Slashdot Mirror


Supermassive Black Hole At the Centre of Galaxy May Be Wormhole In Disguise

KentuckyFC (1144503) writes "There is growing evidence that the center of the Milky Way contains a mysterious object some 4 million times more massive than the Sun. Many astronomers believe that this object, called Sagittarius A*, is a supermassive black hole that was crucial in the galaxy's birth and formation. The thinking is that about 100 million years after the Big Bang, this supermassive object attracted the gas and dust that eventually became the Milky Way. But there is a problem with this theory--100 million years is not long enough for a black hole to grow so big. The alternative explanation is that Sagittarius A* is a wormhole that connects the Milky Way to another region of the universe or even a another multiverse. Cosmologists have long known that wormholes could have formed in the instants after the Big Bang and that these objects would have been preserved during inflation to appear today as supermassive objects hidden behind an event horizon, like black holes. It's easy to imagine that it would be impossible to tell these objects apart. But astronomers have now worked out that wormholes are smaller than black holes and so bend light from an object orbiting close to them, such as a plasma cloud, in a unique way that reveals their presence. They've even simulated what such a wormhole will look like. No telescope is yet capable of resolving images like these but that is set to change too. An infrared instrument called GRAVITY is currently being prepared for the Very Large Telescope Interferometer in Chile and should be in a position to spot the signature of a wormhole, if it is there, in the next few years."

293 comments

  1. It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    This is where He lives.

    1. Re:It is God. by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Funny

      I just wish he'd stop asking me for starships.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    2. Re:It is God. by cyberchondriac · · Score: 5, Funny

      But.. what would God need with a Starship?

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    3. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, it's just his vacation home in this galaxy.

    4. Re:It is God. by uCallHimDrJ0NES · · Score: 4, Funny

      Everybody who's seen Star Trek V knows this. We also know Spock kills God with a phaser, in accordance with the prophecies of the ancients. Then, Kirk will explain to a Romulan and a Klingon how maybe God wasn't out there anywhere at all, maybe he's right here (beats his own chest), "In the Human heart." And the Romulan and Klingon nod, like Kirk has said something wise. Hard to believe NASA gave Shatner a medal.

      --
      Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
    5. Re: It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A space craft that possibly collided with God and exists as the proportionate inverse mass in our universe but exists as electrons in a unique wave form structure in an alternate multiverse.

    6. Re:It is God. by uCallHimDrJ0NES · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I see you propose destruction for those who disagree with your view.

      --
      Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
    7. Re: It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it's God's asshole?

    8. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you propose they jump into a wormhole located tens of thousands lightyears away?

    9. Re: It is God. by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      and we're actually Klingons (cling-ons)

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    10. Re:It is God. by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm pretty sure that the anonymous coward was referencing Star Trek V http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_V:_The_Final_Frontier where it turns out to be very much not God despite a certain fanatic's belief. This is where the famous line "What does God need with a starship?" comes from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYW_lPlekiQ.

    11. Re:It is God. by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which is why many species evolved collaboration. Evolution doesn't always mean killing competitors. Some species(particularly humans) do extremely well by turning competitors into collaborators and developing mutually beneficial relationships.

      This naive approach to evolution is pathetic.

    12. Re:It is God. by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      Well if whether youre killed or not determines whether you win...then the one thing assured is that we all lose.

    13. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I see you propose destruction for those who disagree with your view.

      Why, yes.

      If your stupidity and belief system requires you to attempt to destroy my way of life, then you are a threat to me.

      The Christians who want to teach intelligent design, the Muslims who advocate Jihad, and the morons who fight against vaccination based on a discredited report, and those who think tax cuts for the rich and trickle down economics is real and effective ... these people are all dangerous idiots who think their belief system trumps facts, that some how god is on their side, and that we should all adhere to the bullshit rules they believe in.

      They are advocating for my destruction, so it's really only rational to advocate for theirs.

      Many many Christians are no better than the Taliban in their desire to force the rest of us to follow their rules.

      So, yeah, fuck the whole lot of them. Putting ignorance and stupidity on a podium is a sign of lunacy.

    14. Re:It is God. by RockClimbingFool · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dammit Slashdot!! Where are my mod points!!!

    15. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You have to have faith.

    16. Re:It is God. by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why do you think that having an absurd childish belief is simply disagreeing with his view, rather than seeing it as the deep ignorance that it is?
      Religious idiocy wouldn't be a problem, but malicious people are able to use it to get rubes to vote for insane anti-social right-wing loonies.

    17. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Despite all you just said, the killing of competitors still happens on a large scale even if we maintain a veneer of civility. Your naive view that it doesn't is pathetic.

    18. Re:It is God. by SternisheFan · · Score: 2, Funny

      How do you propose they jump into a wormhole located tens of thousands lightyears away?

      Very precisely.

    19. Re:It is God. by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Of course, the appropriate slashdot headline should read "It could be God".

    20. Re:It is God. by operagost · · Score: 3

      In the Celestial Temple?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    21. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is where He lives.

      So when is he going to get off his obviously fat as and do something?

    22. Re:It is God. by Githaron · · Score: 1

      Which is why many species evolved collaboration. Evolution doesn't always mean killing competitors. Some species(particularly humans) do extremely well by turning competitors into collaborators and developing mutually beneficial relationships.

      Until the last human dies, the pig species will survive, because we like bacon.

    23. Re:It is God. by operagost · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nice straw man you've built there.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    24. Re:It is God. by Githaron · · Score: 1

      They are advocating for my destruction, so it's really only rational to advocate for theirs.

      Many many Christians are no better than the Taliban in their desire to force the rest of us to follow their rules.

      What's funny is that a lot of thiests probably thing the same thing about you.

    25. RE:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if the last human is a vegetarian?

      Checkmate!

    26. Re:It is God. by oracleofbargth · · Score: 1

      Pigs are not vegetarian, so pig eats vegetarian human?

    27. Re:It is God. by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      Wrong. It's where our evil goateed counterparts in the evil universe come through.

      God help us if evil Eric Cartman and his hippie charitable ways ever comes through.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    28. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should've stopped while you were ahead... at religion and vaccinations.

    29. Re:It is God. by OakDragon · · Score: 1

      Correct. Life is a battle, and it's survival of the fittest. You kill or be killed. This is not new; it's been going on for billions of years on this planet alone.

      You mean "for approximately 6000 years", right?

      DISCLAIMER :

      I
      AM
      KIDDING!

    30. Re:It is God. by darkshadow · · Score: 2

      Wouldn't that have been with disruptor cannons?

      --
      -Darkshadow (There was a thing called Heaven; but all the same they used to drink enormous quantities of alcohol.)
    31. Re:It is God. by OakDragon · · Score: 1

      How do you propose they jump into a wormhole located tens of thousands lightyears away?

      Very precisely.

      Nah, just get close and gravity takes care of the rest.

    32. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so... you support the 2nd amendment right?

    33. Re:It is God. by asylumx · · Score: 1

      Now THAT is insightful.

    34. Re:It is God. by sideslash · · Score: 2

      So apparently simply disagreeing with you is threatening to destroy your way of life?

      I think somebody really needs an ice cream cone, a hug, time with a puppy, etc. It's not that bad, buddy. Even the Jihadists are really not likely ever to personally cause you harm. A little perspective here?

    35. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> Hard to believe NASA gave Shatner a medal.

      Because obviously Shatner wrote all his own dialog. And did zero to promote an interest in space exploration.

      Yes. You must be right.

    36. Re:It is God. by Nethead · · Score: 4, Funny

      Let's burn it!

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    37. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's fair to lump all Christians together with the most extremes, then it is equally fair to lump all atheists together with the most extremes.

      Specifically, the Nazi party (yay Godwin!), which was described by Hitler as being "a secular institution based on science."

      So, all you secular scientist are implicitly supporting Nazism, since you agree with its foundational premises. And you are just as evil and worthy of derision as the worst Nazis that ever lived.

      Whatever argument you use to explain why you are different than them, can also be used by any Christian to explain why they are different than radical fundamentalists.

    38. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see you propose destruction for those who disagree with your view.

      Why, yes.

      If your stupidity and belief system requires you to attempt to destroy my way of life, then you are a threat to me.

      The Christians who want to teach intelligent design, the Muslims who advocate Jihad, and the morons who fight against vaccination based on a discredited report, and those who think tax cuts for the rich and trickle down economics is real and effective ... these people are all dangerous idiots who think their belief system trumps facts, that some how god is on their side, and that we should all adhere to the bullshit rules they believe in.

      They are advocating for my destruction, so it's really only rational to advocate for theirs.

      Many many Christians are no better than the Taliban in their desire to force the rest of us to follow their rules.

      So, yeah, fuck the whole lot of them. Putting ignorance and stupidity on a podium is a sign of lunacy.

      Hanlon's Razor at work.

    39. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like a true atheist.

    40. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tax cuts across the board do work, as does trickle down economics.

      I was there at the implementation of trickle-down policies. Ronnie Ray-Gun told us it would make us all richer and happier. What I saw was tens of thousands of homeless, failing schools and rampant crime. All this while the rich got richer and conspicuous consumption became all the rage among the wealthy.

      Trickle-down economics boils down to pissing on the poor. If you consider that result to be "working," then I pity you your delusions.

    41. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      these people are all dangerous idiots who think their belief system trumps facts

      They are advocating for my destruction, so it's really only rational to advocate for theirs.

      So, yeah, fuck the whole lot of them. Putting ignorance and stupidity on a podium is a sign of lunacy.

      Wow!!! You sound like an awesome guy to hang around. Let me get this straight:
      1) anyone with a different viewpoint than you is "trying to destroy you"
      2) all religious people are "trying to force you to follow our rules"
      3) all religious people are "dangerous idiots"
      4) and "Many many Christians are no better than .... So, yeah, fuck the whole lot of them". Just making sure that you want to destroy all of them because many of them are a certain way. You're a regular humanitarian.

      Were you exposed to lead based paint as a child?

    42. Re:It is God. by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Except nobody is trying to make the theists break their own rules. Everyone else who would be happy if we all just crawl in our respective holes and follow our own personal rules.

    43. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see you propose destruction for those who disagree with your view.

      Why, yes.

      If your stupidity and belief system requires you to attempt to destroy my way of life, then you are a threat to me.

      The Christians who want to teach intelligent design, the Muslims who advocate Jihad, and the morons who fight against vaccination based on a discredited report, and those who think tax cuts for the rich and trickle down economics is real and effective ... these people are all dangerous idiots who think their belief system trumps facts, that some how god is on their side, and that we should all adhere to the bullshit rules they believe in.

      They are advocating for my destruction, so it's really only rational to advocate for theirs.

      Many many Christians are no better than the Taliban in their desire to force the rest of us to follow their rules.

      So, yeah, fuck the whole lot of them. Putting ignorance and stupidity on a podium is a sign of lunacy.

      Excellent point!!! Lets look at the basic Christian beliefs that they are trying to force on you:
          a) all people are created equal
          b) you have inalienable rights that cannot be taken from you by anybody, including the government.

      Gosh, you are right. DESTROY THEM ALL !!!!!!

    44. Re:It is God. by shaitand · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Even the Jihadists are really not likely ever to personally cause you harm."

      The day before 9/11 you likely would have said the same to everyone personally harmed in 9/11 or through the loss of someone in 9/11.

      "So apparently simply disagreeing with you is threatening to destroy your way of life?"

      I think he is pointing out that those who disagree on these particular topics (which for the most part are factually established and not really legitimately open to debate) are as a group taking action to impose their views on others or tangibly impede education and/or progress in our society. In some cases even reverse it.

    45. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What I saw was tens of thousands of homeless, failing schools and rampant crime"

      That's a lie, we saw great economic recovery. HOWEVER this is not the point of my post; you are free to disagree with me and believe what you want, I am not calling for your destruction based on this, only that policies be set based on truth, and the truth is that lower taxes for all benefits all that pay taxes (you cannot deny this fact).

      That the OP is calling for my destruction because I call for tax cuts for the rich, which is a lie.

      Like I said asshole, come and take it. I'd like to see you try.

    46. Re:It is God. by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "So, all you secular scientist are implicitly supporting Nazism, since you agree with its foundational premises."

      The Nazi party may have described itself in such a manner but it's foundational premises were not consistent with secular science.

      "Whatever argument you use to explain why you are different than them, can also be used by any Christian to explain why they are different than radical fundamentalists."

      On the contrary. Radical fundamentalists are generally the most consistent in holding to belief in Christian doctrine. The rest either are just Christian on paper (usually because they've been brainwashed to believe that there is some relation between being Christian and being good) or otherwise disagree with the actual doctrine and have come up with a series of alternative explanations or distillation of the "spirit" of doctrine on some of the more insane points.

    47. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "insane anti-social right-wing loonies"

      Ah Slashdot Socialist central, where logic and reason are replaced by inarticulate "sooper nerds" who are qualified only to call names and pick their nose.

      You wouldn't know right-wing if it hit you in the face, which I would actually pay to see.

      Fuckwad.

      Socialist? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    48. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SPOILERS! JEEZ!

    49. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fundamentalists may describe themselves as holding the one-and-only correct Christian doctrine, but their foundational premises are not consistent with the Biblical texts. (The same argument you just used, but I will go further and give a little supporting evidence).

      There are many facts which Fundamentalists ignore in order to maintain the illusion of consistency within their doctrine, such as:

      1) Jesus never once spoke the word "Hell," as no such word existed in the Aramaic language. He, in fact, spoke only of the valley that was east of the city and used as the city dump (and into which all the Jewish residents of Jerusalem got tossed and burned 40 years later).

      2) The profit Isaiah never mentioned "Lucifer", nor did he tell a story about an angel of light (by such a name) that fell from grace. "Lucifer" is a Latin word that only entered Christian doctrines by virtue of the translation of the Bible to Latin by the Catholic church. The contexts of use of the Hebrew (and related Greek) words tell a completely different story when read plainly.

      3) The Bible contains objectively demonstrable contradictions (see project reason for a list!), some of which have direct theological significance. This confutes any claim to Biblical inerrancy, on which their theology rests.

      4) The early churches (before emperor Constantine established Catholicism) did not have a singular, unified understanding of Jesus' teachings, as proven by the tremendous diversity of scriptures found in the Nag Hammadi library (the ones the Catholic church tried to burn in an effort to stamp out heresy).

      I could go on, but I doubt anyone will read the list anyway. The fact is there exist denominations of Christianity that know these and many more facts about the Bible, and as such take a much more educated approach to its interpretation than fundamentalists. Be that as it may, I don't see why someone who is not educated on these and related issues has any business calling those who are so educated "just Christians on paper."

    50. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tough words. I suggest you try it. I think you'll find I'm well armed and ready to fight back. Thankfully I have the second amendment to deal with scum like you.

    51. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No evidence for God, yet "wormholes" exist, despite no one seeing one. I like how people like you come up with shit to justify your weaksauce science. "Dark matter!" "Wormholes!" "A wizard did it!"

    52. Re:It is God. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      What if powerful capitalism provably advanced the average condition fastest, and leftist social policies, however kind-hearted and immediately useful, slowed down said advancement by 10%, and thus tech, including medical tech, lagged further and further behind where it otherwise would be, compounding until, 100 years later, your medical tech is over 10 years behind, with the associated millions of annual needless deaths because thr wprld is now lacking not-yet-invented cures.

      You, dear kind-hearted socialist, may be almost as great a threat to wellbeing as an Islamist takeover or a fundamental Christian one.

      Look in the mirror and see...a vicious enemy of humanity and the common man? Heavens no, not you!. Your memes will not brook that. Now regurgitate a meme defense mechanism!

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    53. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank God science was never wrong!!!!one!!1

    54. Re:It is God. by Kismet · · Score: 1

      LOL! "Putting ignorance and stupidity on a podium is a sign of lunacy," said the AC who writes a hate-filled, kill-the-dangerous-assholes-who-disagree-with-me rant and is then modded insightful...

      That's called irony.

    55. Re:It is God. by RabidReindeer · · Score: 2

      Correct. Life is a battle, and it's survival of the fittest. You kill or be killed. This is not new; it's been going on for billions of years on this planet alone.

      Obviously evolution doesn't work the way you think it does, or you wouldn't have been allowed to live, because "naive" doesn't even begin to describe your anonymously cowardly existence.

      The word "survival" in evolution is A) referring to the species, not the individual, and B) is accomplished in many, many more ways than simple "kill or be killed". If that was not so, every butterfly would be a threat to your life.

    56. Re:It is God. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Tax cuts across the board do work, as does trickle down economics. You are free to disagree with that

      I hope you can feel that I'm disagreeing as hard as I possibly can!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    57. Re:It is God. by phorm · · Score: 2

      Starships are filled with RedShirts. RedShirts are tasty to the noodly one.

    58. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except nobody is trying to make the theists break their own rules.

      Well, I don't know where you're from, but here in the US, that's very much a current issue. The photographer who didn't want to work for a gay wedding, the baker who didn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding reception, the companies who don't want to pay for abortifacients; all examples of theists being made to break their own rules.

      Now, you may argue that each of these instances of infringing on free exercise of religion is reasonable and justified in the context of society, but you can't argue that that's what's going on.

    59. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Putting ignorance and stupidity on a podium is a sign of lunacy" I love the irony in posts like these.

    60. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slaps glove across face. Bring it!

    61. Re:It is God. by sideslash · · Score: 1

      OK, if he/she is personally harmed by Jihadists, I will dutifully apologize for mis-predicting. Statistically speaking, I think I'm in pretty good shape, though. Certainly the OP needs to chill and stop freaking out because some people disagree with them. (Ice cream is a recommended way to do that, hence my suggestion.)

    62. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dammit Slashdot!! Where are my mod points!!!

      Waiting for you to post more interesting comments than these, I expect.

    63. Re:It is God. by cyberchondriac · · Score: 3, Funny

      So that's where spaghetti sauce comes from !

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    64. Re:It is God. by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      FARSCAPE! Suck on that Ronald Moore.

    65. Re:It is God. by Zynder · · Score: 1

      But how do you knoooow it's a strawman?

    66. Re:It is God. by uCallHimDrJ0NES · · Score: 1

      Wow. You're a name-calling meanie, you name-calling meanie.

      --
      Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
    67. Re:It is God. by shaitand · · Score: 2

      If nothing else, I do believe we've found common ground on the ice cream front. In fact, I think we could all stand to take a break from whatever we are doing and get some ice cream.

      Anyone who disagrees, obviously needs to die.

    68. Re: It is God. by cyber-vandal · · Score: 2

      People would be killing each other over which flavours were the true flavours before you could say death to the infidel.

    69. Re:It is God. by nephilimsd · · Score: 2

      I have compared the weight of the argument against the weight of a lump of coal that I found. Since I know that straw men burn, and I know that coal burns, I estimate that if the weights of the two are equal, then we are in fact dealing with a straw-man.

    70. Re:It is God. by shaitand · · Score: 5, Insightful

      " The photographer who didn't want to work for a gay wedding, the baker who didn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding reception, the companies who don't want to pay for abortifacients; all examples of theists being made to break their own rules."

      No, no they are not. They are cases of theists imposing their rules on others or punishing them for not following the theists rules. There is no religion I am aware of which forbids photographing or feeding gay people. There is also no religion which forbids providing healthcare. Following your own rules means deciding whether YOU are okay with yourself being gay, not your clients, not your children, not your hairdresser, you and you alone. The same with whether or not you are going to get an abortion or use contraception or take advantage of any other medical procedure.

      Refusing services to others simply because their rules are different than yours and thus they are gay or opt for an abortion is imposing your rules on them. It's your place to support the idea that everyone gets to pick their own rules. It's not your place to provide or withdraw support based on which rules someone else follows. It's simply none of your business.

    71. Re:It is God. by Kabonos · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What if powerful free-est of markets capitalism provably left, for every one person with a successful Einstein level of intellect, five equivalently smart who had to put aside their insights and education to focus on simply staying alive? How many years of progress would that waste?

    72. Re: It is God. by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      Hey, no skin off my nose if you have the poor taste to actually like Rocky Road.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    73. Re:It is God. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You have to distinguish between idiot Christians (usually far right-wing and self-righteous) and reasonable Christians. Otherwise, you're alienating the majority of your possible allies. Most people in the US are Christians, and only a minority are fundamentalist fanatics (even in the US).

      Moreover, if being religious is deeply ignorant, you should be able to provide strong evidence against the existence of a God. Not just point to a lack of evidence you like, but evidence against it.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    74. Re:It is God. by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      It's not clear that the childish belief is theirs rather than yours.

    75. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > malicious people are able to use it to get rubes to vote for insane anti-social right-wing loonies.

      So you're saying there are no Atheists in America? Or are you saying they don't vote? Or do they all vote for some niche left-wing politician who has never had more than 3 votes?

      - The Rest of the World

    76. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> I see you propose destruction for those who disagree with your view.

      > Why, yes.
      > They are advocating for my destruction, so it's really only rational to advocate for theirs.

      Wouldn't it be rational of them to think the same way, if you're going that route?

    77. Re:It is God. by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      Hello, Pushing-Robot! This is God! I'm going to destroy humanity by making it rain meteors! You must build a starship 300 cubits long and 300 cubits wide and put two of every animal on earth on it. Fortunately, due to Humanity's efforts this will be significantly easier than when I had Noah do it. So stop slacking off on Slashdot and get to work!

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    78. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny, I thought there was a recent campaign to require some to attend religious services (marriages) they didn't wish to.

    79. Re:It is God. by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 2

      Putting ignorance and stupidity on a podium is a sign of lunacy.

      All well and good, but rather than being violent about it and destroying them, why not just send them back home to the moon?

    80. Re:It is God. by uCallHimDrJ0NES · · Score: 1

      Your deep, abiding, Shatner-love has been noted, Coward. In the future, when Star Trek love is institutionalized as religion, your disembodied head will be assigned a suck-up role to Shatner's disembodied head, and you can promote interest in space exploration together. He may let you play with his medal.

      --
      Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
    81. Re:It is God. by devent · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On a recent poll about 1/3 in the USA believe in a young earth (10,000 years or less) and do not believe in natural evolution[1]. About half of the Christian believe that Jesus will come back in the next 40 years[2]. This is pure asinine to any reasonable long term policy and if not tamed could very well doom us all, especially because those believes comes from a first world country, that is military and economically superior. In addition, you have millions of delusional Christians that think WWIII will speed up the second coming of Jesus[3][4].

      Moreover, if being religious is deeply ignorant, you should be able to provide strong evidence against the existence of a God. Not just point to a lack of evidence you like, but evidence against it.

      First, that proves for me your ignorance of logic. You demand to prove a negative, which is a logical fallacy. Second, absence of evidence is evidence for absence. For example, if I make the claim that I have a cat in my house and you come over and look everywhere for my cat and you don't find anything, that is strong evidence that I lied and that I have no cats. The same is for God or for gods.

      [1] http://www.reuters.com/article...
      [2] http://www.alternet.org/survey...
      [3] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ame...
      [4] http://www.washingtonsblog.com...

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    82. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all morons fight against vaccination based on a discredited report.

      I am tired of this even being thrown around. As far as I am concerned, the human immune system is STILL far more advanced than "modern medicine" has ever been and most likely ever will until nanobots are used in vaccination. Throwing chemicals into anyones body and expecting the same result is a mad mans game, and profitable one too.

      So fuck off.

    83. Re:It is God. by dryeo · · Score: 2

      The USSR went from barely out of feudal to space faring in under 50 years while defeating the Nazis at huge cost, putting up with a mad man at the helm and having to compete with a country that successfully stole most of a rich continent and came through 2 world wars with all its industry intact. China has also done quite well in advancing from feudalism.
      Most of the more pure capitalist countries in the Americas are also brutal regimes with extremes such as Haiti which makes Cuba look like a paradise.
      The most successful countries, by most measures such as life expectancy, freedom and happiness seem to be hybrids between capitalistic and socialist with thriving markets that are regulated enough that business does not totally rule and elections to keep the government in check.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    84. Re: It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet not everyone who believes in God denies science. That's as ignorant and childish as the underlying position that is driving so many to hate all Christians/Muslims for the actions of the most outspoken minorities.

    85. Re: It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're just as wrong as he is. "Survival" in evolution means your genetic code. If you happen to have some random mutation that increases you and your descendants chances of surviving a future plague, then your genes will survive and continue to be passed on.

    86. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, seems like he was religious after all...

    87. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure you don't mean. Theists making up some arbitrary rules whenever it suits them. Or can you show me the part in the bible that forbids the photographing or gay people?
      Those theists are quite able to quit their chosen professions, if their made up rules are more important to them. If being a theist is more important to you than being a baker, then don't be a baker. You can always be one of those nutters who stands on street corners telling us the world is coming to an end.

    88. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent point!!! Lets look at the basic Christian beliefs that they are trying to force on you: a) all people are created equal b) you have inalienable rights that cannot be taken from you by anybody, including the government.

      I don't know where you pulled these from but non Christians are still trying to convince you theists that women are equal to men, gays are equal to straight people etc.
      The only inalienable right is the right to burn for hell in all eternity if you dont happen to believe the teachings of whichever version of Christianity they hold at the time (which changes quite a bit btw). What about the right to have a wedding cake, or the right to some photographs of your happy day? Don't let the government take those away, those are only allowed to be taken away by theists.

    89. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, other morons fight for even less sane reasons.

    90. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell yes to that man :D

    91. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No we don't.
      Less and less people in each generation are becoming religious, Christian or otherwise. A little slower in the US than most places but it's still happening there too. Being deeply ignorant is enough reason in itself to not believe or understand the strong evidence anyway.

    92. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference here is that tests are going to be done to see if it's possible for it to be true that wormholes exist. Things get done, people learn new stuff.

      Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying 'please Jesus, give me a pony' over and over does nothing.

    93. Re:It is God. by davester666 · · Score: 1

      To find a nicer place to live. It totally sucks living in a worm hole.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    94. Re: It is God. by shaitand · · Score: 2

      You can certainly believe in A god (or many) and not deny science but if you believe in God and believe in science you've deluded yourself on one front or the other. There is quite a bit in your holy book that contradicts science. For that matter, the two creation accounts in the first book directly contradict each other on many points and both contradict very well established science and are incompatible with the existence of fossils you can see with your own eyes.

      Where theists get confused is they see this as science attacking their thing. Not at all. Their thing never enters into science, the scientific method begins with observing reality, speculating on causes for why that reality is how it is, then seeing if your guess as to how it works can successfully be used to predict behavior you haven't observed yet. Theism, Intelligent Design, etc can never be part of that framework because they get the order wrong and break a critical rule. They start with a speculated cause based on fancy and then observe reality instead of starting with reality and fantasizing causes based on it that can subsequently be determined are incorrect. That's the critical rule, the speculative part, the part you are just pulling out of your mind, it has to be possible to test it against the reality and fail if it is inconsistent. You can't prove there is no god and when you equate the rules of reality to a god's will it not only can't be dis-proven but becomes irrelevant from the point of science. It doesn't matter if conservation of energy and matter exists because it is reality or because that's how a god made it, it still works the same way and the math that follows is useful for exactly the same things.

    95. Re: It is God. by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Let's not go being haters. There is plenty to go around. Personally I'm happy to tap a little vanilla here, a little chocolate treat there, get all up in a nice set of marshmellows. I'll even mix it all up. I really just have one rule. If anyone is going to put nuts on my ice cream it's going to be me. But you are free to do what you feel with yours.

    96. Re:It is God. by Diakoneo · · Score: 1

      +1 pseudo Monty Python quote....

      --
      "Just as there is nothing so unreal as reality TV, there is nothing as unsocial as social media." - Alistair Dabbs
    97. Re:It is God. by BranMan · · Score: 1

      Who are you that is so wise in the ways of science?

    98. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a recent poll about 1/3 in the USA believe in a young earth (10,000 years or less)

      That's not in any of your sources, you lying piece of shit. Don't group it together unless you're trying to be a manipulative asshole. "Evolution" as it's stated is easily disprovable, because it relies on 4 pillars. One of which is "survival of the fittest" which has never been naturally observed. Ever. At the CLOSEST, we see more of a "Sometimes the littlest, weakest get picked off" but it's definitely not "Survival of the Fittest" unless you want to change the word "Survival" to mean something that it's not (no living things end up surviving forever), and the word "Fittest" to encompass, simply, everything that managed to match your definition of "Survival" in perfect tautology.

      Unless you think you can define "fittest" without resorting to circular logic, which you can't. I'm guessing your best shot can be filtered down to "Those animals that are most-likely to reproduce are the most-likely to reproduce!" but I'll make it easy for you with a softball: "Those whose genetic variance predispositions them with higher likelihood to reproduce are the most-likely to reproduce young that will grow to [a]sexual maturity" but that's wrong, because that doesn't take geography into account, which is an enormous factor for mate selection, otherwise, animal husbandry wouldn't work -- e.g. "shit, this chicken won't breed with that rooster, because there's a rooster 3 states over with a better genetic writeup!" but animals will typically end up breeding with anything of their species, that's close enough, when in heat as long as their environmental conditions are met. That does not even get into coral, fish, swarming insects, and more (you know, cradles of life and all that) that just basically blast the planet with gametes hoping that they'll find matching gametes which goes completely AGAINST the concept of natural selection necessary to provide for evolution as it's proposed.

      This is besides the "genetic variance that gives it a higher likelihood of reproducing" is hardly a scientific definition -- it's a texas bullseye. It's about as scientifically astute as using a shotgun to perform open-heart surgery is medically astute.

    99. Re:It is God. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Right. Let's assume, without looking at the survey or survey methodology, that half of US Christians do think (with no Biblical support) that the Second Coming is going to happen within forty years. That means that a large number of Americans believe something potentially dangerous. You want allies that will stand with you against this idiocy, right? A large majority of those potential allies are Christians, since the number of Christians in the US is significantly greater than twice the number of non-Christians. For the really dangerous stuff that millions of Christians believe in, the proportion of Christians in the opposition is even higher. Again, if you want to oppose this you are better off distinguishing between the idiots and the non-idiots.

      Ignorance of logic? I'm not demanding anything here. I'm not trying to get you to believe in the FSM or in any other religion. More relevantly, I'm not calling people things like "deeply ignorant". I'm suggesting that you don't call people things like that either, unless you can bring positive evidence. You want to call the young-earthers deeply ignorant, that's fine with me, since there's strong evidence that they're wrong and they refuse to consider it. They are ignorant about it. Calling Christians in general deeply ignorant is another thing. The ones I know tend to realize that there is no objective evidence of Christianity, and since you agree with that I wouldn't call it ignorance if I were you. People are Christians for subjective reasons. There are a lot of people who have something they consider a direct perception of God, for example. Maybe they're right, or maybe this is an artifact of the evolution of the brain. You have no good evidence either way.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    100. Re: It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the discussion about superstition and the struggle between Spock and the Pope has been flogged harder than a dead horse on slashdot over the years. Whilst the jabbering is good and entertaining (with trueblock shielding me from the crass commercialism of New Slashdot) the objective is to increase revenue. These debates have played out over the centuries.

      It is an unknowable concept. No amount of testerone fuelled diatribe further contributes to the argument where the only logical position is agnosticism. Long before the blogeratti, the commentards and the trolls filled the web with the discharge of their cult of the individual, better humans had already addressed the issue with the clarity and brevity characteristic of the educated, observing the difference between the lust for power or the greed for possions and the social nature of humanity:

      Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.

      Denis Didero

      I am not anonymous. I just forgot my easy to remember password (http://xkcd.com/936/ ) . I am not my Karma . I am vorlich and we are legion.

    101. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Nazi party may have described itself in such a manner but it's foundational premises were not consistent with secular science.

      No True Scotsman Fallacy.

    102. Re:It is God. by devent · · Score: 1

      I personally never called a Christian ignorant, I called out their beliefs. I always ask a Christian what she believes, because the term "Christian" is very ambiguous. But are those "allies" actual useful in any way? I never saw any Christian defend a more rational position against those other Christian, who, for example, believe that Jesus comes back in 40 years. In religion it's just one opinion against another opinion and nobody can show the other side wrong.

      I'm suggesting that you don't call people things like that either, unless you can bring positive evidence.

      Do you talk now about to bring evidence of their ignorance? Earlier you were talking to bring positive evidence for the non-existence of god.

      Calling Christians in general deeply ignorant is another thing. The ones I know tend to realize that there is no objective evidence of Christianity, and since you agree with that I wouldn't call it ignorance if I were you.

      Then those Christians should do something about their fellow Christians, for example, call to the Pope and demand more education of his "flock", or call out to evangelical pastors that preach young earth creationism and a literal bible. If you are not opposing something wicked, then you are supporting it. It's up to your Christian friends to change my perception of Christianity. Of course it's bias, but it is supported by facts. That goes the same for Muslims.

      For example, if you call yourself a KKK member, I will perceive you as a racists homophobic evangelical white Christian. It doesn't matter if some of the KKK are very moderate and are members for "subjective reasons".

      PS: I find the core ideas of religion asinine to human kind. The idea of an afterlife and the idea of an all powerful god is asinine to long term and short term planning and development and progress in general.

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    103. Re:It is God. by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      "Even the Jihadists are really not likely ever to personally cause you harm."

      The day before 9/11 you likely would have said the same to everyone personally harmed in 9/11 or through the loss of someone in 9/11.

      The interesting thing is, 99.999% of the time, you would have been right, assuming we're only talking about Americans. Sounds "not likely" to me...

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    104. Re:It is God. by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      ...malicious people are able to use it to get rubes to vote for insane anti-social right-wing loonies.

      And how is this different from communism, global warming, smartphone OS, etc.? What you're forgetting is, there will be rubes falling for whatever gimmick someone uses. And there will also be loonies, from a variety of socio-political groups. Getting rid of one of the irrational beliefs isn't going to change the existence of either group, just which varieties are running around.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    105. Re: It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "no true Scotsman fallacy"

      Appeal to Fallacy fallacy

    106. Re:It is God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kirk will explain to a Romulan and a Klingon how maybe God wasn't out there anywhere at all, maybe he's right here (beats his own chest), "In the Human heart." And the Romulan and Klingon

      rip open Kirk's chest looking for God. FTFY

    107. Re:It is God. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Except that the intelligent Christians do help against the idiots. There's maybe twice as many idiot Christians as non-Christians, and a 2/3 majority can accomplish a whole lot of things. If the government is not working on the basis that Jesus is coming back by 2064 and fix everything, and is not trying to foment WWII to hurry him along, that's because of intelligent Christians who don't vote for jokers like that. Moreover, I've heard a whole lot of denunciation of TV evangelists and the like by devout Christians (of the intelligent variety), probably more than from atheists.

      You may not have been looking in the right places. The fact that you mention the Pope is a case in point: the Catholic church is for science and has been for centuries. The specific idiots you're complaining about are mostly Protestants. (Not that I endorse all the Catholic policies, of course; some of them are quite harmful.)

      I also find it odd that you expect other people to bother to change your mind. You obviously haven't done any research into Christianity yourself, and seem to have very strong opinions about it. I like my strong opinions to be based on fact, if possible, not whoever is advertising louder.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    108. Re:It is God. by devent · · Score: 1

      The last presidential candidate was a Mormon. And the last president was voted two times in the office, being a right wing Christian. If we talking about the USA the "intelligent Christians" are clearly a tiny minority. The Creationist Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, got about 254,074 visitors in 2011 and I don't know of any Christian group that was actively opposing it. Where are the Christian supporter of, for example, the Reason Rally[1]?

      I also find it odd that you expect other people to bother to change your mind. You obviously haven't done any research into Christianity yourself, and seem to have very strong opinions about it. I like my strong opinions to be based on fact, if possible, not whoever is advertising louder.

      I experienced a lot of those blanked statement like that from Christians that I debated. You can ask my facts, or you can point out my errors. The scripture is not rocket science, almost any historic text have more depth then the Bible. If you could weight the "insightfulness" of texts, Socrates Apology can easily outweigh it.

      [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
  2. Lies. by AdamColley · · Score: 5, Funny

    Lies.

    Everyone knows you can only keep a wormhole open for 38 minutes.

    1. Re:Lies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unless you fire enough energy into it... or have a black hole.

    2. Re:Lies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even in Stargate mythology, there are ways to keep wormholes open for more than 38 minutes... although since it typically takes a black hole to do that, I'm not sure if those mechanics would still work if black holes were actually worm holes.

      Really though, there should be no limit on how long a wormhole could stay open except so long as its getting enough negative energy to keep it open and stabilized in the first place.

    3. Re:Lies. by dfn5 · · Score: 1

      Lies.

      Everyone knows you can only keep a wormhole open for 38 minutes.

      Except when it is connected to a black hole.

      --
      -- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
    4. Re:Lies. by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Funny

      Even in Stargate mythology, there are ways to keep wormholes open for more than 38 minutes...

      1) Yes - for a wormhole to stay open longer than 38 minutes, a crucial plot point must require it.

      2) No, you're thinking of the opening scene from Stargate Universe - it only seemed to drag on for days.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    5. Re:Lies. by WhiteZook · · Score: 2

      Can't you just reconfigure the main antenna to emit a reverse tachyon beam ?

    6. Re:Lies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anubis kept it open longer by firing a particle beam weapon into it.

      #watchedlotsofstargate

    7. Re:Lies. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      The limitation in stargate was due to that energy: It accumulated. Pumping energy into the wormhole, it can't go anywhere, so the wormhole structure just gets more high-energy and harder to contain. Beyond 38 minutes the gate can't maintain stability, and even it if were possible the eventually closing of the wormhole would release all the energy accumulated within in a rather large explosion. One of the times the 38 minute rule was broken was through the use of a superweapon designed to do exactly that.

      Another wasn't really in violation: The source was in orbit around a black hole. Close orbit. The time dilation just drew it out - while it seemed like more than 38 minutes at the recieving end, it was still far less at the opening end, from where the wormhole is created and stabilised.

    8. Re:Lies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      only if you reverse the polarity of the Neutron flow at the same time

    9. Re:Lies. by LordSkippy · · Score: 1

      But you'll need a phase inducer to prevent the neutron flow from disrupting the tachyon beam.

      --
      My karma is in a nose dive
    10. Re:Lies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You canna be serious! You'd have to crawl through 400 metres of jefferies tubes just to implant the phase inducer and it has to be activated from outside first so you'd have less than 2 minutes until it overloads.

    11. Re:Lies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " You'd have to crawl
      through 400 metres of jefferies tubes..."

      Who's Jeffrey and why are you in his tubes?!?
      In a word; eww!

    12. Re:Lies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That could cause a build up of ionizing radiation in the sensor array.

    13. Re:Lies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This USMC guy just popped out of a closet and told me that this facility has been out of communication for 3 weeks, so based on that your answer is invalid.

    14. Re:Lies. by RivenAleem · · Score: 2

      Except it's an important plot point that wormholes cannot stay open for more than 38 minutes, coincidentally the average show length. What happens when 2 conflicting plot points collide? Do plot and anti-plot annihilate each other?

    15. Re:Lies. by IwantToKeepAnon · · Score: 1

      Deflector dish DAMIT! The deflector dish emits tachyon beams, sheesh.

      --
      "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
    16. Re:Lies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. The first wormhole came from the off-world team, but that wormhole lost its connections within seconds, at the beginning of the episode.

      The wormhole that they couldn't close originated on Earth.

    17. Re:Lies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Deus ex Machina... ;-D

    18. Re:Lies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you need a machine to re=assembly itself on the other side.. that machine can then take the rest of the atoms as input and output spacecraft.

  3. event horizon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't get why a wormhole would have an event horizon, or huge density, or even gravity for that matter (no pun intended). I thought wormholes are just connections in spacetime, like shortcuts through whatever topology the universe has.. Am I missing something?

    1. Re:event horizon? by Xaedalus · · Score: 2

      Because at some point, you enter the tube. When you do, the light you reflect gets sucked in with you rather than released out.

      --
      Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
    2. Re:event horizon? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wormholes involve extreme curvature of space-time. That means a large amount of energy. Energy is equivalent to mass, via E=mc^2, so a wormhole will have a large effective mass. That much mass in a small volume means an event horizon.

      Or, if you prefer the geometric argument, extreme space-time curvature IS extremely strong gravity.

      I don't really understand why a wormhole would have a smaller event horizon though. Perhaps something to do with the mass distribution. In a wormhole the mass would all be at the centre. In a black hole that grew through accretion it would be distributed throughout the volume.

    3. Re:event horizon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Intuitively, the event horizon of a black hole is larger because it represents the entire mass and only has one "end". A wormhole would have 2 (or more?) event horizons, effectively splitting it's mass between them, right? The mass-energy, when applied to a multiply-connected region of space-time, should result in locally diluted curvature because it has more space-time connected to it to bend and absorb said energy.

    4. Re:event horizon? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Seconded, in part. Can anyone offer insight?

      So it makes sense to me that a wormhole would have a massive gravitational field - as I understand it a wormhole is theorized to be a place where the fabric of spacetime gets "stretched into the 'distance'", not unlike what matter does, except that instead of having a giant mass at the center its linked to a similar spot somewhere else, so that the "tension" between the two interconnected regions of spacetime maintain the distortion rather than a large concentration of mass-energy.

      But why would a wormhole be expected to have an event horizon? Or does the term mean something fundamentally different in relation to a wormhole than a black hole? And if it means the same thing (the point at which light can't escape) why would the event horizon be smaller for the same effective mass? If it has the same effective gravitational profile as a particular mass of black hole at range, then a naive assumption that gravity falls off as 1/r^2 would imply its event horizon should have the same radius.

      It seems to me that a wormhole would actually be less likely to have an event horizon than a black hole of similar gravitational intensity - a black hole is theorized to be created when the gravitational force gets so large that it exceeds even the strong nuclear force, and the matter collapses completely. But a wormhole has no matter to collapse - it seems like a spacetime "tunnel" could potentially exist at truly staggering gravitational gradients without triggering a catastrophic collapse.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    5. Re:event horizon? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      I don't really understand why a wormhole would have a smaller event horizon though.

      Wormhole theories I've seen require exotic matter (that with a negative mass) to keep them open. Perhaps the mass and the negative mass cancel each other out to create a smaller event horizon.

      (that's only half a joke. I have no idea what the properties of a negative mass would be)

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    6. Re:event horizon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there is no where in the universe that E=mc^2

      it neglects velocity in the formula. the complete formula is available online if you search for it, it does include velocity and since everything is moving it's kinda important to take that into account.

    7. Re:event horizon? by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      A black holes event horizon is a consequence of its massive gravitational field, so if you get that a wormhole should also have a massive gravitational field than the event horizon would follow from that.

      And from my understanding, it's not the event horizon they are saying is smaller in the wormhole, it is the wormhole itself. So I think it is something like a difference in the tidal force, a more concentrated source of a gravitational field would have a stronger tidal force which can be detected.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    8. Re:event horizon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except when nothing in your system is moving at near the speed of light in your chosen frame, then that term doesn't matter... or you've just swept it into the particular definition of m you are using.

    9. Re:event horizon? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, everywhere in the known universe (according to the cosmological principle) that formula holds true.

      The formula describes the relationship between rest mass (invariant) and rest energy. Obviously it gets more complicated if you need to handle different frames of reference, and even then not really importantly until velocity approaches that of light.

      Then we simply use E=m(relativistic)^2

    10. Re:event horizon? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      The problem I see is that a black hole is assumed to have collapsed into a singularity so that the gravitational field increases without bound as you approach it, eventually forming an event horizon. A wormhhole on the other hand is *not* a singularity, and it's possible the mouth could be larger than the hypothetical event horizon radius, resulting in a discontinuity in the gravitational gradient as it normalizes within the wormhole rather than continuing to intensify.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    11. Re:event horizon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no idea what the properties of a negative mass would be

      A giant pile of money when packaged as diet pills.

    12. Re:event horizon? by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't a wormhole technically have a much larger volume of 3D spacetime to spread it's mass in, since a good deal of the mass can extend down into the wormhole and along it - which would mean it's quite literally out of the plane of ordinary space.

    13. Re:event horizon? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Well, you're making an assumption as to the nature of the wormhole "tube" and what happens to matter inside it. It could be that there is no tube at all. There's just an opening that goes from one point in spacetime to another. We really have no idea, as wormholes are the product of science fiction, and there isn't anything in physics that would enable such a structure besides a negative mass, and there is no theoretical avenue by which such a thing could exist.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    14. Re:event horizon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's probably wisest to avoid leaning too heavily on flat space concepts when dealing with objects which by their very nature depend on extreme curvature. You're probably OK in the realm where semiclassical gravity is believed to be an EFT (i.e., everywhere outside the horizon if the firewalls argument does not undo semiclassical gravity altogether (personally I think it's more likely to blow a hole in gauge/gravity)), but in solutions which admit wormholes -- the Kerr solution is an example of an exact solution which does -- you get lost very quickly even when swapping the timelike axis with the radial one. In particular, it's not safe to rely upon such a reduced form of the equivalence principle as the one you wrote down, since the values of the components do not vanish even under change of coordinates and units as they do in flat space.

      Kerr black holes have two nested event horizons and feature what is reasonably described as a wormhole (albeit not a "useful" or even accessible one). The horizons of Kerr black holes and Schwarzschild black holes (and those of various approximate solutions of the EFEs) ought to be different in a way that is observable in principle with technology coming on line over the next few years.

      "in a black hole that grew through accretion it would be distributed throughout the volume"

      No, in any black hole solution upon entering the event horizon in effect the radial and timelike axes effectively swap physical meaning or converge upon each other: inevitably you will collide with the centre of the black hole; there are no stable orbits inside an event horizon, and the infaller's proper time until collision with the centre is *fully* determined by its radial distance.

      Outside the horizon any attempt to measure the internal state of any Einstein-gravity black hole should (in pretty much every solution) result in observables completely compatible with a pointlike mass. That several of the various approaches to quantum gravity predict different externally visible features depending on the internal state of the black hole is a good thing. Not all do. Unfortunately, those that do won't make it easy -- extremal black holes in various supergravity theories emit no Hawking radiation, for example. First, find an astrophysical extremal, then try to measure such a damn cold thermal emission...

    15. Re:event horizon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We really have no idea, as wormholes are the product of science fiction, and there isn't anything in physics that would enable such a structure besides a negative mass, and there is no theoretical avenue by which such a thing could exist.

      Nothing in physics, except some of the original discussion of extensions to GR solutions inside a black hole, naively suggesting wormhole like structures in a Kruskal diagram. There is a lot of debate, speculation and doubt about the meaning of such extended solutions and how they would be affect by the formation process of a black hole, but that is a bit different than saying they are only a product of science fiction and have no theoretical approach. They very well may not exist, but like magnetic monopoles, there are things to look for and related theory work.

  4. Is wormhole a prediction or a writers dream? by See+Attached · · Score: 1

    Is there any real evidence that a wormhole would actually pass anything to a remote location, or is that just a writers fantasy? Usually travel does not include being disassembled to your constituent parts midway. OK. Call me a doubter!

    --
    Time for a new Political party in the US (or two!) One is off the rails Other cant pony up a leader.
    1. Re:Is wormhole a prediction or a writers dream? by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 4, Funny

      Is there any real evidence that a wormhole would actually pass anything to a remote location, or is that just a writers fantasy? Usually travel does not include being disassembled to your constituent parts midway. OK. Call me a doubter!

      Evidence? Umm... there is no evidence that wormholes exist at all. But, by definition, if they exist, they would move matter/energy from one point in the universe to another. Otherwise the phenomenon being observed is not a wormhole. The matter that makes up your body is universally fungible as energy. The universe does not care which form you take.

      --
      the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
    2. Re:Is wormhole a prediction or a writers dream? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      As Rob said, there's as yet no evidence that wormholes actually exist, but we've managed to mathematically describe several variations in the context of the General Relativity model of gravity, so to the best of our knowledge they *could* exist (also warp drives and time machines - just to keep things in perspective)

      But if they did exist, then the second problem is that yes, pretty much everything would be torn apart while approaching due to the extreme tidal forces. It could still be useful for communication though - light and radio should be able to traverse it undamaged, or you could maybe throw rocks at it to send atomized "smoke signals" out the other end - crude, but effective. For actual transportation though you'd likely need either a teleporter capable of transporting you without needing to maintain that pesky physical structure while in transit, or some sort of gravitational shield around your vessel - maybe on variation on the warp drive.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:Is wormhole a prediction or a writers dream? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Both ends are still behind an event horizon. Whatever goes in does come out - eventually, as Hawking radiation.

    4. Re:Is wormhole a prediction or a writers dream? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since there's a giant, gaping, let's call it a supermassive black hole in their logic, I'm going with fantasy. Pure fantasy.

      That hole, by the way? "But there is a problem with this theory--100 million years is not long enough for a black hole to grow so big."

      There are two much bigger problems with this problem:
      1) There is absolutely no guarantee that the supermassive object at the center of the galaxy only formed 100 million years ago.
      2) There is absolutely no guarantee that a black hole couldn't grow so big so quickly.

      I mean, that's on top of there being no evidence for wormholes in the first place beyond "wormholes are allowed by the laws of general relativity", so it's a giant confirmation bias crapshoot waiting to happen.

    5. Re:Is wormhole a prediction or a writers dream? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so would diving into one of these with an Alcubierre drive work? between natural wormholes (long distance interstellar), Alcubierre warp drives (short distance interstellar), QVac thrusters (not warped space), and Magnetosphere antimatter collectors, we have an idea for most of the tech used for traversing the universe.

    6. Re:Is wormhole a prediction or a writers dream? by See+Attached · · Score: 1

      Want to read up on this.. Nephew is working on dark matter and related arts... Time to RTFM !?!

      --
      Time for a new Political party in the US (or two!) One is off the rails Other cant pony up a leader.
    7. Re:Is wormhole a prediction or a writers dream? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      That's what I was thinking. I suspect a "proper" warp drive might interact badly with a wormhole mouth, but it seems like a variation on the idea might be possible just for gravity shielding.

      Wow - quantum vacuum plasma thrusters , I had no idea anyone was exploring such a concept, though it seems obvious in retrospect to try to use virtual particles as reaction mass. I do hope that it proves viable - that would for most practical purposes be the mythical "reactionless drive", even if the exhaust might still exist long enough that you wouldn't want to get caught in the backwash.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    8. Re:Is wormhole a prediction or a writers dream? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      psuedo scientist here.... i read recently we could eclipse the speed of light by just standing still and moving space time around us at the speed of light.
      would not such a contraption be protected as it traversed the black hole. like those warm "bubbles" that make their way to the surface of my bath?

    9. Re:Is wormhole a prediction or a writers dream? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I assume you are speaking of something like the Alcubierre warp drive, which bends space dramatically around a "bubble" of flat space, which can then be moved through the surrounding space at arbitrary speed, without anything within the bubble experiencing any acceleration. I had a similar idea, but I suspect such a device might have to be specialized in order to be used as "wormhole shielding", simply because threading one massive spatial distortion through
      another seems like a recipe for unintended consequences.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  5. What is the new imaging expected to reveal? by fredrated · · Score: 1

    Worms crawling in and out?

  6. Gateways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can keep it longer, but it starts needing massive amounts of power, and become less stable.

  7. whatever is there... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    has a lot of mass... so... this might a difference without distinction.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:whatever is there... by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      Not "mass", but a lot of "curvature of spacetime", the causes of which are (under current theory) completely different for black holes and wormholes.

    2. Re:whatever is there... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Yeah but... we don't know of anything can bend space time on a galactic level besides mass.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    3. Re:whatever is there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, no, they're not "completely different"; in fact the singularity in a Kerr black hole necessarily is under *any* practical definition a wormhole, albeit not a very useful or accessible one. There are several approximate solutions of collapsars that feature wormholes. It is that sort of thing that in part motivates distinguishing between among the various types of dense compact objects that have been studied under GR and semiclassical gravity, which is one aim of the arxiv preprint in TFS.

    4. Re:whatever is there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well i know this chick who is so dense light bends around her! :)

  8. Why it matters by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Given the intense environment around Sag A*, even if it turns out to be a wormhole it will be utterly non-traversable. However, there are hypotheses that wormholes to be stabilized require using negative matter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass. At least, that's the most plausible mechanism suggested- so this would be inadvertent evidence that negative matter exists, which would be a really big deal. There's also speculation that a cosmic string could do something similar- note that a cosmic string is topological defect in space time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_string- these are not the strings from string theory although many forms of string theory would predict that such objects would exist. And of course, if wormholes exist in nature there's some small chance we can either make our own o find much smaller ones and put them to use. Unfortunately, there's a lot of dust and other debris between where we are and Sag A*, so even GRAVITY may have trouble getting enough resolution to figure this out.

    1. Re:Why it matters by ByteSlicer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      However, there are hypotheses that wormholes to be stabilized require using negative matter

      If Sag A* is a wormhole, and required stabilizing, then it would have destabilized long long time ago, since it has been constantly gobbling up regular matter (albeit infrequently lately).

      I doubt anything could pass through a wormhole, since that would probably break causality or the laws of thermodynamics. Also, we should have detected stuff coming out of the other side (maybe not of this one, but there should be "exits" all over the universe).

      If wormholes exist, my guess is they will be more like a pair of entangled black holes. They would look like normal black holes, until you did a careful statistical analysis of Hawking radiation of both.

    2. Re:Why it matters by Pausanias · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In general relativity, wormholes *do* require negative mass (or energy density), for sure. Outside the context of the Casimir effect, negative mass in wormholes and warp drives can yield causality violations. Causality is the last thing you'll pry from a physicist's cold, dead hands. Therefore, while it may be fun to speculate about such things, they lie squarely within the realm of science fiction for now.

      To post on a news site that the galactic black hole "may be a wormhole" is like posting a headline saying that extraterrestrial aliens "may currently be among us." Both ideas are exciting. Both ideas are remotely within the realm of possibility. And both are so unlikely that they would readily be dismissed by all except those who are credulous or who like to drum up sensationalism for its own sake.

      It's sensationalism for nerds.

    3. Re:Why it matters by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      there should be "exits" all over the universe

      Why should there be exits? What if they go to another universe? Or alternately, who says there aren't exits all over the universe?

      we should have detected stuff coming out of the other side

      Why? Is there one nearby that we can observe with our extremely primitive and limited technology? Would we know it if we saw it?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    4. Re:Why it matters by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Why do you assume the environment is extreme? From TFA Sagitarius A* is estimated to have an effective mass of 4 million times larger than the sun, in a volume not much larger than the solar system. Which is a bit vague, but if we call it the radius of Neptune's orbit that makes for 4e9 solar masses within 34e9 solar volumes. Since stars are estimated at ~1.4g.cm^3 that whole space could be filled with pseudo-matter only 16% as dense as water. We assume it's actually much denser, with the associated far more extreme gravitational gradients, simply because if it were normal matter it would collapse under its own mass. If it were instead a superdense(relatively speaking) cloud of dark matter it might have no such limits - you can't crush something that can pass through itself - like an ideal pendulum each particle would go racing down the gravitational gradient and then up the other side, oscillating forever without electromagnetic, etc forces robbing it of kinetic energy so that it can collapse further.

      And if it's a wormhole - well without attempting the math I would think that larger might be better when it comes to traversing it with structured matter such as ourselves. After all, it's not the gravity that kills you, it's the gradient - experiencing a million Gs in freefall is a non-issue, provided your feet aren't experiencing *two* million Gs. If the mouth of the wormhole were large enough the gradients might be survivable. And this could potentially be a wormhole mouth a bit larger than the solar system.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    5. Re:Why it matters by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      The main way we've detect Sag A* is its massive radiation profile. That's a completely distinct issue from the issue of mass. But even the mass thing is a problem saying maybe it is filled with some sort of pseudo-matter is even more speculative than speculating it might be wormhole. And even if that is the case, the gamma and x-rays would still fry anything that got near.

    6. Re:Why it matters by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      Why? Is there one nearby that we can observe with our extremely primitive and limited technology? Would we know it if we saw it?

      Yes, we would know if we saw it. Essentially it would look very close to a white hole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole. And we should expect that if wormhole entrances are common then by the Copernican principle we should see some exits near us. This is one of the major reasons to doubt this sort of thing. As to your question about other universes- GR is not really happy with wormholes going from universes to universes- no one has been able to get the math to work out in a reasonable fashion- there's a line between speculation that's decent science and complete science fiction, and right now wormholes fall into the first but wormholes that go to other universes fall strongly into the second. That could change in the future but right now that doesn't look at all remotely likely.

    7. Re:Why it matters by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      If a wormhole creates an event horizon on both ends then we won't see anything coming out of it.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    8. Re:Why it matters by fermion · · Score: 2
      It is interesting that so many call this 'pseudo science.' Black holes fell out equations, and we really don't know if black holes exist or are at the center of galaxies. All we know is that if we assume black holes exists and are described as the math predicts, many things do fall into place consistent with these predictions.

      But black holes have issues and have caused many more questions than answered. Some observations are consistent with the mathematics, but the math leads to some confusing conclusions. Other things come out of the math, and the only reason we dismiss them is that data is not consistent with the predictions. If there is data consistent with predictions, then such things at least deserve the consideration that black holes have received.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    9. Re:Why it matters by ByteSlicer · · Score: 1

      Why should there be exits? What if they go to another universe?

      I was talking about the classic kind of wormhole. Either it has a direction, and then there should be a 50/50 chance that any end is an exit, or it has no direction and both ends can act like an exit.

      If they go to another universe, then I would expect other universe's wormholes to connect to ours too, in a similar ratio (otherwise our universe would be very special, and lose matter/energy).

      Is there one nearby that we can observe with our extremely primitive and limited technology? Would we know it if we saw it?

      Matter almost falling into a black hole, but escaping, is the source of some of the most energetic bursts of cosmic rays, and we can detect those from half a universe away. It would not be unreasonable to expect the matter/energy that comes out to be even more energetic and also have a much greater quantity. Again, only assuming stuff exits a wormhole.

    10. Re:Why it matters by nullchar · · Score: 1

      Then where does the poo go? (when it's vapoorized)

    11. Re:Why it matters by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Yes, we would know if we saw it. Essentially it would look very close to a white hole

      Ah, so it would look like a hypothetical thing that we've never seen. Well that helps.

      And we should expect that if wormhole entrances are common

      Why should we expect that wormhole entrances are common?

      by the Copernican principle we should see some exits near us

      On a cosmological scale, sure.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    12. Re:Why it matters by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      I was wondering that too. Eventually wouldn't a wormhole accumulate enough mass to have a gravitational singularity too? How would that work?

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    13. Re:Why it matters by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      Ah, so it would look like a hypothetical thing that we've never seen. Well that helps.

      Yes it does- we have models of what that should look like.

      Why should we expect that wormhole entrances are common?

      If the apparent black holes in galactic centers are really wormholes then by the Copernican principle there exits should be about as evenly distributed as their entrances- we shouldn't expect some part of the universe to have a large number of exists.

    14. Re:Why it matters by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Interesting

      One possible solution is that our wormholes (if they exist) are actually "pre big bang events" for a whole new universe inside the wormhole, and that they actually contain an infinite volume. "White hole" stage happens at the big bang inside, and any subsequent mass energy that falls in from our side just becomes dark energy on their side, distributed everywhere.

      It would be interesting to try to plot out how causality works over the bridge.

      the way I envision it though (which is almost certainly wrong), is that time is more confined (slower) near the bridge, but becomes less confined (faster) as the space on the other side expands in volume. (Speed is measured as 'planc seconds against unit of spacetime traversed by photon in vacuum' EG, near the bridge, photons appear to travel more slowly, where away from the bridge, they appear to travel more quickly. The actual energy of the photon has not changed, but the ratio between space and time has changed. There is more 'time' near the bridge than there is space, and vise versa further away.)
      Any particular "moment" can be seen as a topological point on the 'surface' of the wormhole.

      (See for instance this image of the standard inflation model of our universe.)

      http://scitechdaily.com/images...

      If you cross your eyes when you look at it, the model resembles a white hole, where the "hole" is the big bang, the energy was delivered "all at once", and what we percieve as time is just a manifestation of the energy delivered. (it would explain why time runs only in one direciton, and a number of other interesting things. it could theoretically explain dark energy, etc.)

      Another interesting tidbit: Supermassive objects like sagitarius A have a hard time "feeding". This may account for the inflationary curvature of our own universe if you, again, cross your eyes when you look at it.

      EG, early in the universe, mass energy from the higher up one was spilling into ours. (their "hole" was feeding), but as it grew in intensity, the curvature on their end made such feeding more difficult, and the rate of influx slowed sharply-- ending the rapid expansion period.

      If that's the case, then some corollary math should add up against observational metrics against black hole feeding on our side, and may give some interesting insights.

      http://phys.org/news140370694....

      Can any of the more physics-head types see if there is a correlation between the estimated energy of the universe at the end of the hyper-expansionary epoch, and the event horizon size of these super massive black holes that can no longer feed?

    15. Re:Why it matters by jfengel · · Score: 2

      Thanks for confirming that. I had a feeling this was gibberish and had to scroll down a long, long way to find a post that wasn't either a joke or sci-fi blithering.

    16. Re:Why it matters by Immerman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, radiation is easy to deal with - nothing approaching at high speed behind a few miles of lead shielding won't solve. Gravitational gradients though... those could present a real problem.

      I agree my pseudo-mass is wildly speculative, but a wormhole mouth that size would have a very similar effect - once you get past the mouth the gravitational gradient (potentially) disappears. And taking Neptune's orbital parameters as a reference (gravitational acceleration by the sun = 0.0000065 m/s^2), then if the central effective mass were 4,000,000x greater that would still be only 26.2 m/s^2, or about 2.6Gs, and the tidal forces even over a kilometer would be about 4 parts in ten billion. Even if the mouth were only the size of the sun so that we're talking an acceleration of 27million Gs, the tidal differences over a distance of 10 meters (plenty large for a small craft) would be only about 4Gs - well within the realm of mechanical engineering. And assuming passengers were curled up within little 1 meter balls they would be subjected to only one-tenth that - less than they'd experience in psuedo-tidal forces if splayed out on a children's merry-go-round.

      0.0000065 m/s^2 * 4,000,000 * rNep^2 / rSun^2 = 274MGs
      274MGs * (1 - rSun^2 / [rSun+10m])^2 = 3.9G
      274MGs * (1 - rSun^2 / [rSun+1m])^2 = 0.39G

      Of course that does assume that the source of the radiation is something other than atoms being ripped apart by tidal forces.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    17. Re:Why it matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      go fuck yourself man. we all know that the news talks about a probability. it remains great stuff to think about.

    18. Re:Why it matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      (Speed is measured as 'planc seconds against unit of spacetime traversed by photon in vacuum' EG, near the bridge, photons appear to travel more slowly, where away from the bridge, they appear to travel more quickly. The actual energy of the photon has not changed, but the ratio between space and time has changed. There is more 'time' near the bridge than there is space, and vise versa further away.)

      In GR, the photon would not change speed, but would change energy and wavelength due to any observed time dilation effects.

    19. Re:Why it matters by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Conversely all the exits would, by definition, also be at the center of galaxies since they'd have to be huge gravitational masses as well.

      At those sorts of distances, it's unlikely we'd be able to conclusively know if we were seeing a wormhole exit or some other phenomena.

    20. Re:Why it matters by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Why should there be exits? What if they go to another universe?

      I was talking about the classic kind of wormhole. Either it has a direction, and then there should be a 50/50 chance that any end is an exit, or it has no direction and both ends can act like an exit.

      If they go to another universe, then I would expect other universe's wormholes to connect to ours too, in a similar ratio (otherwise our universe would be very special, and lose matter/energy).

      Is there one nearby that we can observe with our extremely primitive and limited technology? Would we know it if we saw it?

      Matter almost falling into a black hole, but escaping, is the source of some of the most energetic bursts of cosmic rays, and we can detect those from half a universe away. It would not be unreasonable to expect the matter/energy that comes out to be even more energetic and also have a much greater quantity. Again, only assuming stuff exits a wormhole.

      Why would matter exiting a wormhole be more energetic? It would be less energetic.

      In a blackhole matter enters, undergoes E=mc^2 and is re-emitted as conveniently detectable radiation. In a wormhole, matter potentially traverses the length and remains as matter - which means no gamma ray bursts, just whatever heat you pick up from jostling around with all the other matter that might be doing it.

    21. Re:Why it matters by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure they know that something like a blackhole or greyhole exist, they just don't know the exact mechanics, but it is an object where gravity approaches C.

    22. Re:Why it matters by ByteSlicer · · Score: 1

      Why would matter exiting a wormhole be more energetic? It would be less energetic.

      In a blackhole matter enters, undergoes E=mc^2 and is re-emitted as conveniently detectable radiation. In a wormhole, matter potentially traverses the length and remains as matter - which means no gamma ray bursts, just whatever heat you pick up from jostling around with all the other matter that might be doing it.

      The gamma ray burst energy doesn't come from matter to energy conversion. Recent studies found they consist of normal matter (atomic nuclei). This gets accelerated to near light speed by conservation of momentum in the accretion disc, and the frame dragging effects of the black hole geometry.

      Light doesn't exit a black hole at all. Hawking radiation consists of twin pairs of photons that form just outside the event horizon (geometric energy to matter conversion). One falls into the black hole, the other escapes.

      Matter falling into a black hole will gain a lot of kinetic energy from the gravitational potential alone, which counters light speed at the event horizon. And on the other side, if stuff can get out again, there can be no event horizon, so the potential well would be less steep. Classic worm holes even are theorized to have a repulsive gravity on the exit end, so matter would be accelerated even more.

    23. Re:Why it matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The centres of Kerr black holes are wormholes by any reasonable definition, although they aren't practical ones (and of course aren't very accessible either). In particular, the "exits" of the wormholes are at enormous timelike intervals from the point of view of an observer who sees the rotating black hole as stationary and distant enough to be approximately pointlike.

      One of the problems of the Kerr solution is the "enormousness" in plausible astrophysical Kerr black holes has no clear mechanism for choosing the direction of past/future and would extend too far into the past for any such black hole observable to us today or in our near future. (A CTC that is wholly "censored" by an event horizon has no impact on the validity of semiclassical gravitation; timelike curves exiting event horizons in the far future aren't especially challenging either, but timelike curves exiting event horizons before the event horizon actually formed poses problems.)

      "GR is not really happy with wormholes going from universes to universes"

      Please explain what you mean by "universes to universes" in a general relativity context.

    24. Re:Why it matters by surd1618 · · Score: 1

      It's sensationalism for nerds.

      New /. motto

  9. The Point is Proof by gpronger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The point here is that the concept of a worm-hole has been theoretical and the domain of Sci-Fi. It is a huge event if we are able to verify. My guess is that the verification will have ramifications in the theoretical physics, simply because so much has been strictly theory.

    1. Re:The Point is Proof by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      I think this is more pie in the sky theory than anything. Based on what we do know already, worm holes likely do exist but they're sub-atomic and exists very very briefly. A wormhole the size of Sagittarius A* would require an entirely new form of physics to exist. Everything we think is true would have to be wrong. Which isn't impossible, just pretty unlikely. Blackholes that size do, however, fit within our models.

    2. Re:The Point is Proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think this is more pie in the sky theory than anything.

      Hush. Just look how much effort has been put into that thing called String Theory. /me looks at a shelf with a book about it

    3. Re:The Point is Proof by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Actually, if you read TFA the theory is that this started out as one of those quantum wormholes that was caught in the inflationary period, which I suppose could cause it to scale radically though they don't mention any details as to how that would stabilize things. As a "shot in the dark" speculation - if inflationary energy had gotten inside the wormhole then the "tunnel" would likely inflate radically as well, with the resulting flood of space and energy within it preventing its collapse, and stretching it to something like its present size within moments. I don't really understand the theory around wormholes, but it seems plausible that if it reached sufficient size it might become self-stabilizing, much black holes, which are conjectured to be extremely short-lived at an atomic scale, but reasonably stable on geologic timescales (if not stellar) once they get large enough.

      Hmm, as a further extrapolation of that hypothesis: if inflationary energy is busy spewing out space and energy within the wormhole, and some of that energy eventually gets ejected, then you might expect the region around the mouth of such wormholes to exhibit a much higher density of mass-energy than in the rest of the universe...

      Or alternately/in addition - rather than a "tunnel" between the mouths, the inflationary energy within space might have created a sort of "pocket universe", presumably still bound by the same physics as ours since it's causally connected via the mouths. Not quite sure what the implications might be, but it seems like that universe might be quite large - potentially effectively infinite and still expanding at far faster than lightspeed just as our existing universe is speculated to be doing, out beyond the little bubble we can observe. How do you collapse a wormhole when the "tunnel" is expanding at FTL speeds? Of course that might mean that even if you got inside, the other end of the wormhole would be effectively unreachable.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    4. Re:The Point is Proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least the creationists stick to the same story. You make believe theoretical types are really wacky.

  10. oh boy by iggymanz · · Score: 2

    of course, we don't even know that black holes exist, quantum gravity might preclude it, or dense enough matter instead forms quark stars, q stars, preon star, etc. instead of black hole. Care should be taken to see if one of these alternatives to black holes can be detected by GRAVITY findings

    we don't know wormholes exist, certain solutions to General Relativity have them but again we don't know if physically possible to form.

    1. Re:oh boy by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Care should be taken to see if one of these alternatives to black holes can be detected by GRAVITY findings

      Sigh. Naming this thing GRAVITY is going to cause confusion for people trying to search for research for decades if not centuries to come.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:oh boy by mark-t · · Score: 4, Informative

      of course, we don't even know that black holes exist,

      Yes, actually we do. We know that supermassive objects exist... we know that they can bend light, and we know that space can be bent to such a degree by such objects that any light which travels too close to it travels a curved path that never leaves a bounded region of space near the object that we refer to as an event horizon, creating a region in space that is basically just "black" as it appears from outside of that region, It obviously obscures anything behind it, while its gravity still bends light in visible ways beyond its event horizon, allowing us to identify it's mass, position, and event horizon size.

    3. Re:oh boy by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Black holes are not necessarily singularities... they may be predicted to be such by GR, but we may not ever know this to be true for certain. The real defining feature of a black hole is an event horizon, and we know that such things do exist.

    4. Re:oh boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, actually we don't. all the thing you mention involved many assumptions.

    5. Re:oh boy by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      no we do not know any such thing, and any cosmology or GR professor will tell you that. we only know your first phrase "super massive objects exist", and there are alternatives which do NOT have the issues with reconcilliation with quantum mechanics that black holes do. Most quantum theories of gravity that look promising have no singularies or even horizons, i.e. do NOT lead to black holes

    6. Re:oh boy by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      false, we do not know such a thing exists. We already know GR fails in describing the formation of a black hole because the realm of quantum mechanics is entered. Quantum gravity theories that look workable all have two features: no event horizons, and no singularities.

    7. Re:oh boy by mark-t · · Score: 1

      And we don't know the universe came into existence 13.8 billion years ago either.... we infer it from the evidence at hand.

    8. Re:oh boy by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      the evidence for universes age is much stronger than for that than the assumptions about the existence of black holes, we only know there are massive objects, and quantum mechanics may not allow the formation of black holes

    9. Re:oh boy by mark-t · · Score: 1

      The evidence for the existence of black holes is that the theories match observed phenomena... obviously we can't directly see them, but arguing that they "haven't been proved" just because we haven't seen them when a) we're not *supposed* to be able to see them, and b) the theories seem to accurately predict what we actually can observe isn't good science, it's just being mindlessly contrary.

      Alternatives to GR such as quantum gravity have been proposed not because there is any actual evidence for them (there is no working theory for quantum gravity as of yet from what I've read), but from what I understand, primarily because we won't have to worry about the possibility of information loss that seems to occur with the existence of black hole, and would appear to create a paradox. Flaws in GR may reveal that black holes to not collapse into a singularity, but that does not mean that gravity does not bend space in observable ways, nor does it mean that a sufficient amount of gravity cannot bend space so sharply that straight lines will never leave a bounded region, as seen from outside of that region, which is what a black hole ultimately is. We cannot directly observe this from outside of one because it's intrinsically unobservable from outside, but we can still observe everything that happens on this side of that boundary, and everything we can observe suggests that such a boundary really does exist at observable points in the heavens. Google "imaging an event horizon" to read about progress made in trying to more directly view the phenomenon.

      None of this necessarily means that GR is sufficient to explain everything there is about the cosmos, but it does mean black holes do indeed appear to exist. They've been about as proven as anything can be... the only arguments that suggest they don't exist in the first place come from characteristics of black holes that are implied by GR... but an event horizon is not really one of those... that is implied by the bending of space by gravity which can actually be directly observed at lower levels of effect.

    10. Re:oh boy by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Most quantum theories of gravity that look promising have no singularies or even horizons, i.e. do NOT lead to black holes

      Interesting that you would say this, since we actually do not even have a quantum theory of gravity yet that predicts astronomical observations.

      Quantum gravity was invented to try and eliminate the apparent paradox in GR that occurs when information would to gets lost inside of a black hole, but all that means is that GR may not be sufficient to explain all of its implications, it does not mean that super-massive objects do not bend space around them, which we can easily observe, nor does it mean that sufficiently heavy objects would bend space so sharply that it would curve back around itself, and no straight line passing near enough to it could actually ever leave a bounded region near it.... and we have come about as close as may be physically possible to imaging an event horizon by monitoring the behaviour of matter that appears to be near one.

    11. Re:oh boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that semiclassical gravity is an extremely effective field theory and features both (black hole) event horizons and singularities.

      Eliminating them impairs it as an EFE outside the horizon (sometimes in ways that would be observable in principle today, and likely inconsistently with such observations), and this has been one of the major issues in resolving the "firewalls" problem. There is as yet no solid observational evidence for non-classical gravitation (although I do bet that we will eventually discover that GR is just a weak field approximation of a quantum theory of gravitation; I just don't bet that that theory will be free of singularities *or* (black hole) event horizons).

      Incidentally, *all* quantum gravity theories feature event horizons *or* reject the Copernican principle. We see clear effects of the cosmological event horizon (and the cosmological particle horizon) with every orbit of the Earth around the sun. An argument that there is radically different physics one light year beyond the Hubble horizon is pretty damn extreme.

    12. Re:oh boy by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      massive objects can bend light without event horizon. neutron stars do it. Other denser objects would do it if they exist, and those things that might be black holes might instead be those denser objects.

  11. Event Horizon Telescope? by mbone · · Score: 3, Informative

    I am surprised they don't mention the Event Horizon Telescope, which could resolve this.

  12. There are too many pseudo-science stories by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are too many pseudo-science stories on Slashdot these days. Are you listening, editors? It's like reading Scientific American (which was almost as bad as Omni last time I read it).

    Here we have a whole huge paragraph full of fantasized bullshit whose only supporting documents are a speculative paper submitted to arXiv, and a brief regurgitation thereof on some arXiv blog.

    Please stop wasting my time. I want to read NEWS for Nerds (where "news" means "as factually verifiable as possible") and stuff that MATTERS (and pseudo science speculation does not matter to me).

    Thank you.

    1. Re:There are too many pseudo-science stories by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But it's testable fantasized bullshit-- which means that it's scientifically interesting.

    2. Re:There are too many pseudo-science stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you completely fail to understand the fundamental pillars of this demographic.

    3. Re:There are too many pseudo-science stories by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Here we have a whole huge paragraph full of fantasized bullshit whose only supporting documents are a speculative paper submitted to arXiv, and a brief regurgitation thereof on some arXiv blog.

      You've just detailed why Slashdot submissions - unlike links posted as part of the discussions - don't display the name of the site any included link directs to. If it did, there would likely be 99% fewer clickthroughs.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    4. Re:There are too many pseudo-science stories by radtea · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are too many pseudo-science stories on Slashdot these days

      While I largely agree with the sentiment, this story is not one of them.

      There are peculiar solutions to the field equations of GR, including wormholes and black holes. Whether any of these solutions can be physically realized has been one of the most interesting questions in both observational and theoretical cosmology for decades. The possibility of detecting the difference between a supermassive black hole and a wormhole at the centre of the galaxy is definitely nerd-worthy, although I agree the hype is, uh, over-hyped.

      Furthermore, these stories give lay-people a bit of insight into how science--which is the discipline of publicly testing ideas by systematic observation, controlled experiment and Bayesian inference--actually works.

      Remember when the existence of black holes was still hotly debated, back in the '70's? Observations on an very small object with a mass of more than 1.4 solar masses (the theoretical upper limit for neutron stars) resulted in a general acceptance that it was a black hole, which likely therefore exist. But that conclusion was contingent on a lack of other plausible alternatives, and so is subject to modification as other alternatives become more plausible...

      This is part of that ongoing story.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    5. Re:There are too many pseudo-science stories by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      Agreed. It's a cool, idea, but that's all. We'd have to upend the whole of astrophysics for it to be true.

    6. Re:There are too many pseudo-science stories by starless · · Score: 2

      Remember when the existence of black holes was still hotly debated, back in the '70's? Observations on an very small object with a mass of more than 1.4 solar masses (the theoretical upper limit for neutron stars) resulted in a general acceptance that it was a black hole,

      1.4 Msun is the maximum mass of a white dwarf not a neutron star.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
      It's therefore basically the _minimum_ mass of a neutron star.

      To show that something is a black hole you have to show that it's more than
      the theoretical maximum mass of a neutron star which is higher. That's not very well determined but is something like 3 Msun.
      http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/d...

    7. Re:There are too many pseudo-science stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Agreed. It's a cool, idea, but that's all. We'd have to upend the whole of astrophysics for it to be true.
       
      You mean like how Relativity upended our understanding of Newtonian physics? IF (big if) the existence of wormholes can be verified by direct observation then it will advance Humanities understanding of the Universe. And that is something every true scientist strives for, they don't disregard a verifiable facts just because it means having to redo 100 pages worth of equations. (yes, I know there are those who would do just that because they didn't want their lifes work to end up in the bin before they retire. They do no Honor to their field)

    8. Re:There are too many pseudo-science stories by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      You do not know what science is then, particularly physics as practiced. Models are made, and experiments done to verify or disprove suitablity of models.

  13. i just hope this is provable. by Connie_Lingus · · Score: 1

    let me preface that i have loved astronomy and space my entire life, so no hate here...

    my first wall poster when i was 8 was a map of the local group that i got out of a natgeo...this was 40 years ago and at the time i remember my mind utterly being blown by that map and the realization of how tiny i was.

    my problem with modern cosmology is, however, the new trend that propose theories with no testable means of proving them. i understand that with cutting edge theory sometimes there may be a lag between the idea and the ability to test, but at some point theories that are non-testable should be dropped from the scientific canon.

    personally, i like to limit theory proposals to those that can somehow be proved by the scientific method, and keep others in scifi.

    --
    never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
  14. Picture by sysbot · · Score: 1

    Picture or it doesn't exist!

  15. let me add... by Connie_Lingus · · Score: 1

    ...that i am excited that this theory seems to fall into the "testable" catagory and that makes it quite exciting to me.

    sorry i hit Submit before adding that thought...

    --
    never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
  16. Or we just got the dark ages wrong by mbone · · Score: 2

    This is really a problem of the "dark ages" - roughly, red shifts between 1400 and 14 (i.e., the period between just after the cosmic microwave background up to the earliest quasars and galaxies). At one end, there are no black holes, at the other, there are supermassive ones, what happens in between, we don't really know. My own personal guess is that this is a consequence of dark matter, and thus wouldn't require worm-holes but, if we can test the wormhole hypothesis, we should. We know so little about the dark ages that IMHO no possibility should be ignored.

  17. Let's go! by mjperson · · Score: 4, Funny

    Finally a stable wormhole for our FTL travel needs. Now, since Sagitarius A is 26,000 lightyears away, all we need to do is build some sort of wormhole network to get us there, and then FTL travel will be ours!

    1. Re:Let's go! by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Yo, Dawg ... I hear you like wormholes ...

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Let's go! by bulletman · · Score: 1

      That's what the Pluto Relay a.k.a. Charon is for.

    3. Re:Let's go! by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      We're in luck, because I've got a wormhole network in my backyard. The downside is, the only thing that goes through it is - worms!

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    4. Re:Let's go! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ah just wanted to say that. nice one anyway.

    5. Re:Let's go! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ewwwwwww. Go eat a tablet, that'll fix it.

  18. It's a Mass Relay! by BitwizeGHC · · Score: 1

    One of the big ones, like the one that was used to travel to the Collectors' homeworld.

    --
    N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
  19. really? by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    "There is growing evidence that the center of the Milky Way contains a mysterious object some 4 million times more massive than the Sun"
    No, that's a proven and well known fact actually.

  20. I recommend... by msobkow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I recommend that we gather up all the world's warrior mentality politicians who are always dragging people into wars and bullshit, put them in uniforms, and send them on a mission through the event horizon to determine if there's another world on the other side of the wormhole, or if they just get squished like bugs.

    Somebody has to do it: solve the Schroedinger question. Is it a wormhole or a black hole? Or is it a quantum object that changes between the two randomly as you observe it?

    The politicians have a need to know. Send them soon. :P

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:I recommend... by Githaron · · Score: 1

      But what if they don't get squished? Think about the intelligient alien species that might be on the other side! Do you really want to curse another intelligent species with such a disease?

    2. Re:I recommend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's 26,000 LY away. Given the environment around it you'll be lucky if even their remains make it there.

  21. Another multiverse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slow down, please!
    It took me a while to get to the multiverse thing.
    Now you say there are multiple multiverses?
    Two levels of multiplicity? WTH!!!
    I'll drop with SlashDot, then. Back to Lego!

  22. may be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In related news another group of scientists speculate that the supper massive black hole at the center of the galaxy may be a jelly doughnut in disguise.

  23. Haha, sorry but I can't help laughing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd be willing to bet any amount of money on 1) that black holes are not a portal but simply high gravity mass, 2) that there is no such thing as a wormhole, 3) that there are other options than what this post suggests. If one is locked into thinking that speed of light is the fastest anything can travel, then of course it makes it hard to reach anywhere, and ideas such as wormholes becomes the straws...

    1. Re:Haha, sorry but I can't help laughing! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wormholes are one of the great disapointments of exotic physics, because they can't actually be used for anything.

      Yay, a FTL portal to the distant universe! That... no object can traverse. Including light. Oh.

      Much like entanglement, which promises instantainous action over any distance and thus FTL communication - but, on closer examination, can't be used to send classical information.

  24. "Cosmologists" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, random idiots posting on arXiv are not "cosmologists". There will always be crackpots around theoretical physics, and it seems these are trying to make themselves famous. Sadly, it's just not in the theory - a wormhole requires a matter with an equation of state never seen before. What's being proposed here is basically akin to saying "Traveling faster than light causes temporal paradoxes, so if we can travel faster than light we can make time machines" then reinterpreted as "Time machines possible". The authors in question seem to have a history of making such dubious claims and failing to get them published in serious journals.

  25. Well said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well said, but reason doesn't pay the bills.
    BICEP 2 lunacy? Come on in!

  26. Nonsense by PhuCknuT · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "The thinking is that about 100 million years after the Big Bang, this supermassive object attracted the gas and dust that eventually became the Milky Way. But there is a problem with this theory--100 million years is not long enough for a black hole to grow so big. The alternative explanation is that Sagittarius A* is a wormhole..."

    No, the widely accepted alternative (aka, the actual mainstream consensus) is that the supermassive black hole and the galaxy grew together, not that the black hole came first and was supermassive before the galaxy existed. This wormhole theory is an answer to a question no one is asking.

  27. Already knew that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So Spore was non-fiction?

  28. IT IS THE DEVILIN DIGUISE: WITH A BLUE DRESS ON by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could be. Just saying.

  29. You lost me at Cosmologists have long known by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Cosmologists have long known that wormholes could have formed in the instants after the Big Bang ."

  30. extraterrestrial intelligence is there by Soleen · · Score: 1

    Just a random thought: Your civilization figured out how to travel FTL, or very close to speed of light. You are also advanced enough to easily avoid obstacles such as asteroid collisions, high radiation etc. Where would you go to search for other intelligent species from outskirt of the galaxy where you evolved? I think going to downtown (to the center of the galaxy) makes the perfect sense. Suns are closer, other species come to this place to study about the galaxy. So, basically this is the perfect place to meet other civilizations. Unlike searching in the boonies (what we are doing at the moment).

    --
    LiFe iS bEAuTiFul :-)
    1. Re:extraterrestrial intelligence is there by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      except the frequency of supernova keep things very sterile toward the center

  31. Easy. by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    Just send Beowulf Schaeffer with the Long Shot already.

    1. Re:Easy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just be on the lookout for any stars that seem to suddenly start moving out of the galaxy.

    2. Re:Easy. by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      we have indeed checked, and you'll be relieved to know there are none. The survey did find a formation of five rocky planets in a rosette heading to galactic north.

  32. I bet by NotFamous · · Score: 1

    I bet it's full of mismatched socks.

    --
    Some settling may occur during posting.
  33. Ascendancy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess the old strategy game Ascendancy was right- the discovery of star lanes (naturally occurring wormholes) is the way to explore space!

  34. not everything by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

    on Arxiv is peer reviewed or even 'good' science. This would seem to fall under that category.

  35. Re:IT IS THE DEVILIN DIGUISE: WITH A BLUE DRESS ON by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2
    "Cosmologists have long known that wormholes could have formed in the instants after the Big Bang"

    There's a statement of oblivious credulity! I prefer the version which runs thusly:

    Gilgamesh had two such dreams, first of a shooting star ("a lump of Anu") which fell on him -- so heavy he could not lift nor move it. The land of Uruk encompassed it. The people thronged about it, and Gilgamesh embraced it like a wife. In the second dream Gilgamesh saw an axe fall over the assembly of Uruk, and he hugged it as if it were his wife, too. Puzzled as to their meaning, he went to his mother, the wise goddess Ninsun, who "untied the dreams." She told him that both the star of heaven and the axe were his companion who was coming. "This companion is powerful, has awesome strength, and is able to save a friend."

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  36. Weasel Words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It "may" be a wormhole, and Monkeys "may" fly out of my butt.

  37. Theorized, Not "Known" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cosmologists have long known that wormholes could have formed in the instants after the Big Bang and that these objects would have been preserved during inflation to appear today as supermassive objects hidden behind an event horizon, like black holes.

    Obviously, KentuckyFC does not have a scientific disposition when considering matters of science. While it is certainly true that cosmologists have hypothesized, theorized, and speculated about the existence of wormholes, they have not known that they exist, or even known that it is possible that they exist. It may very well be the case that it is impossible for wormholes to exist in our universe. There is nothing wrong with constructing and debating the theory of their existence, but when people start claiming that theories are facts, true scientists should call them out for their foolishness.

  38. It's a super stargate by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    It's a super stargate

  39. This might explain... by rnturn · · Score: 1

    ... that sinking feeling that everything we know is swirling around the drain.

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  40. Shit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I forgot to turn off my 3D printer at Elon Musk's private galactic resort last space summer!

  41. Re:It is Projection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Projection.

  42. Hmm, I wonder. by EnsilZah · · Score: 1

    Would gravitational pull spill in through a wormhole?
    If so, would an object's gravitation pull be a sort of temporally-offset vector sum of its original pull and the effect passing through the wormhole?

  43. Re:IT IS THE DEVILIN DIGUISE: WITH A BLUE DRESS ON by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great, where are your measurements, Corny?

  44. Band name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps you've listened to "God is an Astronaut"?

  45. "Life is a battle" "kill or be killed" by aepervius · · Score: 1

    Soooo parasitic species do not exists in your world, symbiotic species do not exists in your world, domestic species do not exists in your world etc...etc... I am happy to live in this world where natural selection led a lot of species come with far more inventive solution than kill or be killed.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  46. Where would it lead? by george1101 · · Score: 1

    where does this 'wormhole' lead and when? the logic behind my question. black holes are known to disrupt time and space. so if somehow you could go inside the aoe of the hole and preform some sly moves to get out what time would you be at (relative to the time before going through the wormhole) and most importantly, where? I believe the emphasis on what 'sly moves' are preformed contribute to the result. oh, I get it now... the place where you end up is the place surrounding the black hole along the black hole's physical location on the fabric of space & time ! black holes move I think so if a black hole moves 1 AU in any time frame then the manoeuvres needed to travel the distance of where the black hole was to where it is now whilst residing in the black hole's aoe would probably require more energy than it would take just travelling there classically. but... if the black hole was of a certain size and moving at a sufficient velocity relative to where you wanted to go you could save some energy and just hitch a ride on the black hole to get to your destination faster. I.e like a gravitational slingshot into the space of a specific time. Time travel is really not so hard to get your head around. if everything in a specific space seems slower than everything else and you are inside that space then everything else will go faster than you. To go backwards in time you need to actually break the speed of light limit, make a impossibly sharp hook turn, travel to where and when you want to be then make another impossibly sharp hook turn and then slow down to the present time & space. Why Einstein says you need infinite energy to go FTL. you can't use mass to escape mass. You need anti matter to escape a black hole, Alot of it... Sounds dangerous? it is considering you are dealing with energies exponentially higher than the energy of of a human. I'm talking trillions upon trillions of levels higher.

  47. Re:IT IS THE DEVILIN DIGUISE: WITH A BLUE DRESS ON by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    Great, where are your measurements, Corny?

    36, 24, 36.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  48. Yo mama by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 1

    Yo mama so fat, her business card reads "Sagittarius A"

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
  49. I bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Better yet, quantum entangled socks!

  50. diinheiro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.ganhardinheirointernetrj.com.br

  51. Hawking's Briefer History of Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somewhere in this book it is mentioned that you can calculate the maximum entropy of a black hole as function of the surface area of it's event horizon. I have found this to be a rather useful equation when calculating the 'worst case scenarios' in terms of computability when considering the maximum complexity that can be contained in an object that fits inside an X * Y * Z sized volume, albeit much smaller than a stellar or galactic black hole to be sure! (IE living cells, atoms, theoretical Nano-scale processors.. etc.)

    My question is:

    Does it stand to reason that based on this equation, a wormhole within an event horizon would likely either:
      1- Have a much greater entropy than the surface area of it's observed event horizon would suggest.. or
    2- Have a greater entropy than a black hole with an event horizon with an identical surface area or
    3- Have some observable characteristic that would suggest that it's event horizon is unusually small or big for what it is observed to be doing?

    I differ to the uber astro-physics experts on here to answer this, as I am just a computer science graduate student and just an armchair physicist.

    in my mind this line of reasoning might lead to 'cute' indirect ways of telling the difference between a black hole and a wormhole of this type. I could be wrong, despite always intuiting the clam "when you cross the event horizon, our laws of physics break down" as a cop out that can be translated more honestly as " We don't know what goes on beyond the event horizon of a black hole because we don't completely understand black holes. What jumps out at me here is, if a black hole's event horizon has a deterministic surface area that is tied to the amount of matter/energy/spacetime geometry which translates to |the maximum heat| it contains, wouldn't a wormhole to another part of our universe or to a completely different universe technically "Contain" wildly different amounts of "entropy"?

    I could be making assumptions that are on the edge of our scientific understanding, or making assumptions that are wrong but inside the paradigm of known astrophysics. I have heard it said that the big bang could be looked at as the birth of our universe from the collapse of a star in another universe and the expansion of space being due to space-time and matter and energy being drawn into this black hole from elsewhere. I can think of a lot of things wrong with this though, most obviously , conservation of energy and thermodynamics.. If matter is entering our universe from another, doesn't the amount of energy/mass in the universe increase over time? Doesn't this violate Newton's laws , to say nothing of relativity?

  52. 4 million times more massive than the Sun,,,, it h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    4 million times more massive than the Sun http://www.gn2day.com/

  53. Wormhole to where? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting concept, if every galaxy has a massive wormhole at it's center... where do they all go? Are they connected to each other? Are we living at the end of a spoke for a central hub? It may not allow matter to survive the journey but what about energy or the soul? Highway to Heaven? Gateway for our oppressive energy overlords?

  54. This piece misinterprets the research. by Paul+server+guy · · Score: 1

    According to Stephen Braham This piece misinterprets the research. There's pretty much zero chance that Sag A* is a wormhole (and, given that I did my PhD on them, I'm biased to wanting wormholes)! The paper is about how you'd know if it was, and not on any evidence that Sag A* isn't a usual accretion-formed BH.

    --
    Your Moon, Your Mission, Get involved! http://www.openluna.org
  55. Nah... by PensivePeter · · Score: 1

    ...if it were, we would be able to see all the biros (http://www.earthstar.co.uk/biros.htm)

  56. Here's the Muse song. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Saving you the trouble of searching.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr_qDnDPyA4

  57. An answer to the Fermi Paradox? by BranMan · · Score: 1

    That does make for an interesting idea - if the center of every galaxy has wormholes, and every advanced civilization discovers this, and they can be used for travel.....

    Maybe the reason we have not seen any alien civilizations is that they all congregate towards the center of the galaxy. Then we would not see them because we are out towards the rim, in a backwater if you will.

    Makes for an interesting thought at least.

  58. bqhatevwr by terrywirth5 · · Score: 1

    As long as this wormhole eats this god-forsaken planet. I picture it as a massive wood chipper sucking in planets and discharging energy out of the other end. In other words, earth as we know it is the equivalent to a beer fart.

  59. Really...A Black Hole?? by Winkkin · · Score: 1

    What if we've been looking at it all wrong. We tend to view this gravity well as the repository of a mass. What if instead it was these super massive black holes are really remnants of the universe's primordial gravitational field immediately prior to/at the time of inflation. Think about it topographically. We live on an inflation driven membrane of space-time, driven outward by inflation yet pinned to the universe through the gravitational field at our galaxy's center. Nothing fell in, we fell out.

    1. Re:Really...A Black Hole?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Primordial black holes are considered by cosmologists, as processes in the early universe would allow for creation of black holes of sizes not normally accessible by star collapses. Although searches for these has set really low bounds on small black holes, and things like the cosmic microwave background set limits on large black holes in the early universe.

  60. Supermassive Black Hole is Wormhole? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You go in. Find out. Let us know.

  61. Show us the evidence by rhyous · · Score: 1

    I get annoyed reading lines like: "There is growing evidence that the center of the Milky Way contains a mysterious object some 4 million times more massive than the Sun."

    What evidence do we have? How is it growing? How big is it now? How much does it grow?

    I mean, are we talking a mustard seed of evidence here? (Yes, iron analogy to use in science, I know ;-)

    After reading the article, science is making a guess that wormholes are smaller than black holes. There is no scientific basis behind this guess. It is just a guess. So this article assumes that because Sagittarius A is small it is a worm hole, not a black hole.

    So basically we are in the hypothesis phase, not even in the theory phase yet.

  62. Wormhole vs. Hot Air by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lets go look in person but send the politicians first.

  63. the ancient view of the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ancient view of the world was that the world was in between heaven and hell. The Earth was the center of the ancient cosmetology. Heaven was above the Earth, and Hell was below the Earth, the stars surrounded the Earth. You might say that Earth is at the center of a drama. Even Jesus said, I am from above, and you are from below. Heaven is God's throne and Earth is his foot stool!

  64. If it is a wormhole.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it is a wormhole why isn't stuff from the other end comimg out into my Milky Way galaxy?

    Or does that explain why only my galaxy supports life?

  65. Astronomy needs to catch-up Cosmological Index by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sub:Astronomy needs to catch-up Cosmological Index
    Cosmology needs best of brains trust-search Origins
    The psychology of Black-hole or Worm hole must change- Think tanks must evolve creative Spirit
    Plasma regulated Electromagnetic Phenomena in Magnetic field Environment holds the keys at the Milky-way Galactic Plane
    vidyardhicosmology [dot] blogspot [dot] com

    1. Re:Astronomy needs to catch-up Cosmological Index by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SUPER-IMPOSITION OF VISIBLE -INVISIBLE MATRIX MODE OVER SPACE BASED OBSERVATIONS
      VIDYARDHI NANDURI
      presented by the author-at THE FIRST COSPAR SYMPOSIUM- Planetary Systems of our Sun and other stars and the Future of Astronomy, Bangkok, Thailand, 11-15 Nov 2013

  66. Re:IT IS THE DEVILIN DIGUISE: WITH A BLUE DRESS ON by Zordak · · Score: 1

    Great, where are your measurements, Corny?

    36, 24, 36.

    Those are fairly disturbing for somebody named "Jeremiah."

    --

    Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
  67. Re:IT IS THE DEVILIN DIGUISE: WITH A BLUE DRESS ON by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    Well, we are talking about "my" measurements, or the measurements I have taken?

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  68. Mre importantly, does it by mtthwbrnd · · Score: 1

    lead us to Bajor?