space time.

OK, but they are imaginary something that can travel as or faster than light and the gravitational waves we can observe, does exist, and can also effect photons piece of cake in black holes.
So, if I am to be some alien stuck on the Earth, the shit that I need to power my spaceship to go to another galaxy where everyone is already dead anyways is an abstract that humans don't understand how to see and put into my reservoir and it is a subtracted from their concept of the Exist so it is untouchable...? Even if we harvest power of the light speed we wouldn't go anywhere or go beyond limitations. We could go faster, but concerning everyone else outside of that spaceship we would disappear from their reality appearing so far in the future that it would be irrelevant.

Here, in this bubble the actuality doesn't matter. What matters is that you need to transfer the enclosed item in observable real time on huge distances in this reality. If the actuality of an item traveling speed of light takes 2 million years for the rest of us, that really doesn't matter any more.

Well, that's peachy. So much positive... Now an alien can sit down, cry and forget going to long lost home planet. Or not. What about that folding space? Do we have any chance there?

>Recently, evidence for this theory has moved beyond the strictly theoretical. A couple of years ago, scientists built what they described as a “wormhole.” Their model, however, created a portal for magnetic fields. As Smithsonian outlined, “if another magnetic field travels through the wormhole, it appears to leave space altogether, only showing up at either end.”

A wormhole...

Awwww, so we have the horse for the race.

But, wouldn't that require some bigger thing to work, generate energy.... Is this even possible, and where from that immense energy could fall at hands? Did anyone possibly attempt to do anything alike?

For what I see it, the observable macro, or travel huge distances in space, we can follow up in real time by either being immensely big enough to do so, or somehow if we find out how the folding space works and not how bending time works.

It doesn't look just like a glitch. This is not a classical science any more, and many thinkers confirmed that the transformation of human consciousness is needed to understand this without succumbing to madness.
Why the time is a limitation of the velocity, while building blocks of matter that depend on velocity even more, use it flawlessly to appear and persist? Theory says it is a force that holds things together, but it is evident that the particles move, everything around us is the energy set to motion. And it has not just speed, but velocity, it is aware of direction otherwise it would be gone very fast.
We never have a problem to communicate a perfect bond with a material of a chair (as long as it is in our detection) fearing it will cease to exist after a second.
But for some reason it is a huge limitation to motion, to how we travel. It looks like it is deliberately made limitation so well skewed just enough that we realize the none-Exist part but possibly the same thing with different flavor has it going for the scenario in which we find how to fold space...

#### Folding stuff in next post... I think this exploration about limits of the time became a bit longish.

[Cover Image Attribution]


How do you rate this article?




Content creator, fiction writer, techy

Cryptocurrency, Technology and Science
Cryptocurrency, Technology and Science

Cryptocurrency, blockchain and internet. This blog publishes group articles of Pranz! community featuring technology, science, blockchain and cryptocurrency.

Send a $0.01 microtip in crypto to the author, and earn yourself as you read!

20% to author / 80% to me.
We pay the tips from our rewards pool.