Slashdot Mirror
Wormholes? Maybe.
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.
the nearest one would lead into intergalactic space.
The article piques my interest, but I am wondering exactly what is meant by building a wormhole... The scientist acknowledges that we lack the technonlgy to build such a thing, but in saying that, does he have any CLUE about how to go about it? I can't even begin to imagine how to go about it. Of course, there is always that miniscule possibilty that we might find one through sheer luck...
-isnt it strange to be anything at all.... -jeff mangum
"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...
---------------
---------------
JavaScript tutorials scripts
Since around the same time Americans couldn't tell the difference between astronomy and astrology...
The original New Scientist article is online, as is the full paper 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.
If this were true, it would be most amazing...but unless they were both abundant and local, they wouldn't do us too much good. If there were enough of them, we could use them, but that's a big if.
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
How is this useful?
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.
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!
"Prejudice is wrong; you should hate everyone the same."
It's raining like hell here in Boise, and there's Wormholes all over my lawn!
Halp!
Eric Lecht
"I do what I can, I work in the dark"
>finding one would have a dramatic effect on
>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!
Opening a wormhole on our side might be trivial (let us assume). But, that's just like having a phone with no phone line or switchboard. If we were to travel to Alpha Centuria, we'd need a corrosponding worm hole on that side. That means someone has to physically go 4 light years there and construct a mirror worm hole. And thus it's not feasible to use wormholes to travel to distant places in our universe. Unless some other party on some other distant part of the known galaxy created a similar worm hole and sent us the coordinates.
--
Krasnikov's Subway is an old idea; it was written as a response to Alcubierre's warp drive article, which I think we talked about here a while ago. It is perfectly consistent as a solution to classical general relativity, but the requirement for this is an enormous (about 10^80 times the mass of the universe) amount of negative mass. There are various quantum theorems that tell us that QM prevents anything more than infinitesimal amounts of negative mass from forming, so I wouldn't bother planning any Alpha Centauri commutes aboard this subway. (BTW, the Alcubierre warp drive has very similar problems. Both of these came out in the early '90s.)
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.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Ah, yes. The armchair, untrained theorist who is smarter than every theoretical physicist on the rest of the Earth, including Stephen Hawking.
If you're so smart, why are you wasting your time on Slashdot?
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
sig?
IANAP. However, from the reading I've done, it would seem that to produce even a very small wormhole would take an enormous amount of negative mass in a very small space... You can look here for a sort of random discussion of traversable wormholes.
--
The gravitational constant of protein has been changed[...] Also, rabbit carcasses no longer weigh as much a
While attempts to unify the fundamental forces of nature suggest that tiny quantum wormholes may exist, most experts suspect that some fundamental law of physics prevents the formation of large wormholes--not least because these would theoretically allow time travellers to go back in time and, say, prevent their own birth by accidentally killing one of their parents.
This was in the second paragraph.
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'
...and one thing I noticed: way too little math. I will grant that I did not look at the math closely, but have you ever read through any Astrophysics journal article that had more words than equations?
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."
I demand a million helicopters and a DOLLAR!
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.
Brought to you by: "Al"toids - the curiously weird mint.
Vodka... Tequila... the choice is up to you!
"Prejudice is wrong; you should hate everyone the same."
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
sig?
Constructing a wormhole wouldn't be that difficult if we could infact produce enough energy to do so. That and overcome the enormous effects that warping space to such a degree would impose. Consider the classical Einstien-Rosen bridge (i.e. wormholes/blackholes), under this postulation black holes are essentially wormholes with one end. Stuff goes in but doesn't come out. Either way, the space around a black hole warps the same way the space around a wormhole would. Assuming you could create one, could you create a craft capable of withsanting the freakish forces exerted on it by the wormhole? or are we just hoping that there won't be any turbulence?
for communication! if the wormhole is atomic-size, photons that are smaller than an atom, can pass thru the wormhole. We know how to make coherent light (laser), just aim right at the center of the wormhole (once one is discovered) and the laser will reappear at the other side. Using a "blinking" laser we could use some kind of morse to communicate with someone on the other side of the wormhole.
--
BeDevId 15453 - Download BeOS R5 Lite free!
"Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
What would be the effects of gravity on these things...
or vice versa
i cannot access xxx.lanl.gov because the squid filter here does not like "xxx", for those of you in the same case, use this link
--
BeDevId 15453 - Download BeOS R5 Lite free!
"Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
While it's great to see that work is going forward on these avenues of thought, there seems to be a number of sticky engineering prblems that need to be adressed before wormhole-hopping becomes a feasable mode of transport, even if the math proves correct.
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.
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
The Cardassians are from the alpha quandrant, and in fact had previously occupied Bajor and DS9.
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.
Gee, I can't imagine how the sun can keep burning for what seems like eternity without any air out there in space to feed the fire, so it must not be possible either! /sarcasm
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
Ok, maybe somebody with more physics beckground can explain this to me.
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?
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.
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.
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Not to point out the obvious, but....
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
Coming soon - pyrogyra
My hair is pointing, Dave. I can feel it....
www.eFax.com are spammers
I've never understood this fascination with going to Alpha Centauri. There's not likely to be much there (ob Bob the Angry Flower). Just 'cos it's nearby doesn't strike me as a particularly good reason.
;)
I mean, I live in Seattle, but you don't catch me going to Redmond, and that's not far.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
While I am intrigued by the idea of wormholes and do think they might exist, I still don't buy it when it comes to proving they are mathematically possible by General Relativity as Einstein himself didn't believe the theory of General Relativity was correct. I share that opinion and was hoping somebody could clarify.
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.
IANAY (I am not awake yet) but I remember hearing once that space at a small enough scale is all made up of a quantum foam of billions of tiny wormholes and cul-du-sacs. Isn't it not so much a question of if these things are around as whether or not it's practical enough to just grab one of the infinite number of them in a given space and pry the mouth open with something?
How many boards would the mongols hoard if the mongol hordes got bored?
I am getting rather sick of this. From the article:
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
A question for deep physicists in the crowd.
... just under 8000 miles. Gee, 1/3rd off, what tremendous savings! Now we can travel interstellar distances easily.
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.
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
I am as smart as everyone else on the planet [3 from star, 1 moon] as I put out a theory and attempt to give my idea. As for the comment from the AC, good. All these 'throies' work, in a sense. Put them to math, it CAN be done. But, that is just math, anything can be 'proven'.
Wacked-Support NT
Oh Wormholes... a step closer to deep space 9, but still far far away. Anyways, I wouldn't choose Alpha Centauri for a vacation, isn't that a wannabe real star, aka a brown dwarf? I'd think I'd go to Beta Pictoris or something like that.
I really believe it is possible these things exist. However: ~Finding one might be dangerous because the existance is almost the same as a quantumsingularity.(black hole). ~Creating one might even be more dangerous because you need lots of energy. ~Travelling towards one is not so interesting because of the laws of relativity, your time will propably stop completely so it will take faster (according to the observer on earth anyway) swimming to alpha centaury.
quantum travel look to your nearest electron, they have a funny little ability to tunnel through space to be anyplace they want to be. 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. Quantum physics is fun!
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
I intend to provide a service to the /. community by summarizing the "debate," if I may be so bold as to characterize it as such, regarding this and every other wormhole-related post:
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."
Just to add to an earlier comment... read Stephen Baxter's "Timelike Infinity" - this is hard SF that covers the issues with this type of wormhole and how you can use them as time machines.
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....
OK. As for wormholes, lets base them on "explanations" of black holes, as they are told to have much in common, the difference being that a black hole does not have the "exit hole". Let's remember that black holes are just a theory as well as wormholes. Assuming that the theory is correct, black holes contain a speed of 2x light, as would a worm hole (according to its theoretical explanation), therefore anything inside it would be exposed to and travelling at 2x light (approx. 133,920,000 miles per hour, or 372,000 miles per second), therefore it would take 1/2 a year to travel one light year and it would only take 2.25 years to reach Alpha Centauri (this is assuming the worm hole is within an insignificant distance from Earth, and the worm hole exits at Alpha Centauri).
But I, for a completely inexplicable reason (too hard to explain and put in to words, and probably too hard to comprehend being another person-with my method of explaining the inexplicable) believe that ANYTHING exceeding the speed of light would create a permanent dent in space and time, which could be similiar to that of a black hole or worm hole due to the mass concentration of gravity (or something, assuming that gravity revolves around the speed of light...), but as another part of this theory, the dent would have a constant flow of speed, therefore increasing the density of gravity, therefore rapidly getting faster and faster (or something). When I apply this theory to things, it seems like black holes and worm holes could be impossible, as they would slowly concentrate the universe and increase gravity levels meaning the universe is now getting more dense at a constant rate, and the process keeps getting faster and faster...this is getting inexplicable, you may know what I mean.
Another "theory" of mine is that the universe is infinitely expanding as light continues to infinitely travel and stuff...I hate trying to explain this stuff...
As humans on Earth it seems everything we know is on a basis that everything has a creator and container, with which seems could not possibly apply to the universe...the container of it would need a container and...and the creator would need a creator...BUT, things do not have to be this way, for we as humans on Earth have never attempted to explain any other way or really think about any other way, but the bottom line here is that it really doesn't matter, because no explanation can be truely correct as it is based on beliefs and theories, and the basis for everything will never ever be known, and if it even were to be known some day some how, it would not make any difference whatsoever...
Also, slightly pertaining to this, when a scientist is to say that most likely life does exist on Europa (moon of Jupiter) under the ice, the scientist has nothing truely to base it on, as no one knows the basis for everything and the basis for "life", life does not neccessarily automagically exist because there is all of the elements we need to live at this place...this is also pertaining to Darwinism...
Basically, if someone is to say it is "Most Likely to be this way [or something]" that could never be "most likely" as we only know the conditions of life on one planet and do not know any others, and there is just no real evidence or anything to base it on...and for people that may say things like "Why would be the ONLY life that exists, huh, why just us, of course their has to be something else, some other life on some other planet somewhere" I say to a statement like this: "Why Not".
And for other things like Alien lifeforms walking on Earth, I find it too hard for this really to happen because that Alien lifeform would be exposed to different gravity and would have evolved to that form of gravity, and the gravity on Earth could simply make the lifeform go flying up into the air or extremely heavy and it would be extremely hard to move...
These are just my opinions and theories, and I have many others, but the length...
"spare the lachrymosity when the fulminations have inveighed"
-madd
I liked your post. It shouldn't be flame bait or moderated down, just because you make fun of John Katz. Katz is a good guy, but a tad self-riteous and takes himself very seriously. I think the your post has a certain antithetical wisdom to it. What if someone was paraphrasing /.? it would read like your post, I say moderate it up, at least back to one. Besides, there IS galaxy eating tube worms working for Nazis or whatever.
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.
well, thanks. :) it was supposed to be funny, but i knew it would be moderated down when i wrote it - the chances of everyone who moderates having a sense of humor AND the ability to comprehend communal self-deprecation and ALSO having read the article and understanding that it sucks and is bullshit fluff that has no place occupying our desktops are far too slim.
much more likely is that some moron with a few points will be poking around and say.. i wonder what baha'i is? well, he said nazi, so i'll mod him down!
fucking idiot moderators. if a post confuses you, or if you haven't read, say, everything in question (because you're too busy getting your rocks off moderating people down) - well, you know where this is going.
--
blue, burning karma for jon 'the whole world is a nazi conspiracy' katz.
i browse at -1 because they're funnier than you are.
Hey thats exactly how i wanted to build my timemachine a few years ago! It was sth. like this: One would need an infinit amount of alcohol. Then sit down in a bar and start drinking. Time seems to pass realllly slow in the beginning and when it comes to closing time it just flees in no time. If you could simply use this effect by travelling backwards and forwards in time by boozing infinitly youd have an alcohol based timemachine...err...its late i betta go to bed...
Pointing out the origins of Margaret Thatcher doesn't really count, though.
=)
Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know.
i was just thinking that maybe warner brothers had it right all along. imagine carrying one of these wormholes around and strategically placing it for quick escapes.
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).
This is a new twist, all that negative mass may be created by the wormhole itself. This statement is important:
Krasnikov says, "What's new is that this wormhole actually generates enough to make it arbitrarily large."
So, perhaps only a little is required to get it started, then it will create more, up to some point which differs for different wormholes apparently.
Zipwow
I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
OK, now that I've read the opinions of so many others who have no clue, I feel like injecting my own clueless thoughts :-)
First of all, I'm sick of reading stuff written by those who know little about physics or math.
Secondly, I know very little about physics or math compared to the people doing this research.
Now that I've said that, I'll go do exactly what I hate everyone else doing and apply my high school math and physics knowledge (along with a college electricity & magnetism and course and some random knowledge I've picked up my own, none of which is particularly useful here).
Look at the paper, page 7. I don't know much about GR, and I know even less about the quantum theory involved in computing a term $T^{Q}_{ik}$. However, I do see something that looks very odd to me.
After eq. 5, we see the statement "where $\Omega$ and $K$ are smooth positive even functions." Is the *even* part important? If so, look at eq. 6. It says $\Omega ~ \Omega_{0} exp(Bx)$. Last I heard, the exponential function was not even.
Does anyone with enough knowledge of the physics of this problem care to explain why the paper contradicts itself here? It would be nice if the paper didn't omit most of the mathematical derivations...
Another thing: for those of you who complain about time paradoxes and the like... (please keep in mind I'm far from an expert here, but this is my understanding) notice that, according to the paper, these wormholes would only facilitate FTL travel if they could be moved. A stationary wormhole would allow faster travel (because the areas are essentially closer in space-time than was previously thought, if a wormhole connects them) but would not lead to time travel or other paradoxes. Since we have no technology for moving wormholes, FTL paradoxes don't seem to be a problem... it appears that the only way this theory would be useful for travel, in any reasonable time frame, would be if we find a way to discover pre-existing wormholes. Don't expect us to be building our own anytime soon...
That's just my $0.02... probably pretty worthless given my lack of background knowledge on this subject, but maybe someone who knows a bit more can explain why I'm right or wrong.
Matt Reece
I hate to sink to a level like this, but...well, sure I'll give you that one line was purely improperly worded, but, maybe you should get a dictionary and look up "theory" one or eight more times.
"have all the answers"? make that one or nine times.
dogmatic pontificating? umm, make that the whole dictionary.
"spare the lachrymosity when the fulminations have inveighed"
-madd
If you can't say anything original, give credit where credit is due. In this case I think it was Pearl Mesta.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
A while yet? A while?
We better figure out how to make one pretty soon so that we can that Voyager back home and end the show!
.sig last updated Jan. 14, 2000
...out of a relationship? My cousin told his girlfriend that her sister was "a nice piece of ass" after a quarter of a bottle on New Years, he then grabbed the sister's butt. 20 mins later he passed out in a chair.
The best analogy that I have heard so far, from just about anyone (here, school, crazy physics profs) is the ball of silly-putty which you take pieces and smush them together. This is quickly followed by the proviso that it's all in dimensions that we cant understand, and that nothing we can say or write will really explain it, but that's not the point. So from this, here is my question/comment. I have heard several people rant about how it wont work because an object cannot exsist in two places at once. But it seems like that's not really what's happening. Really, the object is exsisting in only one place, but two locations are occupying the same part of the 4th/11th/umpteenth/whateverth dimensional space that we're dealing with. So... 1) wouldnt that mean that we could (providing we build a wormhole) successfully compress the entire univers onto a single geometric point? 2) doesnt that mean that if we could build one wormhole then energy would be no problem, by simply using the first wormhole to facilitate fissin/fusion (i get the two mixed up) to supply all the energy we need?
No moderator points, but if I had some, you'd get'm. :) Oh, wait... I've posted here...
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 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
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Stefan.
The truth shall make you fret. (Ankh-Morpork tImes motto)
I see a slight problem here.
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)
It's 11pm, do you know what your deamons are up to?
While your conclusions are inarguable, there remains the fact that there is a very definate upper bound on the "steepness" of the gradient - the tensile strength of the human body.
I, uhh, don't have figures that would indicate exactly what that strength might be, but I suspect it's on the order of a thousand kilos or so.
If the gravity gradiant, even on the "gentle" hole, is steep enough such that there exists a point where a point separated by about 2m has a 1000kg difference, you've just killed your travellers.
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
"I want to work in the theoritical ... Everything works in Theory"
Speaking of which, maybe you could call it embarassment, I don't know...my cousin was posting several things on slashdot, in which this one he didn't anonymously post it.
It kind of pisses me off how he couldn't even use correct grammar, punctuation, and spelling...aside from the "universe expanding light theory" which was absolutely incredibly stupid.
Don't worry, he's an idiot in real life too.
"spare the lachrymosity when the fulminations have inveighed"
-madd
Just a thought
If you had a lot of small wormholes that could be lined up then you could make a matter transporter. Why not just transport each individual atom of a piece of matter at the same time and you would get the same effect as throwing the whole chunk through a big wormhole. The trick would be to synchronize all the microscopic wormholes in one area so that the ends and alignments are identicle. This would in effect create a portal that would tranmit matter without having to bend the heck out of space time the way a larger wormhole would. Maybe this explains some strange things that have been noted. Telepathy could be caused by the brain being able to tranmit thought waves through such portals. Teleportation could also be caused by the brain having the ablity to line up a region of microscopic wormholes. Clarivoince could be achieved this way also. Even precog if someone from the "future" sent a message via wormhole to someone in the present.
Another plus is that individual atoms are very sturdy compared to larger structures. The only downside is if you were to transport something living it would require a awful lot of precision to ensure that everything got to where it was going at exactly the correct moment and place.
Jumping to correct solutions slowly is better than jumping to incorrect solutions quickly.
Or bring back that Crichton fellow who went through a wormhole in 'FARSCAPE' and is now at the other extreme of the universe :) We could end his show too!
SCIREV.NET - fanfics,reviews & more
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.)
IF the worm holes are self sustaining and we could create them, then we could create "regular trade routes". We could end up with an interstellar worm hole highway. Probably end up with a tole on that too.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that