Slashdot Mirror
Could We Find a Door To A Parallel Universe?
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."'"
Geesh, this isn't new news, it happened back in the 1960's... as I recall it was on stardate 3134.0
we sent a captain, a doctor, and a scientist through the portal. Geesh, people have been talking about it for 40 years now.
In Soviet Russia, the door to a parallel universe finds us.
God spoke to me.
How about publicizing actual discoveries instead of random speculation?
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.
IANAP, but most "energy" variables can be thought of as the square of some other physical properties (kinetic energy is related to velocity squared, electrical energy is related to voltage or current squared, etc.) So to get "negative energy", it would seem that we need imaginary (as in the number i = sqrt(-1) ) values of velocity, voltage, current, etc. So now my brain hurts (and the real physicists on slashdot can enjoy ripping me to shreds or educating me as is their wont)
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
"possible way to tell the two kinds of object apart"
It's the beard. We've known this for some time.
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).
We had "anti-matter," "dark matter," now "phantom matter." Jesus, is there anything substantial and real in physics anymore? As the years go on, physics starts to sound less and less like science and more and more like "Alice in Wonderland." Everything seems to hinge on things we can't see, or can't measure, or can't prove. Unless some of this mumbo jumbo can give me eternal life, make women throw themselves at me, or build a better and more luscious cheeseburger, I'm not interested.
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
Sounds more like crackpot physics to me. Only physicists can get away with crap like this. In any other field of science, this sort of voodoo bullshit would not be tolerated. I tell it like I see it. Mod me down and see if I care. ahahaha...
Jean-Pierre Petit, ex director of CNRS, made a lot of mathematical proof of the possibility of negative mass and the implication. If interested, please read those explanations.
http://www.jp-petit.org/science/arxiv/publications_recentes.htm
Link to :
Bigravity as an interpretation of cosmic acceleration : http://www.jp-petit.org/science/arxiv/CITV_1_acceleration_english.pdf
Bigravity : A bimetric model of the Universe. Exact nonlinear solutions. Positive and negative gravitational lensings: http://www.jp-petit.org/science/arxiv/CITV_2_exact_solutions_english.pdf
Yeah, but he should do it in a barrel, from the Canadian side.
Insightful and funny are really the same thing, except one has a punch line.
> 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 would accelerate along the axis of that rod
> without any expenditure of energy.
That would no more produce acceleration than would the same experiment done with positive and negative electric charges. The two gravitational charges will just repel each other, producing tension in the rod.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Phantom matter can be observed but only for a limited time. A wormhole can only stay open stay open for 38 minutes, unless the O'Neill power booster is connected to the power supply to the gate.
Antimatter is something real, observed, understood, and which we can actually make, albeit in tiny quantities.
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", 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.
isn't it part of the same universe?
What sound do people on rollercoasters make? Hint: it's not Xbox 360.
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.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
<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?
I think that there is no straight answer, and that Keith Laumer in the "WORLDS OF THE IMPERIUM" may have one approach, and Robert Anson Heinlein had another in "Number of the Beast" (among others), but I think that Douglas Adams 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 was considered completely outrageous 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 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.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Where's the violation?
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.
when Ann Coulter endorses Hillary Clinton. If that isn't being transported to some parallel universe, I don't know what is...
I guess we're all too stupid to understand the Timecube...
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
black hole == lots of matter going somewhere but we don't know where.
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.
I have excellent Karma and I am not afraid to Troll it.
Radiation here! Radiation! Get yer radiation! Here ya go buddy, that'll be $3.50. Radiation! Get yer readiation!
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
The state of modern astrophysics is very healthy, thank you.
The conventional theories can't adequately explain why planets appear to frequently have hotspots at their poles.
Er, you do realise, I hope, that the study of planets in our solar system isn't really part of astrophysics? And hasn't been for several decades now? You realise that there's a whole new field of science - planetary science - that studies these phenomena?
There remains no explanation within the conventional theories for why the solar wind continues to accelerate even as it passes the planets.
BUSTED, just a few days ago ... (http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22208390)
I've yet to see any credible attempt to explain why the Deep Impact impactor generated two flashes at the time of impact
Are you perhaps referring to a certain PDF document, that you provided a link to in an earlier comment, purportedly by a (self-declared) physicist (Wallace Thornhill) and David Talbott, purportedly a poster at a 2006 IEEE international conference* (and associated webpages)?
Or perhaps you could provide a link to a reputable source, concerning these "two flashes"?
If we can see elements popping into existence within simple ball lightning laboratory experiments,
What's ultimately really silly about how science operates these days is that there is far too much eagerness to cast aside alternative competing theories that challenge the conventional ones.
One of the great things^ about the contemporary internet is that it's so easy to get things published. Even better is that there are sites which permit publication of physics papers, with far weaker requirements than a relevant peer-reviewed journal has, permitting "alternative competing theories" to get an airing that they otherwise would not. The strong will survive, and go on to become (perhaps) a paper in a good journal, and maybe, just maybe, a Nobel Prize for the author.
But we've been over this, you and I many, many times; if you think you have a framework and method - different from the standard (physics) paradigm you explicitly reject - why not lay it out? Let the world hear of how you think science should really be done!
And by the way, point me to your comet document when it's ready. I'm very eager to see what you come up with!
It's done:
EU rebuttal #(insert large integer here) http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22196268
actualistic vs prophetic - false dilemma? http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22204234
So open your brains fall out? http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22204404
electric comet (1) - "Rules of evidence" http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22208390
Image copyrights - addendum http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22208968
EU paradigm - hypothesis on "evidence" http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22209504
Must accurately reflect source? Not for EU-ers! http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid
If the "Tim Thompson" material being referred to is "On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis" http://www.tim-thompson.com/electric-sun.html, then there's an obvious continuity with my quick look at what's wrong with the T&T PDF document.
Let's start with this, from the Tim's introduction (my emphasis): It is not my intention, at least for now, to address the issues raised, and alleged to be in favor of the electric-sun hypothesis. Rather, it is my intent to show that the arguments of Scott et al. against the standard interpretations of stellar physics are devoid of merit. This is an important point, because it shifts to the champions of the electric-sun hypothesis, the responsibility for showing that their hypothesis is better than the standard. What I have done is go back one step further in the chain, and show that three (of four) working hypotheses about "the Electric Universe framework and method" can be tested and given a tick in the "YES" box, using this PDF document as a representative sample.
It also shifts to the champions of the EU framework and approach the responsibility for showing that their methods are better than the standard.
Here are those four working hypotheses again:
#1: in the EU paradigm, "theory" is indistinguishable from "speculation in prose".
#2: EU theories cannot be falsified, even in principle, by any experimental ("in the lab") or observational results.
#2a: Within the Electric Universe framework and approach, evidence presented does not need to accurately reflect its source, nor be fully attributed; copyrights need not be respected.
#3: EU theories are internally inconsistent.
As is clear from the material presented in the SD comments linked to in my earlier comment here, the first three hypotheses are validated; the last was not tested (but is unlikely to be validated - meaninglessness is perfectly consistent with meaninglessness).
Rather to my surprise, I found that the document may be an intellectual fraud - it purports to be something which it is not (a poster presentation at the 2006 ICOPS, an international scientific conference). More surprising is that pln2bz does not seem to regard this as serious
Now of course there may be a perfectly reasonable explanation
* as far as I know it is not illegal, in the US or Australia, to claim a document is a poster presentation at an international scientific conference when it is not.
^ unless they are perfectly comfortable with such practices and behaviours.