Could Black Holes Be Portals to Other Universes? 277
David Shiga writes "Astronomers have identified many objects out there that they think are black holes. But could they be portals to other universes called wormholes, instead? According to a new study by a pair of physicists, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference. They have discovered that wormholes with the right shape would look identical to black holes from the outside. But while a trip into a black hole would mean certain death, a wormhole might spit you out into a parallel universe with its own stars and planets. Exotic effects from quantum physics might produce wormholes naturally from collapsing stars, one of the physicist says, and they might even be produced in future particle accelerator experiments."
easy to test... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, wait, there's another small problem to address first -- all the known black holes are a bajillion miles away. Maybe we should work on answering the question of how to get there before we start to obsess about what's on the other side. Or perhaps the multiverse is just teasing us, saying "Hey, there's a portal here to another universe -- want to see what's on the other side? Too bad you won't know for a few thousand years! Psych!"
No need to get there (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:what would happen on the other side? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps wormholes just don't exist then.
I think the thing that differentiates worm holes from black holes is that they DON'T shrink to a singularity, but instead attach to a hole on the other side of the universe through a tunnel that has a finite radius. So they're not the same thing... the difference between having a singularity and NOT having a singularity is pretty staggering. Is the point of the article just trying to say that wormholes have an event horizon?
If this were true... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:easy to test... (Score:3, Insightful)
No problem, just find a wormhole to go there.
No event horizon (Score:4, Insightful)
So it wouldn't look like a black hole AT ALL. I call bullshit on the whole article.
Re:Universal gravity (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is actually something that's been bothering me since I thought of it: I feel like there's a tendency in cosmology to forget that time is also a dimension, and that the big bang is an expansion not of SPACE, but of SPACE-TIME. So if space and time is expanding, how can it be something that is taking time? How can time be expanding along a timeline? It's a recursive definition. Circular logic.
I have yet to hear a good explanation of this. I get the feeling, in all these many multi-dimensional theories of our universe, that it's a mistake to think about "time" as being somehow distinct and "special" as a dimension. But who knows, I've got nothing to base that on, it's just a hunch. All the theories I've seen have been things like, "3 large space, 6 small space, 1 time", or "5 space dimensions, 1 time". I've never seen a theory of physics that unites these two critical concepts of dimensionality. On the other hand, maybe there really is a difference between them, so it's not necessary. But in that case, does time play some special role in the big bang?
Re:Logical contradiction (Score:5, Insightful)
That's really not the case with language. It's ESPECIALLY not the case with scientific language.
You might also notice that what you posted isn't the definition of universe, it's a definition of universe. Another from the same page: a world or sphere in which something exists or prevails. This is much more applicable to our usage of universe to mean the current cosmology we understand.
I know it makes some people who crave order and stability mad, but language is created, molded, abused and transformed by the speakers and writers with little remorse for whose feelings may be hurt.
More like: (Score:3, Insightful)
Christ, how is THIS news? People have been speculating about this kind of thing since the theorization of Black Holes. Carl Sagan talks about in one of the more trippy, pot induced segments of 1980's Cosmos!
I think I'm getting too damn old. The entire internet is looking like a dupe to me.
Re:No event horizon (Score:4, Insightful)
The authors propose a wormhole constructed such that light takes so long to escape from its mouth, it's effectively indistinguishable from a black hole, because nobody can realistically wait long enough to see anything come out of it.
They write,
Re:No (Score:1, Insightful)
Space is nothing, it's not a fabric you can rip into. it would be cool if you could but its just not logical. just because theres a load of mass in a small area?
Uh oh - that worhs both ways.. (Score:3, Insightful)
This would, however, mean that the laws about preserving mass, energy etc. must have a bigger scope, or those holes could cause quite a bit of an imbalance. Or maybe there's always an opposite flow somewhere else, a bit like communicating vessels but in multiple dimensions..
Meanwhile, back in the real world, I got a parking ticket
Re:Logical contradiction (Score:1, Insightful)
First, ask any linguist whether the definitions of words are immutably set based on prior etymology, or even original use?
For example, when is the last time you accessed anything?
Originally (IIRC) access was something you had [I have access to the database.], Not something you did [Bob accessed the client database to find billing info.], but common usage changed the definition of the word.
You don't have to LIKE it, but that is reality. Your opinion is at odds with the way language works.
Further, comments about one language being more highly 'evolved' than another are largely nonsensical, since this implies progress toward a goal. This is not the case. In this context, evolve simply means 'change'. So when we say "language evolves", that just means that "language changes" based on its environment and history (or at least the environment and history of its speakers).