Could We Find a Door To A Parallel Universe? 327
p1234 writes "Though no direct evidence for wormholes has been observed, this could be because they are disguised as black holes. Now Alexander Shatskiy of the Lebedev Physical Institute in Moscow, Russia, is suggesting a possible way to tell the two kinds of object apart. His idea assumes the existence of a bizarre substance called "phantom matter", which has been proposed to explain how wormholes might stay open. Phantom matter has negative energy and negative mass, so it creates a repulsive effect that prevents the wormhole closing. 'US expert Dr Lawrence Krauss, from Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, points out that the idea rests on untested assumptions. He told New Scientist magazine: "It is an interesting attempt to actually think of what a real signature for a wormhole would be, but it is more hypothetical than observational. Without any idea of what phantom matter is and its possible interactions with light, it is not clear one can provide a general argument."'"
Most useless press release ever (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like science fiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Phantom matter, eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yes, it's called the "portal" (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Does any of this matter really matter? (Score:3, Insightful)
As for the rest, I pretty much agree with you.
I had the wonderful opportunity to see a talk by one of the experts of (and I think original proposer of) dark matter. He said he was starting to feel dark matter is not real and that a possible better explanation of it can be made by modifying Newtonian/Relativistic mechanics. That seems more satisfactory to me, if for no other reason than we can use a correction in the equations to make predictions about other things, and see if we observe that effect.
That's much better than assuming something exists, but you don't know any of its properties except that it fixes this one problem in your other theory. That's pretty bogus. Science is all about observation, and seeing if our predictions based on current research are true. If you can't do either, it really doesn't qualify as science.
Re:Caution is indicated... (Score:3, Insightful)
> "negative" matter, and were to hook them together on a fixed rod you basically would've
> constructed a perpetual motion "engine" that would accelerate along the axis of that rod
> without any expenditure of energy.
That would no more produce acceleration than would the same experiment done with positive and negative electric charges. The two gravitational charges will just repel each other, producing tension in the rod.
Re:Does any of this matter really matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, I'd be more surprised if someone announced "Black Holes: Just Like Detroit" or some such.
And as for that eternal life and women throwing themselves at you, we've already given you healthy diets and pheromones. Why not try meeting us half-way?
Re:Most useless press release ever (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
taken from wikipedia those are the steps of the scientific method. I remember them from middle school, so I imagine most of this crowd should have been over them at some point. This article is a perfect example of step 3 in my opinion. step 2 is all of the already observed behavior of matter in the universe. here in step three we form a hypothesis about some detail that is unexplained or not understood. step 4, which these people have not gotten too yet, is to figure out a method to perform tests to prove or disprove their hypothesis and perform those tests. then they will analyze the results of their test, step 5. skipping over this step would leave them with no direction to take in their research, so they would probably never figure out anything.
Don't lump them together (Score:5, Insightful)
Dark matter is a shim used to make our theory of gravity and the motion of the observed universe match.
"Phantom matter", properly called "exotic matter" [wikipedia.org], is a purely hypothetical construct, not necessary to explain anything in the universe which has been observed; it's just something the laws of physics don't rule out.
Re:Most useless press release ever (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Most useless press release ever (Score:3, Insightful)
I actually do believe in parallel universes (given that our own material space is but a single brane along higher dimensions), but I highly doubt that the laws of physics that exist in a parallel universe (or even a brane at a different "angle") would be similar enough to our own to allow for even a few femtoseconds of experience in the new world. Stephen Hawking's Brief History of Time alludes to the laws of physics as we know it being formed *during* the Big Bang... does that mean the laws of physics may have been completely different *before* the BB? (Yeah, I know, there's really no such thing as "before the Big Bang".)
It would only take a single change in almost any behavior of physics (e.g., electrons attract instead of repel) to make anything passing through such a "door" immediately disintegrate on the atomic level.
That having been said, if anyone is still interested in visiting any alternate universes with no foresight to what I just said above, I'm constructing a machine that projects a large, vertical plane of annihilative energy (roughly circle-shaped) in my backyard - I'm calling it Darwin's portal. Just pay me five bucks and step right in...
Solomon
Re:Most useless press release ever (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sqrt(Negative energy) = head hurts (Score:1, Insightful)
If you can get there from here (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Does any of this matter really matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's my speculation, do I get an article in New Scientist now?
This theory (Score:4, Insightful)
<Speculation>
If not, if the difference is the same as time or length in a dimension that we aren't able to consciously manipulate or see, then it is possible that we all are floating in roughly the same direction, but since the differences are very small it's impossible to recognize if we are in the same sector as when we started our lives.
All this since there are in theory dimensions that we can't see. Why they are invisible is a different question. It may be that we all are mentally and physically unable to "see" the dimensions or that they are "curled up" or "flattened" in a way that makes them immeasurable. This is just about the same question as if you are on a board (like our universe) on a completely friction-less surface where there is no perception of wind and no reference points. You have every perception of everything on the board, but you can't tell if the board is still or if it's actually drifting at the speed of sound with the wind. If you can't even "see" outside the borders of the board (the universe) you can't really tell if there are other universes out there.
And it's not even possible to say if the laws of physics are general or specific for a universe. It may well be that the laws of physics are the same in any given universe, and that we just are inside a bead of glass. (watch the end sequence of Men in Black to catch this idea...). Just "infinity" is hard to catch up, but it's like living on the surface of a globe - where is the end of the world? And if you walk a straight distance on the surface of a globe large enough - will you ever come home again or will you even recognize that as home [hmv.co.uk]?
I think that there is no straight answer, and that Keith Laumer [keithlaumer.com] in the "WORLDS OF THE IMPERIUM" may have one approach, and Robert Anson Heinlein [heinleinsociety.org] had another in "Number of the Beast" (among others), but I think that Douglas Adams [douglasadams.com] got really to the point in the statement "There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.". At least his statement will explain a lot.
But this is still in the area of speculation, and I think that it's hard for the human race to get outside the universe. But I don't say that it's impossible - there may be a discovery around the corner waiting to happen!
</Speculation>
What is most important is that we try to keep our minds open - there may be a grain of truth in every theory that at first sight may appear ridiculous. Notice that the continental drift [geekculture.com] was considered completely outrageous [wikipedia.org] by many until the end of the 1950's. The continental drift is now a widely accepted fact (but there may still be those that doesn't accept it).
Gandhi [brainyquote.com] once said "Nearly everything you do is of no importance, but it is important that you do it.", and this still applies. If you do nothing nothing will be accomplished, and you will be sure that you are unimportant, but if you do something you may have the force to provide a stepping stone for something that will prevail for generations to come.
The End [romlist.com].
Re:Most useless press release ever (Score:3, Insightful)
The extent of most science reporters education in science doesn't extend very far beyond star trek and sliders.
Re:Most useless press release ever (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Caution is indicated... (Score:4, Insightful)
The first law states, "The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings."
Accordingly, since no energy is being added to the system, its internal energy must not increase. That's fine, because in you example, the total energy does not increase.
Energy is usually measured in joules. 1 joule is, reduced to base units, 1 kg * (m^2/s^2). So the total energy of your system is defined as:
Joules = (1000 * [x^2/y^2]) + (-1000 * [x^2/y^2])
Now, if x is 0 and y is 0, (the system is at rest), then the energy of the system, in joules, is
Joules = (1000 * [0^2/0^2]) + (-1000 * [0^2/0^2])
Joules = (1000 * [0/0]) + (-1000 * [0/0])
Joules = (1000 * 0) + (-1000 * 0)
Joules = (0) + (0)
Joules = 0
If x is 10 and y is 1, then the energy of the system, in joules, is
Joules = (1000 * [10^2/1^2]) + (-1000 * [10^2/1^2])
Joules = (1000 * [100/1]) + (-1000 * [100/1])
Joules = (1000 * 100) + (-1000 * 100)
Joules = (100000) + (-100000)
Joules = 0
If x is 500 and y is 2, then the energy of the system, in joules, is
Joules = (1000 * [500^2/2^2]) + (-1000 * [500^2/2^2])
Joules = (1000 * [500/4]) + (-1000 * [500/4])
Joules = (1000 * 125) + (-1000 * 125)
Joules = (125000) + (-125000)
Joules = 0
If x is 1 billion and y is 1, then the energy of the system, in joules, is
Joules = (1000 * [1E9^2/1^2]) + (-1000 * [1E9^2/1^2])
Joules = (1000 * [1E18/1]) + (-1000 * [1E18/1])
Joules = (1000 * 1E18) + (-1000 * 1E18)
Joules = (1E21) + (-1E21)
Joules = 0
Since 0J = 0J = 0J = 0J, no matter how fast the two-ball system accelerates, there is no violation of the first law of thermodynamics.
Re:Sqrt(Negative energy) = head hurts (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither the real and complex numbers are "real" in the sense that they physically exist, but are on equal footing in the sense that they represent real, physical quantities. Complex quantities simply appear when dealing with pairs of real quantities. Take the (complex) wavefunction representing a quantum state, as an example. Sure, you could formulate the Schroedinger equation as a pair of coupled differential equations, but why bother, especially when it's much more elegant to express it as a single, complex equation?
Re:Most useless press release ever (Score:4, Insightful)
Absolutely. I wish I could mod you up, but I've already posted in this discussion. :(
I think some people are quibbling with Step 1: Define the Question. Their complaint is that this is just a silly question that doesn't really matter (since we don't have proof that these things exist, why bother trying to figure out how they could exist...). I'm not of that mind, but clearly many people think that new theories must arise strictly from unexplained observations (I observed the apple fall down rather than up, but I have no theory to tell me why...). This is a rather limited view of science, IMHO (especially for phenomena we can't observe in a lab or nature). If scientists never are able to connect this theory to observation, it simply will fall into the dustbin of history. But that doesn't preclude it from being part of the scientific discussion until it is refuted conclusively.
Re:Most useless press release ever (Score:3, Insightful)
Real physics is hard and time consuming, but people still like to try and see the bigger picture. The result are these magazines, it's not such a terrible thing.
Re:Most useless press release ever (Score:4, Insightful)
I was under the impression that experiments were real, not something imagined in some brain, even Einstein's brain.
Nobody has ever directly observed a back hole. Here is a different thought experiment:
Suppose it were technically possible to drill a hole clear through the Earth. If then a rock were dropped into the hole, would it not eventually come to rest, floating right in the center of the planet? Would that not mean that in the exact center there is no gravity to cause pressure on the material in the center either?
Would this canceling out of the gravity also then preclude enough pressure from happening to squeeze matter to anywhere near the density to eliminate all space between atomic constituents? Would this canceling of gravity be reversed if enough matter were piled together in one place? It seems to me, not, that in any sphere of matter of any mass, the gravitational pressure on the material in the center should always be zero. Would this not preclude the formation of a real physical object, a so called "black hole" as described in the purely mathematical constructs that postulate the real existence of such things? Of course if there are no real physical black holes, then there wouldn't be any real physical "worm holes" or any other kinds of "holes" either.
Does this canceling of pressure in the center of the sun mean that there isn't such a huge pressure there, even enough to allow atoms to fuse?
We know from real experiments and everyday experience, that heat always moves for the hotter place to the cooler place. Why is it then that we actually MEASURED that the outside of the sun, the corona is thousands of time hotter than than its surface? Why are sunspots, apparent holes in the surface of the sun, significantly cooler than the surrounding surface?
Could it be that the idea that atomic fusion with its requirement of million degree temperatures in the interior of the sun is just plain wrong? Maybe the sun is powered neither by an ancient wood campfire nor by a modern thermonuclear camp fire.
Maybe it is time to base science solely on experiments and observations, rather than fanciful math that has little if any semblance to reality as we can observe it. I think that real science, based on experiment and observation should be well separated from science fiction even if the fiction is very beautiful mathematically, or makes for intriguing and exciting movies.
The meat? (Score:2, Insightful)
If the "Tim Thompson" material being referred to is "On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis" http://www.tim-thompson.com/electric-sun.html [tim-thompson.com], then there's an obvious continuity with my quick look at what's wrong with the T&T PDF document.
Let's start with this, from the Tim's introduction (my emphasis):
It also shifts to the champions of the EU framework and approach the responsibility for showing that their methods are better than the standard.
Here are those four working hypotheses again:
#1: in the EU paradigm, "theory" is indistinguishable from "speculation in prose".
#2: EU theories cannot be falsified, even in principle, by any experimental ("in the lab") or observational results.
#2a: Within the Electric Universe framework and approach, evidence presented does not need to accurately reflect its source, nor be fully attributed; copyrights need not be respected.
#3: EU theories are internally inconsistent.
As is clear from the material presented in the SD comments linked to in my earlier comment here, the first three hypotheses are validated; the last was not tested (but is unlikely to be validated - meaninglessness is perfectly consistent with meaninglessness).
Rather to my surprise, I found that the document may be an intellectual fraud - it purports to be something which it is not (a poster presentation at the 2006 ICOPS, an international scientific conference). More surprising is that pln2bz does not seem to regard this as serious
Now of course there may be a perfectly reasonable explanation
* as far as I know it is not illegal, in the US or Australia, to claim a document is a poster presentation at an international scientific conference when it is not.
^ unless they are perfectly comfortable with such practices and behaviours.