Wormholes? Maybe. 148
A number of people have e-mailed with the BBC's coverage of the some "new theories" from a Russian scientist that have been unveiled in New Scientist magazine. The theories have been met with some skepticism by the scientific community, so don't go planning your vacation to Alpha Centauri quite yet.
just our luck... (Score:1)
Build a wormhole? (Score:1)
Man made wormhole? (Score:2)
"Krasnikov accepts that testing his claims by building a wormhole is far beyond present technology."
Any scientist here know just what it will take to construct a man-made wormhole? I'm very curious. Large amounts of energy or what? My highschool physics doesn't seem to help much here...
---------------
Re:just our luck... (Score:1)
Re:If you can't say anything nice... (Score:1)
Since around the same time Americans couldn't tell the difference between astronomy and astrology...
Original article pointer (Score:5)
The original New Scientist article [newscientist.com] is online, as is the full paper [lanl.gov] which has much more content.
This is interesting, but even if it turns out that they can be found (or built), there may be problems. If they can be moved, you can turn one into a time machine (giving causality the finger) by accelerating one end to relativistic speeds and taking it on a trip, as noted in the actual paper (but ignored by both the New Scientist and BBC articles).
A reasonable SF treatment of this particular idea is in Robert Forward's Timemaster. The characters make cardboard look 3D, and the prose isn't the most beautiful, but the main hook is the physics speculation--and Forward does that quite well.
A while yet... (Score:3)
The only way for these to be truely useful would be if we could create them - a la science fiction - and use them as we see fit. But who knows, there could millions or billions of them. Hopefully, some day, the space progams will start real missions again, and we might someday know.
The Good Reverend
Confusion (Score:3)
That is not a silly or stupid question. If you created a new wormhole everytime you wanted one, have they worked out a way to set the *destination* of the exit?
Once opened, how much energy would it require to maintain it? Do we just open it for a short while, send a ship out and then abandon it?
I am interested to read the actual article, not just a blurb or two from it.
The attainable wormhole (Score:2)
Drink the large bottle of vodka.
When you wake up, you'll find yourself in a different place with no memory of how you got there!
Now that's a wormhole!
Re:Man made wormhole? (Score:3)
Wormholes... (Score:3)
Halp!
Eric Lecht
"I do what I can, I work in the dark"
Re:Build a wormhole? (Score:4)
thats what 8 years of working as an astrophysicist will do to you
Re:The attainable wormhole (Score:1)
Maybe tequila is the exotic matter to which they refer?
--Corey
space rewls. L E T S G O !! (Score:1)
>interstellar travel.
Making it to *Mars* would have a dramatic effect on interstellar travel. This sounds great but imagine how much we could learn if only we could put some of these arm-chair Jean Luc Picard's in space!
In search of Exotic matter (Score:2)
--
Old idea. (Score:3)
How to make a wormhole (Score:2)
The "Inflationary Universe" model basically stated that, as empty space can't exist, if you have an expanding universe, you're creating virtual particles, a-la Quantum Mechanics. Expand it fast enough, and the virtual particles seperate and become real particles.
If a quantum-scale wormhole's interior expands, for some reason, the same logic could apply. The exotic conditions cause exotic virtual particles to form in the space. Expand it fast -enough-, and those become real, filling the interior with real exotic particles, with the propertites required to keep it stable.
The problem, then, is one of how to inflate the interior of a wormhole. That one, I don't know. But I do know that the energy densities required to do this are well within the capabilities of modern technology.
Now, it's almost certain that this guy has some completely different idea in mind, and I'd like to know what it is. If it's more practical than the one I've outlined, then it might become a reality within only one or two generations.
Re:They CANNOT exist. (Score:1)
If you're so smart, why are you wasting your time on Slashdot?
Re:Confusion (Score:2)
As we can see, there's a minor problem if we ever want to even leave our solar system, much less our galaxy (70k light years across) or, the universe (~15*10^9 light years across)....you do the math, to get over there, even going the speed of light, from the spacecraft's standpoint, the universe will have expanded so much and cooled so much, that it'd be pointless to go there.
However, if there were wormholes, perhaps left over from the big bang (when the universe was about the size of the plank legnth), then it would be very reasonable to travel across the universe, through a wormhole.
Another possibility is that space is curved on top of it-self, and that some stars we see in the sky are duplicates. This might happen if there was enough gravity to collapse that universe, but it also might provide some shortcuts to distant places.
Grades, Social Life, Sleep....Pick Two.
Keep Yourself safe from the Cardassians. (Score:3)
In my humnle opinion, its better to NOT know that these things exist - we have numerous examples in history to prove we're better off not knowing about them. Example:
How about stardate 4378324.8 when Ben Sisko discovers that there's a stable worm hole in his backyard??? DS9 went from a quiet backspace hang out with a bar and a shapeshifter to all the Cardassians in the universe pouring through the wormhole.
Research it if you want, but if you find G'ul Dukat breathing down your neck don't say i didn't warn you!
~zero
insert clever line here
Wormholes take a wee bit too much resources (Score:1)
Did you read the New Scientist article? (Score:1)
This was in the second paragraph.
Re:In search of Exotic matter (Score:1)
I've just done a quick read of the paper... (Score:2)
It is an interesting thought, and he does seem to address a few questions, but I'd be very leery of taking this nay further than "Don't say it can't happen."
Re:Man made wormhole? (Score:2)
...phil
I think the Earth would look better over there. (Score:2)
What would happen if someone creates a wormhole here and since it would be centered around our planet, could conceivably trap us in and deposit our planet in a completely different area of space. What would we do then? Hope that after creating the phenomena once that we could repeat the process in reverse and get us back?
I am glad that we don't have that technology yet and I hope that when we do that people are cautious enough not to risk the entire plant just for their own curiosity.
Of course it may be really cool to have new stars to observe at night.
That's the beauty of it... (Score:1)
Re:If you can't say anything nice... (Score:1)
Not to point out the obvious, but....
Sir Isaac Newton, whos chair is still vacant at cambrage was an englishman.
Heard of newtonian physics?
~zero
insert clever line here
Builiding a bridge (Score:2)
even a tiny wormhole is useful (Score:4)
--
BeDevId 15453 - Download BeOS R5 Lite [be.com] free!
Re:How to make a wormhole (Score:1)
-Effendi
Re:I've just done a quick read of the paper... (Score:2)
Obviously having difficulty with his LaTeX equation skills. Either that or the rubber gloves are making it difficult to type :-)
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Re:In search of Exotic matter (Score:1)
Of course, if we have to build them by manually going out there, we should probably build them as quickly as we can, so as not to let the universe expand a lot further before we decide it would be a good idea.....
Grades, Social Life, Sleep....Pick Two.
gravitational effects (Score:1)
or vice versa
damn squid filter! (Score:2)
--
BeDevId 15453 - Download BeOS R5 Lite [be.com] free!
Re:The attainable wormhole (Score:1)
--
Re:I think the Earth would look better over there. (Score:1)
Um, nothing would happen. Or, rather, nothing that we would be aware of...
Assuming that one could A) open a wormhole and B) open one large enough for earth to pass through, the resulting re-emergence of earth in a "different are of space" would in itself be enough to kill all life on the planet.
maybe not all at once and maybe not because of the trip, but certainly the sudden loss of orbital/gravitational stability, not to mention loss of sunlight...
yea, we'd die and not know anything about it....
so, to all you budding Sisko's out there, leave it alone....
Wormhole-building Engineering Challenges (Score:2)
For instance: if the wormhole needs to be supported by "exotic matter" to remain stable, then what are the properties of this matter, especially with regards to interaction with the "mundane matter" that comprises us and our transportation & life support systems.
If "exotic matter" is the antimatter version of granite, then a wormhole propped open with it is going to prove problematic as a medium to travel. Not only would it be quite solid, but it would explode quite spectacularly if you attempted to walk through it.
Then there's the environment surrounding the wormhole entrace/exit to consider. Black Holes have such a steep gravity gradiant that they shred anything that comes near them well before the object enters the hole's event horizon. While a wormhole may not require black hole-levels of mass, and so may not have a signifigant gravity gradient, there will be a region of highly curved space near the location of the entrance/egress - what effects would that extreme spacial curvature have on a nearby physical object?
And even if the wormhole does something as boring as emitting large amounts of hard radiation it may limit its usefullness. What good is the ability to hop thousands of light years in an instant, if the mouth of the thing must be located at least one light-year away from an inhabited planet?
Given that we still have trouble building manned extreme-deep-water submersibles, I think it may be a little while yet before we're ready to engineer wormholes.
Still, the math is cool though.
Re:Build a wormhole? (Score:1)
Funny, but please get your STDS9 facts straight (Score:2)
It was the Dominion that came pouring through the wormhole.
G'ul Dukat is dead (or at least he is in the series, I suppose you could argue he hasn't been born yet.)
Plus I also think you have the stardate for the discovery of the wormhole wrong.
Re:Build a wormhole? (Score:1)
Re:The attainable wormhole (Score:1)
Ummmm.... to the morgue?
"Free your mind and your ass will follow"
Re:They CANNOT exist. (Score:1)
If you can make a wormhole, can you use it? (Score:1)
Whenever I see a reference to wormholes, they are usually explained in terms of black holes, or something like that. So then to travel through a wormhole you would need to endure A LOT of gravity, right? In that case what use are they?
Am I understanding right?
Re:Build a wormhole? (Score:1)
Re:astrology, astronomy, ALL crap (Score:1)
And another thing: when they say that distant galaxies are "billions" of light years away, how do they know? It's just light. Answer is: they don't. But don't let the astronomy establishment know I told you that. They'd bring me up in front of their Grand Astronomy Inquisitor and do God knows what to me.
How do you *know* that Jesus wasn't a woman? Do you really? What? You say the bible tells you so? Why do you believe the bible? Well.. I'll tell you man, I'd be more scared of those Borg than judgement day! Those borg look like their some nasty people, oh and those vampires scare the hell out of me too! Beware and always carry a phaser with a rotating harmonic and put garlic on your windows and neck!
Ok, here something that makes a little sense. You remember the Great Flood right? All those *holy* wars? Seems to me like the Gods (if there are any gods) are laughing their asses off at us while we sit here with our thumbs up our butts killing each other because we think our god has a bigger dick than your god. Even if they aren't laughing, then they would derive their power from us, in which case they would *want* us to beat the crap out of the other gods followers, than way the other god couldn't challenge them for lack of power! Either way you look at it, power-struggle or entertainment, if there are gods, we are nothing but toys to them.
Re:Build a wormhole? (Score:1)
Mercury, mars, most of the moons are probably too small to do something like this. But finally we have a use for Jupiter and Neptune... Grin.
Any ideas what effects this would cause in the local solar-system? Gravity cause any problems if we start compressing the outer planets?
Lando
Re:Man made wormhole? (Score:1)
---------------
Re:The attainable wormhole (Score:1)
Re:If you can't say anything nice... (Score:1)
True, us Brits haven't put a man in space yet; but we have had a woman in space, though...
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Re:If you can't say anything nice... (Score:1)
Sir Isaac Newton, whos chair is still vacant at cambrage was an englishman.
Heard of newtonian physics?
Stephen Hawking holds Newton's Chair at Cambridge.
Simon
Re:damn squid filter! (Score:1)
CSG_SurferDude
Creating negative energy (Score:4)
My hair is pointing, Dave. I can feel it....
Alpha Centuari? (Score:1)
I mean, I live in Seattle, but you don't catch me going to Redmond, and that's not far.
A SERIOUS Question (Score:1)
I remember somebody attributing this statement to Einstein: ``If two people are on two moving trains heading towards each other, each will see the other's watch moving slower than his own.'' This didn't make sense so I began dissecting relativistic theory in every way. The problem I have with it is best illustrated using Greene's light-clock/train example in Elegant Universe.
Suppose you have two light clocks. These are two 100% reflective surfaces that bounce a photon back and forth vertically between the two plates. One is where you are and the other is on an unmoving train, and both are perfectly syncronized. Now it is assumed that light will move at a constant speed regardless of motion (the basic premise behind relativity), and that it cannot speed up or slow down. Now suppose that train is moving and we know the lightclock was syncronized before it started moving and we watch it now. Now, from our stationary standpoint we see the photon travelling at lightspeed but along an angle (since the plates change position and the photon is bouncing back and forth between the two plates). Because light cannot move faster than light speed, it appears that the lightclock on the train is ticking at a slower rate since it takes the photon longer to get to each plate because the photon is now longer traveling vertically from our vantage point. Assuming we had put a normal clock on board with the train, we know the watch would remain synced with the light clock, so basically, when the train speeds up, time must slow down. It was a very good example and I wish I could post the illustrations.
However, the thought then occurred to me - if I speed up to catch up to the train or the train stops (no motion relative to me), the photon in the train's lightclock will never move faster than light, so the trains clock will never run faster than mine, though by eliminating relative motion they will again tick at the same frequency. However, from the train's vantage point, I would also move relative to the train symetrically to the path I saw the train take. In other words, to the observer on the train, I am moving and my light clock is running slow, and therefore my lightclock can never catch up to his. So if we stop and compare lightclocks, whose is running faster? Mine? His? Are they the same?
Another example I have trouble with is suppose to crafts are moving towards each other at 75% the speed of light. Certainly possible if we were watching from a 3rd vantage point, but what about in those crafts? I can plainly see observer#3 zip past me at 75% the speed of light. Meanwhile the other craft is coming towards me at what appears to be 1.5 times the speed of light. What happens? Could somebody explain the expected outcome (what each observer would see regarding relative speed and time)? I'm not sure what to expect, but it does raise some interesting questions for me.
Any way, I've been puzzling over these for some time. Answers would be heavily appreciated. Best I can figure, wormholes can't be mathematically proven using General Relativity since General Relativity doesn't seem to work... Or maybe I don't understand. Anyway, thanks.
Re:Wormhole-building Engineering Challenges (Score:1)
The main trait of "exotic matter" is that it has negative mass (i.e., gravity will cause exotic matter objects to repel each other). Keep in mind that there are no direct observations of it, but there are some indications that exotic matter could have been formed in the Big Bang.
-Legion
Foamy (Score:1)
They're making it all up (Score:1)
Krasnikov accepts that testing his claims by building a wormhole is far beyond present technology.
RANT
So, if I may be so blunt, what is the point? And why is this even called science?!?! Scientific method, I was taught when I was in school, involved coming up with a theory, then working to prove or disprove that theory by scientific research/experiment. The scientist here says flat out that there is no way to test this. So unless they changed the scientific method, I would file this under science fiction rather than science. But I guess it doesn't matter. Because the pseudo-scientist now has his paper published, and people are talking about it, which basically means he will probably recieve a grant from some organisation to continue his research. If you truly want to help humanity reach the stars, please support realistic endevors, which actually help get us there.
/RANT
Re:space rewls. L E T S G O !! (Score:2)
I can see the papers now: "Sudden Decompression and Its Effects on Sedentary Viewers of Science Fiction Television".
--
My problem with wormhole theories (Score:3)
Wormhole papers always make an assumption that bothers me: that the distance you need to travel inside the wormhole is negligible. Or that if you move the ends of the hole away from each other, the length of the tunnel won't increase as well. Why does anyone consider that reasonable?
The standard simplification of wormhole illustration is a rubber sheet representing 2-dimensional space. To do a wormhole, the author invariably folds the entire sheet in half, so that Point A and Point B line up perfectly, then pokes a little tube through to join them.
IMO, the universe is more likely to follow a different geometry -- perhaps a spheroid. The surface distance from Baltimore to Singapore is about 12000 miles. But if you could make a "wormhole" that tunnels direct from here to there, it would be
So please tell me why I'm completely off base here.
Re:Funny, but please get your STDS9 facts straight (Score:1)
insert clever line here
Re:Confusion (Score:1)
Sure they can (Score:2)
When you crumple the paper, what's between the two points? The same thing that's between the ends of a wormhole: nothing.
Since I'm a mathematician and not a physicist: I know this is simplified. Physicists, feel free to expand on it. :P
-Legion
Re:Wormholes... (Score:1)
Glad to see another Idahoan here! Meow!
Re:A while yet... (Score:2)
I guess if there was a way to generate huge ones, then we could do it..... Only time and discovery will tell.
I profess no strong knowledge on this subject...I just have dabbled in it when I see something regarding it. I find it intriguing.
-Kat ^_^
Re:A while yet... (Score:1)
Re:My problem with wormhole theories (Score:2)
So please tell me why I'm completely off base here.
Because your example involves the difference between going around a 3-D object or going through the object (but still in 3 dimensions). Wormholes distort space in four dimensions, though: if you took the earth and folded it in 4-D, you can make Baltimore and Singapore touch each other.
-Legion
Re:They're making it all up (Score:2)
It can't be tested directly. In other words, you can't go out tomorrow and build yourself a wormhole and see if it's stable. What you *can* do is determine what this theory relies on - what types of matter does it require, the properties of that matter, the implications it has on other theories, and so on. In other words, few theories exist by themselves - they're the end results of "chains" of theories.
As time goes by, we find experimental evidence for many things. Sometimes it's macroscopic evidence (although not directly photographed, there's enough other types of evidence that black holes are pretty much considered physical proven objects), and other times it's microscopic evidence (such as the recent evidence that neutrinos may have mass after all).
By using these bits of evidence as building blocks, we can test the chains of a particular theory. By disproving - or failing to disprove - the theories a new theory rests on, then you can go a long way towards testing these ideas.
Furthermore, the key phrase you need to be aware of is "present technology." What may be beyond our current technology may not be beyond our future technology - should we wait until technology catches up to speculate about the universe? In many ways, it's the speculation and striving to determine the inner workings of the universe that dictate our technology and the direction it takes. In many instances, the theory has to come before the physical implementation - I sincerely doubt anyone could've built a nuclear reactor before understanding something about the way nuclear reactions occur.
Re:They CANNOT exist. (Score:1)
Re:My problem with wormhole theories (Score:1)
Our examples are too simplified. The "rubber sheet" example reduces 3 dimensions to 2. Your tunneling through the earth example reduces 2 dimensions to 1. Granted, there's not much savings. But then consider that mathematicisns posit space having 11 dimensions. A wormhole would make "folds" in directions we can't comprehend in order to bring the two points together.
Alpha Centauri... (Score:1)
Re:Sure they can (Score:1)
-Legion
Re:Alpha Centauri... (Score:1)
Why not? (Score:1)
Re:even a tiny wormhole is useful (Score:1)
Geek-grrl-in-training
"I live in Boise, but I don't have a lawn, I feel cheated out of my wormholes."
Re:Why not? (Score:2)
If you want... (Score:3)
Re:A SERIOUS Question (Score:1)
I have wondered the same thing that you are asking, and the answer is that my headlights would work normally, ie, the light would shoot from my headlights at the speed of light. Now I think that most of it has to do with your frame of reference. As with your train example the two clocks are in different frames of reference and therefore there will be differences between them, because just because the train is moving, don't forget that the other clock is also moving (earth spinning, movement within the galaxy, blah, blah, blah). It's all relative.
This stuff is hard, but not nearly as hard as real relativity. I mean if the person is your cousins aunt's daughter's sister's husband's long-lost twice removed cousin. Now who the hell is that? I tell you, you had a real family reunion, that's relativity.
An executive summary of the "debate." (Score:3)
There are basically four camps, none of which does anything except rehash old articles from the wormhole post the week before, or the week before that, or the week before that, or.... Any semblance of dialogue is illusionary; apparent polite discourse is actually just one person posting under two different names in an attempt to boost his or her Karma.
Group 1: (scientists, people who use fancy science-sounding words and appear moderately intelligent, people who have half a clue what physics is) (a) Yawn. Been there, done that. Aren't we stuck in some kind of closed, time-like loop? (b) 'Welcome to the "Wormhole Theory of the Month" club. Thank you for your kind donation. Now kindly leave your critical thought at the door and let's all group hug. Did I mention we are going to go IPO?' (c) If you can make wormholes, you can violate causality, the second law of thermodynamics, the Uncertainty Principle, and Robert's Rules of Order. (d) You can't make a beowulf cluster out of these things.
Group 2: (skeptical laypeople who haven't a clue what the physics is, but are ignorant enough not to realize how little they know, people who try to use big, important-sounding science words but haven't a clue what they mean) This can't work because: (a) Just what the **** is a "closed time-like loop" anyway, you pretentious twerp! (b) relativity is wrong (let me tell you why). (c) Scientists don't know what they are talking about. (d) I saw on the Discovery Channel that this wasn't possible. (e) A beowulf cluster of these things would be lame since there's no Open Source support for wormholes.
Group 3: (agathistic laypeople who haven't a clue what the physics is, but are ignorant enough not to realize how little they know, people who instinctively distrust those who use big, important-sounding science words) (a) He must be right since a few well-known historical figures were right about something and they were told they were wrong. (Of course I'll conveniently forget about the umteen thousands who were told they were wrong and actually turned out to be wrong). (b) How do you KNOW he isn't right? You don't, do you! You can't prove it so shut up and allow ME to speak about something I know nothing about. (c) Wouldn't it be great if this worked? This is just like Star Trek! It's so cool! (d) Imagine a beowulf cluster of these things!!!!
Group 4: (trolls, Republicans) (a) JonKatzSux(tm)! (b) OpenSourceSux(tm)! (c) I wonder what would happen if I had a wormhole in my pocket and poured hot grits down my pants. (d) BeowulfClustersSux(tm)!
Anything that cannot be classified into these four groups may safely be moderated down as being "Offtopic."
Re:A SERIOUS Question (Score:1)
The problem is that when you accelerate you system is not inertial anymore an special relativity does not hold. According to general relativity, in a non-inertial system (or in presence of a gravitational field, which is the same) light can, in fact be accelerated. When you catch up to the train or the train stops eighter you or the train are accelerating. Let say that the train is coming to a halt (so your ref. system is inertial), according to your system the light still travels at a constant light, but in the train ref system the light get accelerated and bends the same way it would in presence of a gravitational field pulling torwards the front (when you break you feel a force pushing you forward remember?).
Hope it helps
Good SF book on wormholes (Score:1)
His wormholes also need negative energy density to prop them open by initially you 'threading' a quantum tunnel and expanding it up to macro size. You then can cart off one end of the hole on a relativistic trip, bring it back to it's original twin and presto! your own time machine. One porblem though is that you can never travel back to a point before the holes were threaded up... AFAIK this was Hawking's explanation as to why we weren't flooded with tourists from the future yet....
Re:Sure they can (Score:1)
Re:just our luck... (Score:1)
Re:Build a wormhole? (Score:2)
This assumes you're going to use gravity to do the squishing. (a good assumption, as there's no force that we are capable of harnessing to do this ourselves) The other part he mentioned was trying to "compress an already existing mass"--again, kinda hard if it's < a few solar masses. (If you do come up with a harnessable energy source greater than that of the world, however, let us know, we'll want to patent it....oops, faux pas?
Phun with (impractical) physics
Re:Creating negative energy (Score:1)
:}
Re:In search of Exotic matter (Score:1)
Re:My problem with wormhole theories (Score:2)
If we're creating these things out of a near-dozen dimensions, how the heck do we send our own little 3D selves through them with any semblance of direction?
Inflationary Universe model (Score:2)
The premise of the Inflationary model is that initially, the Universe was in a "false vacuum" state where the energy density of empty space was high, but this state was only psuedo-stable. Thanks to quantum tunneling effects at some point this state could "tunnel" down into the true vacuum state we see today, thus releasing all of this energy into the Universe and driving its exponential expansion for a period of 10^-32 sec.
The "matter" (most likely in the form of free quarks, gluons and various bosons) was already present from the Big Band event rather than being created through inflation.
Similarly, if you inflate the interior of a wormhole, unless you put energy into it then you are simply decreasing the energy density, making the creation of new exotic matter less likely rather than more likely.
Re:Man made wormhole? (Score:2)
Disclaimer- I took physics three years ago and got a C, but I think I'm right on this.
-B
Re:My problem with wormhole theories (Score:3)
I may not be able to convince you of an answer with just hand-waving, (w/o a mess of formal mathematics) which is really what this all is, but well, neither of the first couple of replies is quite right I think; here's the best I can say:
It's true that 2D-3D, 3D-4D comparisons are not exactly analogous in every way, but the significant part is more that wormholes create a distortion--locally (you're not "folding" the whole worldsheet/universe)--in spacetime such that the distance along a wormhole's wall is not zero, but pretty short. In your earth/tunnel analogy, the earth hasn't changed/distorted any, and, well, there's really nothing analagous to the dirt dug up. :) The 2D surface of the earth is usually compared to our 3D universe; if you think of the surface as first flat with a grid drawn on it, and then distort it by placing a mass on it, the grid lines will distort or "stretch," if you like. The wormhole is like when the object is so dense it pushes the surface down so far the grid lines on the "walls" of the wormhole are effectively "infinitely" far apart. If this distortion connects up with another place on the surface, you have a wormhole, where just normally going one ("stretched") grid unit gets you really far.
Supersymmetric theories and their extensions tend to only work if space has, say, 10 dimensions, or 26. Obviously, by looking around, we can tell that these "extra" dimensions don't manifest themselves macroscopically. Where they "are" is a subject of speculation in this theoretical work.
Anyway, most of this is just hand-waving, which is why most physicists don't even glance at this subject unless they're actually doing formal work in it. Very little in this subject is "reasonable" or makes sense, without the massive formalisms that the ideas are based on. I find it interesting that (almost all) otherwise brilliant coders and the like latch on to some pretty strange ideas about the physical world they live in. I've been coding for long enough to know this; and I've done physics for enough years to know that I don't understand this stuff (theoretical cosmology and the like), and probably never will. You (anyone) may think you are starting to understand a lot of it, but, trust me, you don't. :) (It has nothing to do with you intrinsically.)
This phenomenon helps explain many of Hemos's strange science posts. :) Not to say that you shouldn't keep waving your hands (you just won't be doing any real/useful physics by it); while this subject itself is not "Stuff that Matters" much, it's fun, and maybe that matters enough.
$0.02
This is wrong (Score:2)
In an S-orbital an electron is only around the atom 90 some percent of the time, the rest of the time it's off galavanting in the Andromeda galaxy or someplace.
The probablity of finding an electron some distance from the nucleus of a hydrogen atom (I am picking hydrogen because the math is easy, but it will give you an idea of magnitudes for all elements). Is given by the integral of the wave function squared over the volume you are looking at.
If we do this for hydrogen over the distance 529 Angstroms to infinity, we get a probability of 1.52x10^-863, a very small number. Thus, while the electron can theoretically be found anywhere, chances are that you will find the electron comfortablly snuggled up with its nucleus in the ground state (at least on the astronomical length scales you are talking about).
Re:Builiding a bridge (Score:2)
>forces exerted on it by the wormhole? or are we just hoping that there won't be any turbulence?
Actually, as I understand it, this is where most of the current theory is focusing. It's believed that quantum wormholes (i.e. *very* small) exist in some interesting quantity. The trick is to "inflate" one to a useful size. The tiny detail often omitted is that a "useful" size isn't the size of the ship, but rather big enough for the forces to be sufficently weak in the center that a ship could conceivably survive. The sizes postulated are ludicrous -- in the millions of kilometers, I think.
This inflating process requires "negative energy" (which I need better drugs to understand) in obscene quantities. The article seems to imply a theoretical wormhole that is somehow self-sustaining -- the wormhole itself, directly or indirectly, generates enough negative energy to maintain its size.
Man my hands are tired from all this furious waving.
Re:Wormhole-building Engineering Challenges (Score:2)
Actually, the more massive a black/worm hole you have, the gentler the gravity gradient is at the event horizon, iirc. I don't remember the exact math, but I'm fairly sure that's how it works.
*scribbles furiously for awhile*
The Event Horizon is the distance from the black hole at which the escape velocity is the speed of light. Tide is the difference in pull - falling feetfirst, the black hole pulls harder on your feet than your head, so the victim turns into spaghetti.
Acceleration due to gravity is inversely proportional to the square of distance to the singularity. Tide is inversely proportional to the cube. The greater the mass, the less tide there is for a certain strength of gravity, since the gravity well spreads out over a larger space. IIRC, at the event horizon, the tide is far weaker for a bigger, more massive hole.
A Serious Answer (Score:2)
Don't worry...from the looks of things you're way ahead most of the posters today...
If you want to check out a really good, credible source of physics information on the net, I suggest the Usenet Physics FAQ [ucr.edu] if you just can't be bothered to pick up a textbook.
Both questions of yours are really close to a general question known as the Twin Paradox. Basically, who's clock moves slower (or who's actually ageing slower)? The incredibly short answer is that time in the train's frame of reference, for the period that it moves at a relativistic speed compared to you, travels slower compared to time in your frame. In other words, after you accelerate (or the train slows down) for you to compare, your clock will be ahead.
The answer to your second question lies in the fact that the spacetimes of the two ships are fundamentally different from each other. 0.75c is a measurement of speed in your reference, and not the other spaceship's. Therefore, at relativistic speeds, vectors don't add normally. The other spaceship moving towards you is going 0.96c in your frame of reference. (Work out v =((v1-v2)/(1-(v1v2/c^2))) where v1 = 0.75c, and v2 = -0.75c.)
Enough rambling...the FAQ should answer any other questions you or anybody else might have.
telnet://bbs.ufies.org
Trade Wars Lives
telnet://bbs.ufies.org
Trade Wars Lives
Re:Man made wormhole? (Score:2)
...phil
Problem? (Score:2)
Saying things like "wormholes makes it easy to travel between distant parts of the universe" is as dumb as saying "going into a black hole makes time go faster" (or if it was slower, or if that only applied to an outside observer, or whatever).
The thing is, if you go *near* a black hole you're DEAD. Then you don't care about if time stops or if the universe ends within seconds.
Wouldn't going through a wormhole be the same thing?
I mean, send an apple in at one end, get a slight increase in radiation in the other...
Interesting theoretical ideas, but I want to keep my molecules in the shape they're in.
(sorry for not knowing more about wormholes)
Re:This is wrong (Score:2)
Re:Original article pointer (Score:2)
What always amazed me about this discussion is that many scientists, who are trained to believe that nothing is automatically impossible just because it doesn't fit common sense, and who are used to dealing with quantum mechanical effects that absolutely do not match any kind of common sense mental construction, will nevertheless make the statement (which you didn't make, ckd, you just reminded me of it) that "wormholes would mean time travel, which violates causality, and therefore wormholes can't possible be used to transmit people or information in any way, ipso facto".
Bullshit; if the math says they can, then they can. If the math doesn't say they can, they can't. Period. Causality doesn't enter into it.
We don't have all the math yet to know for sure. People who try to develop that understanding shouldn't have to take the kind of crap that they get from a certain segment of the scientific community.
Remember, Einstein wasted a lot of his time denying aspects of Quantum Physics that he'd have been a lot better off working WITH, instead of against. Yes, the quest to disprove a theory is a valuable one, but when you reach a certain point you're not being thorough anymore, you're just being stubborn and depriving the world of the insights you could have made doing some real work.
How much better off would the world have been with the good work Einstein could have been doing instead? Maybe we'll never know.
You are wrong again (Score:2)
COnsidering the number of electrons in the universe is somewhere about a googleplex to the power of a googleplex to another googleplex it is fairly safe to assert that There is a decent number of electrons not existing anywhere near their atom at any given moment.
Assuming that there are an equal number of protons and electrons in the universe, (which I would imagine is true, at least to a few orders of magintude), we can guess that there are somewhere around 3*10**80 electrons in the universe. This is far less than the multi-power of googleplex non-sense you are talking about.
This gives a probability of 4.56*10**-783 of finding any electron, in the whole freaking universe more than 529 Angstroms from its nucleus. (Assuming Z=1 and all the electrons are in the ground state. Even if lifting these conditions increase the probablity by a few hundred orders of maginitude, we are still talking about something that for all practical purposes just doesn't happen, even if it is "allowed" to happen by quantum mechanics.)
Re:An executive summary of the "debate." (Score:2)