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."'"
Yes, it's called the "portal" (Score:4, Funny)
we sent a captain, a doctor, and a scientist through the portal. Geesh, people have been talking about it for 40 years now.
Sorry guys, can't resist (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Sorry guys, can't resist (Score:5, Funny)
Most useless press release ever (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Most useless press release ever (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Most useless press release ever (Score:5, Funny)
I was going to post a Google Images link, but without SafeSearch the result list isn't exactly what you might expect...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Most useless press release ever (Score:5, Funny)
Warning! Do not look into black hole with remaining eye!
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20080131 [userfriendly.org]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
.
Hawking radiation (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Most useless press release ever (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The extent of most science reporters education in science doesn't extend very far beyond star trek and sliders.
Re: (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.
Darwin's portal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are the older Will Robinson from the movie Lost In Space, and I claim my £5.
Re:Most useless press release ever (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
yes its speculation, but as long as it provides a way to test said speculation, it cant just be dismissed without said test being performed.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You must be new here.
Re: (Score:2)
STOP THE PRESSES!
Seriously, the time for a press release would be when you have something concrete, like some way to test any of these speculations: "I predict that if a black hole has (observable property), then it is actually a wormhole" or "We could determine if phantom matter exists by doing experiment foo"
Sounds like science fiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to me that if its identical in most respects to a black hole, its probably, y'know, a hole of the blackish persuasion, other universe or not.
Even if, in some fanciful way, they were usable, what good would it do us?
First off, the closest black hole is pretty far off.
Secondly, about that other universe, if it had different laws of physics, we couldn't exist there anyway.
Therefore, I say w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, if you can prove something doesn't exist or isn't true, then you can assume another theory is the more probable scenario. However, one must be opened minded that the next best possible scenario also might be proven to be false eventually as well.
Actually, I think most of astronomy and quantum physics is basically about what you can prove isn't true rather than what you can prove true mostly for the fact that we are limit
Re: (Score:2)
That's theoretical physics for you. If this catches people's imaginations, 50 years from now Phantom Matter will be treated as fact by most people, just like all the other made up "matters" we have now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's like proving something exists buy using something that doesn't exist. I admire the guys imagination though. Just seems like he wants it to exist so he's making it so. IMHO science should be about working with the facts, which isn't what's going on here.
Actually, science advances through the interplay between theory and observation (what you're calling "facts"). The general MO is that a theory (sometimes more than one) is popularized and people make lots of observations that either disprove or fail to disprove the theory. Whenever an observation contradicts a theory, then a bunch of people go scrambling for a new theory. However, there really is no requirement that a theory be confined to previously observed observation (which, to me, is more like "fitti
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, you can prove that one thing exists by using another that doesn't exist, it's called proof by contradiction [delphiforfun.org] and it's used all the time. The basic method is that you assume the existance of the oposite of what you are trying to prove and then show that the assumption leads to some logical contradiction.
Now, the guy in TFA is not making a proof by contradiction, but you certainly can prove the existance of a re
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Experimental physics is about doing the observations, while theoretical physics is about developing the theories describing the results.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a door, but a brdige (Score:2)
Sqrt(Negative energy) = head hurts (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You could replace "i" everywhere with "sqrt(-1)" and everything would be the same. The fact that sqrt(-1) has no meaning in the physical world says nothing about using it to find a real answer; as long as the answer doesn't *contain* sqrt(-1). In fact, using imaginary numbers in calculations is very similar to using vectors.
The concept of negative energy OTOH, is not a mathematical device, and is *expec
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: (Score:2)
Of course then there are Phasors, which are something entirely different. They truly are just a mathematical trick.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but that's not true. Complex numbers are mathematically not just a separate dimension. The multiplication involved is in fact very special. For example, there are no 3-D complex numbers. The next "smallest" set of numbers like the complex numbers occurs in 4-D (the
Re:Sqrt(Negative energy) = head hurts (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I still think the claims in the article are ridiculous though.
Re:Sqrt(Negative energy) = head hurts (Score:4, Interesting)
Less esoterically, in the realm of electronics, the electrical impedance of capacitors and inductors is imaginary. However, one could argue that this is just a mathematical trick to aid computations.
I might also note (and probably other commenters have too) that Lawrence Krauss, who's mentioned in the summary, is the author of the famous The Physics of Star Trek [amazon.com], which is a great read.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
for example,
the reason we're often told an object can't travel at the speed of light is that it would then acquire infinite energy,
because the energy (momentum) of an object is proportional to 1 / [sqrt(1 - (velocity^2 / the speed of light^2))] [wikipedia.org],
so if velocity == speed of light, then momentum would be proportional to 1/0, aka infinite.
however, notice that if an object is going *faster* than the speed of light,
the nasty divide-by-zer
It's the Beard. (Score:5, Funny)
It's the beard. We've known this for some time.
Phantom Matter == Exotic Matter? (Score:2, Informative)
If you're really interested try this book by Kip Thorne:
K.S. Thorne, Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy (W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1994).
Re: (Score:2)
Does any of this matter really matter? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (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
Re:Does any of this matter really matter? (Score:4, Informative)
That's not likely, or if it is true, it's not very relevant. Fritz Zwicky [wikipedia.org] first proposed dark matter (in it's current incarnation) back in the 1930s. However, no one else in the field started to consider this idea until the 1970s (Zwicky died in '74) when other independent bits of evidence started to come in that hinted at dark matter. At that time, people in the field were particularly mindful that the problem could be resolved by either dark matter or by modifying our theories. But as time went on, more and more independent pieces of evidence came in which addressed the same issue. Now, the problem is that if you want to account for each of these observations by modifying our dynamica/gravitational theories, you have to do a different modification in each instance. On the other hand, ALL of these observations are resolved by introducing dark matter. The door was virtually shut on modified theories with the analysis of the Bullet Cluster [wikipedia.org], which simply cannot be explained by modified gravitational theories. And actually, dark matter is not so esoteric; there are many current theories in particle physics that [independently] predict the existence of a particle that would meet the characteristics that we observe and would also be naturally produced in large quantities during the big bang.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Dark matter, for
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We had "anti-matter," "dark matter," now "phantom matter." Jesus, is there anything substantial and real in physics anymore?
Yes, atleast half of what you listed exists.
anti-matter is real, has been observed, and created by man.
dark-matter is real, and has been observed at least here on earth, thou only durring the 12 hrs out of 24 that it is no longer classified as dark.
But if its there in those 12/24 hours when its not dark, and noone moves it, its clearly still there in the other 12 hours while it *is* dark-matter.
phantom-matter was just made up by this guy in his theoretical guess, but since he has so little scientific backi
Re: (Score:2)
Most Dark Matter is thought to be non-baryonic,
Re:Does any of this matter really matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's my speculation, do I get an article in New Scientist now?
even more matter (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are going to run out of non-committal prefixes at this rate. Let's see what's left:
* Invisible matter/energy (taken)
* Non-active matter/energy
* Extra fluffy matter/energy
* Elusive matter/energy
* Sneaky matter/energy
* Peek-a-boo matter/energy
* Non-married matter/en
Re: (Score:2)
Phantom matter, eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like (Score:2)
Negative mass is mathematically possible (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.jp-petit.org/science/arxiv/publications_recentes.htm [jp-petit.org]
Link to :
Bigravity as an interpretation of cosmic acceleration : http://www.jp-petit.org/science/arxiv/CITV_1_acceleration_english.pdf [jp-petit.org]
Bigravity : A bimetric model of the Universe. Exact nonlinear solutions. Positive and negative gravitational lensings: http:// [jp-petit.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Caution is indicated... (Score:2)
Negative matter, if it could exist, would be cool, though, because that would allow you to construct a perpetual motion machine of the first kind. For example, if you had a one ton ball of "regular" matter and a -1 ton ball of this "negative" matter, and were to hook them together on a fixed rod, you basically would've constructed a perpetual motion "engine" that
Re: (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 i
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.
Palance (Score:2)
I know how to make one... (Score:2)
The Existence of Phantom Matter has been Proven (Score:2, Funny)
If you can get there from here (Score:4, Insightful)
We published this already (Score:5, Informative)
It's a little hard to tell from this very brief article, but what he calls "phantom matter" is what other physicists call "exotic matter" or sometimes "negative matter," which violates one of the positive energy-conditions, and thus has negative energy (in some reference frame). Matt Visser's book Lorentzian Wormholes has a lot more technical details about the various formulations of the positive-energy conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
That's one problem with parlor speculation. It does not translate to the real world, regardless of the desires of the speculator. It should remain in the parlor.
You can craft any number of fantastic imaginary scenarios you want, but they're meaningless and of no use whatsoever as analogies. Our universe is not frictionless, it has winds both worldly and solar and there are reference points; in other words, your parlor game remains just tha
Did-a-chick? Dum-a-chum? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Either it's a Trek universe where you hear the communicators of a trek team (Kirk Here) or you are referring to something a bit more nasty.
A bit OT.. (Score:2)
I thought we already went through one (Score:3, Interesting)
when Ann Coulter endorses Hillary Clinton [youtube.com]. If that isn't being transported to some parallel universe, I don't know what is...
Re: (Score:2)
Spokesperson Quinn Mallory speaks: (Score:2)
Krauss insisting on tested assumptions? (Score:2)
'US expert Dr Lawrence Krauss, from Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, points out that the idea rests on untested assumptions.
Keep in mind, this the same guy who wrote The Physics of Star Trek and who recently was claiming that scientists consciously observing supernovae might shorten the lifetime of the universe [slashdot.org]. All that aside, Krauss is respected, but I think his statement above is a little bit of the ol'
method.
The SGC found one and window was put in area 51... (Score:2)
Re: Could We Find a Door To A Parallel Universe? (Score:2)
yeah (Score:2)
Go Pats!
wormhole == balck hole (Score:3, Interesting)
big bang == lots of matter coming from somewhere but we don't know where.
I like to think that for each black hole in our universe there is a big bang in another parallel universe. the multiverse would be in a constant state of flux as universes grew, and then when enough balck holes had appeared, were sucked out to make the raw material for new universes. these in turn eventually draining into others.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
What a Ride! (Score:2)
This thread needs a John Titor reference.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a rather popular myth. It is true that for a small black hole the tidal forces will rip you apart. But for a large black hole (such as those at the center of a galaxy), you can comfortably enter one.
Which is rather interesting in itself. Pretty much every galaxy that we can see, has a super massive black hole in the center of it. It's almost like aliens have setup wormhole portals in every galaxy...