As previously, I'm really not interested in reading crap, sorry.In the meantime if you are interested in scientific research, I refer you to the OP, post 15, post 19.
You have a good day ya here!
This new equation might finally unite the two biggest theories in physics, claims physicist
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
As previously, I'm really not interested in reading crap, sorry.In the meantime if you are interested in scientific research, I refer you to the OP, post 15, post 19.
You have a good day ya here!
I don't believe there is a reputable professional scientist who has come out and said categorically, that worm holes do not exist.
So at this stage, all we can say with confidence is, who knows?
Afterall they once didn't believe BH's exist, or gravitational waves, or time dilation, or cosmological redshift, or DM.
But science is a discipline in progression, I just feel for the fools left behind
So at this stage, all we can say with confidence is, who knows?
Afterall they once didn't believe BH's exist, or gravitational waves, or time dilation, or cosmological redshift, or DM.
But science is a discipline in progression, I just feel for the fools left behind
Is Dr. Matthew R. Francis a "reputable professional scientist"?
Resume : https://bowlerhatscience.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/resume_matthewrfrancis.pdf
Dr. Matthew R. Francis - "Why wormholes (probably) don’t exist"
" A lot of science fiction plot devices are devoted to getting around the speed of light. In the real Universe, nothing with mass can travel faster than light, which means we can’t travel to distant stars without taking decades, centuries, or longer in transit. So, sci-fi draws from teleportation, hyperdrive, warp drive, and the ultimate cosmic short-cut: wormholes.[1]
In some cases, the source of a science fiction concept actually is in physics — though it rarely looks the same in fiction as in reality. (Ain’t that the truth for so many things?) And of course many scientists are sci-fi fans, who have tried to determine if any of these schemes actually work with physics as we know it. A lot of these calculations are for fun or for curiosity, but whether with serious intent or not, the science is pretty clear: without something unexpected, the speed of light is still the limit. We can’t get from here to a distant star system instantly, no matter how much we want to.[2]
I’m as disappointed by this as anyone, though I won’t let it stop me from enjoying Star Trek and the rest. It’s important to remember that scientists like me don’t shoot down sci-fi ideas because we hate them: we just need to keep ourselves grounded in what successful theories and experiments tell us about the world.
For that reason, I got a little grumpfy last week when a press release from SISSA (Scuola Internazionale Superiore di Studi Avanzati, or the International School for Advanced Studies for those of us who don’t speak Italian) claimed researchers showed that our galaxy could harbor a huge wormhole, powered by dark matter. [ http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.00490 ] Thankfully most outlets didn’t pick up on the story (apart from Universe Today, which loves to run uncritical stories about wild speculative science). However, I got enough questions via Twitter and Facebook that I thought it’s worth going over what established science tells us about wormholes and dark matter.
Briefly stated: wormholes probably don’t exist in real life, for a wide variety of reasons from general relativity and quantum physics. To make matters worse, the way the new paper treats dark matter contradicts a lot of research in cosmology, and flatly is ruled out by existing observations in the Milky Way. Let’s start from the beginning….
What is a wormhole?
A wormhole is a hypothetical link between two points in spacetime, which would manifest itself as something resembling a black hole without an event horizon. (Event horizons are the boundaries preventing anything from exiting once something enters a black hole.) In plain language, if you entered a wormhole, you would emerge in a different place and time; the distance you travel could be far less than than the separation in space. You could even travel back or forward in time using a wormhole, though that’s a complication we don’t need to worry about today. It’s also possible for wormholes to be longer than the distance you want to travel in space, so science fiction astronauts: don’t just blindly drop into a wormhole and hope for the best!
From the “outside”, the simplest wormhole would look like a sphere, though its surface would look very strange, based on its strong gravity and whatever light is passing through it from the other side. If they existed, most wormholes would likely be very small and would evaporate almost as soon as they formed. Anything passing through — even a single photon — disturbs the gravitational structure of the wormhole, causing it to collapse into two infinitely dense concentrations of energy known as “naked singularities”. That leaves us with two questions: could a wormhole form in the first place, and could it be stabilized somehow?
Mathematically, a wormhole is perfectly allowed by the rules of general relativity. But the math isn’t the whole (hole?) story. A wormhole is described using geometry; when you insert that geometrical statement into the machinery of Einstein’s equations of general relativity, you get back a description of what sort of matter or energy would be needed to make a wormhole true. Basically, the structure of spacetime requires something that focuses light as it enters the wormhole, then defocuses it as it exits.
Why wormholes (probably) don’t exist
Sometimes you’ll hear wormholes referred to as “Einstein-Rosen bridges”, referring to a 1935 paper by Billy Bob Albert Einstein and Nathan Rosen. John Archibald Wheeler and his colleagues did a lot of work on wormholes in the 1950s and ’60s, but their real entrance into the popular imagination came through Carl Sagan’s novel Contact. Through correspondence with gravitational physicist Kip Thorne, Sagan worked out a science fiction device: alien technology enabled the opening of a temporary wormhole between Earth and a distant star system, allowing the novel’s protagonist and her companions to cover many light-years of distance in a matter of hours.[3]
As Thorne describes in his book Black Holes and Time Warps, the alien tech required some form of “exotic matter”. Sagan didn’t need to worry about the details for Contact, but Thorne did: to make a real-world wormhole to defocus light paths, you need negative energy density to keep the tunnel from collapsing. (Thorne also consulted on the recent film Interstellar, which also involves astronauts traveling via wormhole.) That follows directly from general relativity.
Nothing we know of possesses negative energy density. Dark energy, for example, has positive energy density, even though it has negative pressure. Some quantum fluctuations can be interpreted that way, though they are very tiny on the scale we’d need to build a useful wormhole. So, quantum gravity might let us have microscopic wormholes that pop in and out of existence, but that doesn’t help us travel to Vega.
In fact, it’s really hard to imagine what negative energy density even means. All matter we know about has positive energy density (guaranteed in part by E = mc2), which is why Thorne invoked hypothetical “exotic” matter in his wormhole papers, but there’s good reason to think such stuff doesn’t exist in the real world. There’s even a mathematical theorem in general relativity stating that the total energy in a volume of spacetime must be positive or zero. If there’s any negative energy density around, it must be counterbalanced by a greater amount of positive energy density in the same general region.[4]
- Notes
1.) - Real-world communication is similarly limited by the speed of light, hence subspace communication and Ursula LeGuin’s ansible.
2.) - Despite discovering the mathematical equations describing a kind of “warp drive”, Miguel Alcubierre is one of the biggest critics of the people trying to build a working example. As he rightfully has pointed out, his calculations pretty much show warp drive is impossible in the real world, for similar reasons to those showing why wormholes probably aren’t real. I wrote about why “warp drives” won’t work for Slate.
3.) - In the movie version, Ellie Arroway travels alone, and if my memory serves, the structure of the wormhole is never explained.
4.) - This is known in the trade as a horrible simplification. Don’t try this at home, kids. "
The ^^above quoted^^ from, and much more at : https://galileospendulum.org/2015/01/26/why-wormholes-probably-dont-exist/
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I read a witty quip somewhere that described a pretty good truism about headlines.Or my favorite by news organizations all over the world (non-science related). Headline...Is Obama going to finally give it to Israel? Bottom line after reading the story...no.
If a headline is in the form of a question, you can pretty much automatically add the word 'No.' to the end.
So much ado about nothing!
He did say the following dmoe
You take it easy now, ya hear! [or you could try again ]
He did say the following dmoe
and obviously other reasons why he believes they cannot exist. But no where does he say.....................
You take it easy now, ya hear!
[or you could try again ]Worm Holes, Black Holes, DM, Gravitational Waves as envisaged, Cosmological Red shift as envisaged do not exist in nature. Period.I don't believe there is a reputable professional scientist who has come out and said categorically, that worm holes do not exist.
So at this stage, all we can say with confidence is, who knows?
Afterall they once didn't believe BH's exist, or gravitational waves, or time dilation, or cosmological redshift, or DM.
But science is a discipline in progression, I just feel for the fools left behind
Certainly is!
Professor Susskind: Resume:
- B.S., 1962, City College of New York
- Ph.D., 1965, Cornell University
- National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellow, Cornell University, 1965-66
- Assistant Professor of Physics, Belfer Graduate School of Science, Yeshiva University, 1966-68
- Associate Professor of Physics, Belfer Graduate School of Science, Yeshiva University 1968-70
- Professor of Physics, University of Tel Aviv, 1971-72
- Professor of Physics, Belfer Graduate School of Science, Yeshiva University 1970-79
- Professor of Physics, Stanford University, 1979-present
- Pregel Award, New York Academy of Science, 1975
- Loeb Lecturer, Harvard University, 1976
- J.J. Sakurai Prize in Theoretical Particle Physics, 1997
- Felix Bloch Professorship in Physics, 2000-present
- Director, Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics, 2009-present
d...e...l...e...t...e...d
Last edited:
That's just the rantings of a religiously inspired anti mainstream science fanatic I suggest.
No thats reality, dreamy maths not withstanding.
An Interesting speculative paper on this phenomenon that GR predicts.....
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.05295v2.pdf
Cosmological wormholes in f(R) theories of gravity
August 2016:
Abstract:
Motivated by recent proposals of possible wormhole existence in galactic halos, we analyse the cosmological evolution of wormhole solutions in modified f(R) gravity. We construct a dynamical wormhole that asymptotically approaches FLRW universe, with supporting material going to the perfect isotropic fluid described by the equation of state for radiation and matter dominated universe respectively. Our analysis is based on an approximation of a small wormhole - a wormhole that can be treated as matched with the FLRW metric at some radial coordinate much smaller than the Hubble radius, so that cosmological boundary conditions are satisfied. With a special interest in viable wormhole solutions, we refer to the results of reconstruction procedure and use f(R) functions which lead to the experimentally confirmed ΛCDM expansion history of the universe. Solutions we find imply no need for exotic matter near the throat of considered wormholes, while in the limit of f(R) = R this need is always present during radiation and matter dominated epoch.
V. DISCUSSION
Discussion on the possible existence of wormholes as astrophysical objects naturally leads to the question of their properties and evolution during the expansion of the universe. We speculate that cosmological wormholes could be created in the conditions characterizing the early universe plasma, and then subsequently evolve during the radiation and matter dominance epoch. In order to describe wormholes in a cosmological context it is necessary to match evolving wormhole geometry with the FLRW space-time. In the present work this was achieved by using the approximation of a small wormhole - where geometry is determined by requirement that for some radial distance away from the throat of the wormhole, rc, shape and red-shift functions become so small that they can be taken to vanish, therefore enabling wormhole matching to the FLRW geometry. When approaching rc, anisotropic fluid supporting the wormhole needs to go to the ideal isotropic fluid of the universe, with equation of state parameter going to the one characterizing radiation and matter dominance epoch respectively. Our analysis was done in the framework of f(R) modified gravity, which is of special interest for several reasons: it represents a simple and natural mathematical generalization of standard GR, it does not introduce any new physical assumptions or entities, it is capable of describing
observed accelerated expansion of the universe, and avoiding singularities which appear in the standard GR. Interested in viable cosmological solutions we choose the form of (R) functions given by the reconstruction procedure, which leads to the known evolution of cosmological scale factor. We considered the wormhole solutions that were described by the same scale factor as the universe - i.e. that had its dynamics determined by the expansion of the universe. Choosing simple functions for shape parameter and space-dependent part of red-shift function we constructed examples of cosmological wormhole solutions in radiation and matter dominance epoch. It was demonstrated that there is no WEC violation for material supporting these wormholes, while in the f(R) = R limit WEC will always be violated in both epochs. Such cosmological wormholes could then be created as a microscopic objects in the early universe, and then increase their size during the evolution of the universe, until they reach the size of average astrophysical objects today. In this paper, we have focused on the evolution of wormhole in the radiation and dominated phases of the universe. Working withing the f(R) framework we assume that dark energy is effectively described by modification of the action for the GR. If the universe is dominated by some form of exotic matter such as phantom energy, than phantom wormholes within f(R) theory would be of theoretical interest as well. Presented investigation of cosmological wormholes opens many potential questions for further work. It would be important to extend the analysis to the era of inflation and late time expansion, described by the scale factor exponentially dependent on time. Another interesting direction would be to look for evolving wormhole construction within the curvature-matter coupling models with actions such as f(R)Lm or f(R, T), where T is the trace of the energy-momentum tensor. Moreover thermodynamic aspects of such wormholes at their apparent or event horizons along with further extensions to higher dimensions would be of some interest too. Feature of special physical interest would be to discuss astrophysical properties and possibility of detection for discussed solutions, as well as their interaction with surrounding matter - for instance via accretion of different material on the cosmological wormholes.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.05295v2.pdf
Cosmological wormholes in f(R) theories of gravity
August 2016:
Abstract:
Motivated by recent proposals of possible wormhole existence in galactic halos, we analyse the cosmological evolution of wormhole solutions in modified f(R) gravity. We construct a dynamical wormhole that asymptotically approaches FLRW universe, with supporting material going to the perfect isotropic fluid described by the equation of state for radiation and matter dominated universe respectively. Our analysis is based on an approximation of a small wormhole - a wormhole that can be treated as matched with the FLRW metric at some radial coordinate much smaller than the Hubble radius, so that cosmological boundary conditions are satisfied. With a special interest in viable wormhole solutions, we refer to the results of reconstruction procedure and use f(R) functions which lead to the experimentally confirmed ΛCDM expansion history of the universe. Solutions we find imply no need for exotic matter near the throat of considered wormholes, while in the limit of f(R) = R this need is always present during radiation and matter dominated epoch.
V. DISCUSSION
Discussion on the possible existence of wormholes as astrophysical objects naturally leads to the question of their properties and evolution during the expansion of the universe. We speculate that cosmological wormholes could be created in the conditions characterizing the early universe plasma, and then subsequently evolve during the radiation and matter dominance epoch. In order to describe wormholes in a cosmological context it is necessary to match evolving wormhole geometry with the FLRW space-time. In the present work this was achieved by using the approximation of a small wormhole - where geometry is determined by requirement that for some radial distance away from the throat of the wormhole, rc, shape and red-shift functions become so small that they can be taken to vanish, therefore enabling wormhole matching to the FLRW geometry. When approaching rc, anisotropic fluid supporting the wormhole needs to go to the ideal isotropic fluid of the universe, with equation of state parameter going to the one characterizing radiation and matter dominance epoch respectively. Our analysis was done in the framework of f(R) modified gravity, which is of special interest for several reasons: it represents a simple and natural mathematical generalization of standard GR, it does not introduce any new physical assumptions or entities, it is capable of describing
observed accelerated expansion of the universe, and avoiding singularities which appear in the standard GR. Interested in viable cosmological solutions we choose the form of (R) functions given by the reconstruction procedure, which leads to the known evolution of cosmological scale factor. We considered the wormhole solutions that were described by the same scale factor as the universe - i.e. that had its dynamics determined by the expansion of the universe. Choosing simple functions for shape parameter and space-dependent part of red-shift function we constructed examples of cosmological wormhole solutions in radiation and matter dominance epoch. It was demonstrated that there is no WEC violation for material supporting these wormholes, while in the f(R) = R limit WEC will always be violated in both epochs. Such cosmological wormholes could then be created as a microscopic objects in the early universe, and then increase their size during the evolution of the universe, until they reach the size of average astrophysical objects today. In this paper, we have focused on the evolution of wormhole in the radiation and dominated phases of the universe. Working withing the f(R) framework we assume that dark energy is effectively described by modification of the action for the GR. If the universe is dominated by some form of exotic matter such as phantom energy, than phantom wormholes within f(R) theory would be of theoretical interest as well. Presented investigation of cosmological wormholes opens many potential questions for further work. It would be important to extend the analysis to the era of inflation and late time expansion, described by the scale factor exponentially dependent on time. Another interesting direction would be to look for evolving wormhole construction within the curvature-matter coupling models with actions such as f(R)Lm or f(R, T), where T is the trace of the energy-momentum tensor. Moreover thermodynamic aspects of such wormholes at their apparent or event horizons along with further extensions to higher dimensions would be of some interest too. Feature of special physical interest would be to discuss astrophysical properties and possibility of detection for discussed solutions, as well as their interaction with surrounding matter - for instance via accretion of different material on the cosmological wormholes.
Obviously why all your alternative propositions are in the drink!
Obviously why all your alternative propositions are in the drink!
It will be swapped...circa 2025.
Ignoring our upset friend......
From the linked paper.....
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.05295v2.pdf
"Einstein’s theory of GR predicts that the structure and geometry of spacetime in the presence of matter is not rigid but is elastic and deformable".
Interesting sentence and truism, that needs thinking on I suggest.
From the linked paper.....
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.05295v2.pdf
"Einstein’s theory of GR predicts that the structure and geometry of spacetime in the presence of matter is not rigid but is elastic and deformable".
Interesting sentence and truism, that needs thinking on I suggest.
expletives deleted
Registered Senior Member
@ paddoboy:
And closing your eyes to what may be inconvenient truths is no way to educate yourself. That way lay fantasy world of your own 'fabrication', paddoboy. Take care how you go in that slippery slope direction (seriously).
Moreover, even in your own referenced commentary it is made clear that such things are merely implied by the maths once one extends that maths beyond what GR is capable of describing and predicting in its domain of applicability.
And you still have not acknowledged that the ENTANGLEMENT necessary for Susskind's 'idea' is a Quantum Theory concept which makes the "wormhole" based on ENTANGLED black holes implausible at best and totally unphysical science fantasy speculations at worst; not least also because the 'exotic energy' that such speculative "wormholes" require DOES NOT EXITS according to the mainstream scientists themselves.
But of course, since you have decided to just not read anything that can upset your apple-cart; and so just baldly deny all the scientific facts posted for your benefit, you will just continue cluttering up the thread with more unscientific speculative nonsense to add to that which Susskind has just 'publish or perish' offered for such uncritical unscientific 'believers' and 'faith following' such as you are proving yourself to be here.
That is not the scientific methodology which you are 'applying' here, dear paddoboy; it is the "unscientific methodology" of your own and any 'crank' who prefers science fiction/fantasy over real science. Too bad.
Best hopes for a quick recovery from your intentionally self-inflicted "non-reading" and consequential in denial state which such facts-avoidance practices engender in the willful "non-reader" of the facts posted for his benefit, dear paddoboy. Sincerely.
Yet you prefer to read pop-sci fantasy/fiction and outright wild speculations with obviously no tenable physical or logical basis according to the mainstream itself? How strange.
And closing your eyes to what may be inconvenient truths is no way to educate yourself. That way lay fantasy world of your own 'fabrication', paddoboy. Take care how you go in that slippery slope direction (seriously).
No "if" about it; I AM interested in SCIENTIFIC (not science fantasy/fiction) research and discussion. Which is why I have posted tenable scientific content and observations while you post pop-science and argument empty assertions and opinions that are neither here nor there to real scientific research or discussion here.In the meantime if you are interested in scientific research, I refer you to the OP, post 15, post 19.
You have a good day ya here!
Dear paddoboy, your beliefs or vague and un-argued and scientifically un-tenable bald assertions go against the now well known mainstream understandings that "wormholes" and "singularities" (let alone the TWO "naked singularities" necessary for the Susskind "wormhole") don't actually exist or are even possible, despite the GR maths or "reputation" of those extrapolating from same to get such like unphysical absurdities.I don't believe there is a reputable professional scientist who has come out and said categorically, that worm holes do not exist.
So at this stage, all we can say with confidence is, who knows?
Afterall they once didn't believe BH's exist, or gravitational waves, or time dilation, or cosmological redshift, or DM.
But science is a discipline in progression, I just feel for the fools left behind
Moreover, even in your own referenced commentary it is made clear that such things are merely implied by the maths once one extends that maths beyond what GR is capable of describing and predicting in its domain of applicability.
And you still have not acknowledged that the ENTANGLEMENT necessary for Susskind's 'idea' is a Quantum Theory concept which makes the "wormhole" based on ENTANGLED black holes implausible at best and totally unphysical science fantasy speculations at worst; not least also because the 'exotic energy' that such speculative "wormholes" require DOES NOT EXITS according to the mainstream scientists themselves.
But of course, since you have decided to just not read anything that can upset your apple-cart; and so just baldly deny all the scientific facts posted for your benefit, you will just continue cluttering up the thread with more unscientific speculative nonsense to add to that which Susskind has just 'publish or perish' offered for such uncritical unscientific 'believers' and 'faith following' such as you are proving yourself to be here.
That is not the scientific methodology which you are 'applying' here, dear paddoboy; it is the "unscientific methodology" of your own and any 'crank' who prefers science fiction/fantasy over real science. Too bad.
Best hopes for a quick recovery from your intentionally self-inflicted "non-reading" and consequential in denial state which such facts-avoidance practices engender in the willful "non-reader" of the facts posted for his benefit, dear paddoboy. Sincerely.
Last edited:
Calm down old son, like the god, you appear to be getting excited.I see your posts are a continuation of your usual ranting preaching style, so once again ignored.
Speculative science is totally necessary and carried on all the time. The problem here with yourself and others, are that you fail to discertain what is speculative [which Professor Susskind is discussing and wrote his paper on] and your own general anti mainstream story/s which as usual you are unable to support in any way, via reputable citations, links or references.
Couple that with your own mystery qualifications,
which could be non existent, and we can see why your claims are treated with a grain of salt....Are you so hung up as to not be able to see that?
You see we know wormholes are entirely speculative: But they are a prediction of GR and no scientist will ever say that they do catagorically not exist. You agree? That's nice, we are getting somewhere.
By the same token, other areas such as time dilation, cosmological redshift, gravitational lensing, gravitational waves, BH's etc that were also once highly speculative, are now all validated and stand as confirmed, in line with the definition of a scientific theory.
So I hope I have at least alleviated your problem somewhat and if I have I will be able to sleep as a happy man tonight!
All the best my friend!
expletives deleted
Registered Senior Member
@ paddoboy:
Dear paddoboy,
You admitted (twice!) that you don't read posts before reacting. So it's you that is obviously reacting emotionally and not remaining calm; and so inevitably posting totally uninformed and irrelevant rants and beliefs instead of acknowledging and addressing the scientifically valid points made based on mainstream understandings on the concepts in question. Your personal mischaracterizations and evasions and repeated iteration of assertions based on your beliefs and faith etc add nothing constructive to the discussion but only clutter up as usual with irrelevant and subjective stuff from you because, as has become painfully obvious by now, you properly understand little if any at all of the scientific subject matter itself.
Thanks anyway. Best.
Dear paddoboy,
I see your posts are a continuation of your usual ranting preaching style, so once again ignored.
Speculative science is totally necessary and carried on all the time. The problem here with yourself and others, are that you fail to discertain what is speculative [which Professor Susskind is discussing and wrote his paper on] and your own general anti mainstream story/s which as usual you are unable to support in any way, via reputable citations, links or references.
Couple that with your own mystery qualifications,
Are you so hung up as to not be able to see that?
You see we know wormholes are entirely speculative: But they are a prediction of GR and no scientist will ever say that they do catagorically not exist. You agree? That's nice, we are getting somewhere.
By the same token, other areas such as time dilation, cosmological redshift, gravitational lensing, gravitational waves, BH's etc that were also once highly speculative, are now all validated and stand as confirmed, in line with the definition of a scientific theory.
So I hope I have at least alleviated your problem somewhat and if I have I will be able to sleep as a happy man tonight!
All the best my friend!
You admitted (twice!) that you don't read posts before reacting. So it's you that is obviously reacting emotionally and not remaining calm; and so inevitably posting totally uninformed and irrelevant rants and beliefs instead of acknowledging and addressing the scientifically valid points made based on mainstream understandings on the concepts in question. Your personal mischaracterizations and evasions and repeated iteration of assertions based on your beliefs and faith etc add nothing constructive to the discussion but only clutter up as usual with irrelevant and subjective stuff from you because, as has become painfully obvious by now, you properly understand little if any at all of the scientific subject matter itself.
Thanks anyway. Best.
Last edited:
No, I just refuse to read your posts at this time as they are filled with nothing but pretentious crap, and totally unsupported to boot.
When that changes, when you start posting reasonable science, that is supportable [mainstream or alternative] Then you'll be back in the fold again, OK?
Thank you expletive deleted: You take it easy now, I'll be gone a while as I need to pick up my beautiful wife from work.