# Wormholes...



## PERCON (May 26, 2005)

I'd like to introduce a thread here about wormholes since they are very interesting and yet not enough is known about them to prove anything.

I'd like to explain using a great example I read somewhere about how a wormhole would work:

1) Take a single piece of A4 paper, imagine this is the unvierse, the vast unimaginably huge universe now shrunk to A4 size .

2) With a pen mark two points on the paper at opposite ends preferably lengthways, one mark being one end of the universe the other mark being the far side of the universe. 

3) Now fold the paper in half so the marks touch.

4) This is what a wormhole is, a link between two points which makes the distance much, MUCH smaller.

The only problem is, understanding how to 'bend' the universe.

I'll leave you with that to ponder over...

_PERCON - "Who washed the car this morning?"_


----------



## Stalker (Jul 13, 2005)

When we use string theory, it's going to be quite easy...


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Jul 13, 2005)

You'd have a hell of a job stopping whatever went into a wormhole getting compressed to microscopic proportions - however it's great for sci-fi novels.


----------



## Stalker (Jul 13, 2005)

Ok, what we are doing here is all about sci-fi business.  All goes as you put it with natural (mathematical) wormholes. We are going to make artificial wormholes capable of transmitting big objects without compressing them at least in 3-dimensional space. So far, it is really possible only for sci0fi ships using Hawking drive.


----------



## argenianpoet (Jun 1, 2006)

I've always thought that the _so-called_ black hole was, in fact, a worm hole and not its traditional definition, but that's just an idea.  The idea that wormholes actually exist is a fascinating one, and I would imagine that if we were to ever stumble across one it would be by the aid of an alien civilazation far more advanced than us.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 1, 2006)

To the best of my understanding, they're quite different phenomena (or epiphenomena, perhaps). One, of course, is a star that has collapsed until literally nothing except -- (and correct me, Chris, if I'm wrong) certain types of radiation (such as X-rays) can escape the gravitational pull at all. I've seen debates as to whether the compression is enough to actually "punch a hole in space", etc.; the majority seem to feel this is perhaps the case. A wormhole, however, is a different "flaw" in the structure of spacetime, of extremely short duration, and is the result of certain aspects of quantum mechanics that are rather specialized. Black holes, if I remember correctly, we know exist; wormholes I haven't kept up on, but if I remember correctly, they were pretty certain they'd found evidence of such; I could be mistaken. (And then there are "white holes"; and p-branes, and yes, string theory, and along about the time we start getting into some of these my head starts to feel as if I've had about a quart of vodka, and it's time to pick a designated driver....)


----------



## mosaix (Jun 1, 2006)

J.D.

I think wormholes are still at the 'theoretical' stage, the main drawback being the amount of energy required to generate one. I see to remember a quotation from somewhere along the lines of 'all the energy produced by all the suns in our galaxy'. Which, in my book, means a possibility but not something we could harness. 

But, who cares, this is all about Science _Fiction _after all.


----------



## Marky Lazer (Jun 1, 2006)

I don't know anything about wormholes, but I saw Donnie Darko again last night, and I think they've a funny theorie going on in the movie.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 1, 2006)

Anyone on the forums know if there's been actual evidence of naturally occurring (I wasn't referring to artificially created, which may not be theoretically impossible, but are, I think, darned unlikely) wormholes? I could have sworn I'd run into some reference to such evidence a few years ago in an article on recent astronomical observations, but perhaps my memory is playing tricks again. If anyone knows about this, please pass on the information. As I understand the concept, wormholes are indeed naturally occurring phenomena, but of durations of a maximum of microseconds, as the causes for them lie in the realm of subatomic particle physics. I know that the theory is an outgrowth of Einsteinian relativity, though I believe somewhat altered by the later quantum physics of Heisenberg, Planck, De Sitter, et al. And, yes, to artificially create one would take massive amounts of energy, even if it could be done, as it would mean altering the gravitational field of the universe (as a holistic field with nondiscrete parts), causing a concentration of such force in such a way as to literally warp the fabric of spacetime, creating a distortion connecting two normally vastly separated points; a prolonged use of this would wreak havoc with the universe itself, is my understanding; but for the incredibly brief times they are supposed to occur naturally, it is such a small amount that the major effects have no time to actually take place. At least, such is my understanding from what I've read on the subject. (I do wish Chris would jump in here -- if anyone, he'd be able to give a pretty good answer to the questions asked.)


----------



## scalem X (Jun 1, 2006)

One must always be safe not to assume too much.
About black holes:
-what scientists get: a certain area emitting no light at all, but some radiation coming from that direction as JD said.
-the major theory: a big mass, with enormous gravity. A gravity so big that the light can't escape the gravitational power of the "thing".
-problems: how can one be sure about that? As far as we know it might be an alien generator sucking in all the light . It might be an optic illusion, just giving the impression that something is there, while the explanation for the 'dark spot' lies somewhere else.

About wormholes:
Don't search for them in space, it's too hard to be sure of what's happening there (take the example above). But if you look at the smallest quantum parts, you can have strange things happening there. Parts jumping from one place to another and such. Whether they 'create wormholes' or use other means of teleportation is still a hard question though.


----------



## chrispenycate (Jun 1, 2006)

Black holes are easy ; they're just bits of space so twisted up by gravitational force that their escape velocity is higher than that of light. Since, in an Einstinian universe, nothing can go faster than light, nothing can escape, neither matter nor energy (those X-rays aren't from the black hole itself; they're from the acretion disc of matter around it being torn apart by the forces in the region. The difficult bit comes with mini black holes (mini in mass, no black hole has a measurable size, at least from outside) which evaporate; I've read the equations and still don't believe it, it feels more like fantasy than sci-fi.

Which brings us to wormholes; and, as I'm not a physicist, to get this right I'd have to go down to CERN and have a couple of drinks with a guy there that really understands it (I've been trying to get him to join, misery loves company and all that, but for the time being he resists) However, I'll do an attempt with what I know.
Wormholes exist all over the place, generated in those six extra dimensions curted up in the middle of matter. They are generally very small, much smaller than an atomic nucleus, and very short lived. These characteristics make them fairly useless in the transpot stakes, but there is no_ theoretical_ reason why either is nescessarily true, merely that that is how they occur in nature. Perhaps we could open them out a bit with a shoehorn made of strange matter, and wedge them with a framework of the same (the fact that no-one knows if strange matter can exist, or be manipulated or maintained stable if it can, is a minor difficulty relative to some; this technology, if it's possible at all, is for some time down the line, and requires a whole new physics; it's not something cooked up by a couple of high school kids in a fifties pulp) Then its outside length can expand at anything up to light speed, while its inside length remains zero (sorry, no special effects of travelling through a tube, with instantaneous destruction if you touch the sides; this is the two ends in the same place if you go through it, so you only need one framework to hold it open, but in more normal spacetime can be any distance apart) Unfortunately, the equations don't exclude difference in time as well as space (far end at one light year distance, two separate parallel wormholes, up to two years of imprecision as to when you get back) Of course, until we get lots more experimental evidence, any equation could be meaningless (the difference between a mathematician and a fantasist is that the latter has to make his stories  _convincing_, and mathematical physicists are hardly better) Still, there are some nice possibilities (has anyone noticed there is no faster than light travel involved, as velocity is displacement through space, and there isn't any?) I hope this extremely imprecise analysis will help give a picture of what might, possibly, if the situation happens to be stable or even in the realms of the conceivable happen a good long time in the future, with cosmic tram lines connecting centers of civilisation, but unless someone's already built the transport network, I can't see it being imporant in our initial push towards the stars.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 1, 2006)

Well, I wasn't as far off with my memory as I thought might be the case. I'd understood there was some evidence for larger wormholes, but that's probably where the misremembrance comes in. I find the concept of wormholes fascinating, but when one gets to the science in this one, it really takes a great deal of mindwarping; apparently I ain't there yet. And I just haven't had the time to keep up with what's been happening in some fields these days, even with the news in the popular media (_Discover_, _Scientific_ _American_, _Astronomy,_ etc.). Unfortunately, I learned that at some point my body requires sleep, darn it! *sighs*

Thanks, Chris. I knew that you'd probably have more of the correct answers about the science than I can tap into. Appreciated.


----------



## Jaxom_Ruatha (Jun 2, 2006)

Warning: Relevance Questionable.

I've heard that sound actually travels faster than light underwater, is this also true in space? Or does light travel fastest as it does on land, on the planet Earth?
(I just know this is either going to stump everyone or else make me look stupid, most likely the later rather than the former, o well I do it often enough.)


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 2, 2006)

I'm not certain about water, but in space (largely vacuum, for practical purposes), light certainly travels faster; sound (waves) don't travel in space, as there's nothing for them to "ride on", whereas light, depending on conditions, seems to take the form of either particles or waves (or both).

(And, no, it's not a stupid question. I'm not sure there really is such a thing....)


----------



## chrispenycate (Jun 2, 2006)

Sound travels faster in more rigid structures; faster in water than air, faster yet in steel or glass.
Light travels slower in higher density media, such as water, or glass, or diamond, but it's only a few percent; see the index of refraction for the decelleration factor.

However, since the speed of light (in anything, to the accuracy we're working to ) is three hundred million metres per second, while that of sound in air is three hundred metres per second, the likelyhood of finding a substance where they meet is low.

(and that "I'm not sure there is such a thing as a stupid question" - is that a challenge, by any means?)


----------



## scalem X (Jun 2, 2006)

Still one must realise that in fact sound doesn't travel.
it's like two people holding a rope and then one swinging it. The curve travels, yet both the people are still holding the edges of the rope and when the swinging stops the situation is exactly as in the beginning. 
(well it's a bit more complicated with the sound waves, but you get the point)


----------



## chrispenycate (Jun 2, 2006)

scalem X said:
			
		

> Still one must realise that in fact sound doesn't travel.
> it's like two people holding a rope and then one swinging it. The curve travels, yet both the people are still holding the edges of the rope and when the swinging stops the situation is exactly as in the beginning.
> (well it's a bit more complicated with the sound waves, but you get the point)


It all depends on your definition, though. While the molecules in the sound transmitting medium are not physically displaced very much, and generally return more or less to their starting point, when I measure sound, what I'm generally measuring is a zone of compression or rarefaction, generally cycling fairly rapidly between the two. This, not the molecules themselves, is what I call "sound" (I'm inclined to call it other, less polite things when it gets where I don't want it. And this zone moves out at a velocity related to the density and stiffness of the medium in which it is generated, and slightly to the frequency of repetition.

Try convincing a surfer that the wave he's riding isn't going anywhere; the water might not be, but the wave most certainly is.


----------



## argenianpoet (Jun 2, 2006)

mosaix said:
			
		

> J.D.
> 
> I think wormholes are still at the 'theoretical' stage, the main drawback being the amount of energy required to generate one. I see to remember a quotation from somewhere along the lines of 'all the energy produced by all the suns in our galaxy'. Which, in my book, means a possibility but not something we could harness.
> 
> But, who cares, this is all about Science _Fiction _after all.


 
I agree; all of this is theoretical and almost impossible to prove, unless we actually send a manned exploration into one, but that will not be no time soon.  However, I must say that there is nothing wrong with imagining such, because I must admit, it is rather fascinating.  For me, it's not so much about the science of it as it is the art, or the concept and in that spirit I am inspired to write a story about worm holes, because really that's where they belong, right...in science fiction or fantasy.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 2, 2006)

That depends. I understood (and have been posting according to that understanding) that this section of the forums was geared more toward the actual science aspect of things, perhaps as an aid to those writing more hard science fiction. However, if it isn't that clear-cut ... well, that could be confusing for some, I suppose, without some clarification. Anyway, I was addressing the science rather than the creative uses of; because, from my experience with a great number of sf fans (I worked for a while in an sf/f bookstore), if the science isn't accurate, they don't buy the books -- they're very up-to-date on what's known or what the latest evidence is on these topics, and will flay unmercifully a writer who writes "science fiction" but doesn't pay attention to such details; with fantasy they're more forgiving, but if a scientific concept such as wormholes enter in, they expect these, too, to "play by the rules", otherwise, they feel the writer hasn't done his/her homework. For that reason, I think it would be helpful to differentiate on this whether what you're throwing out is based in the science, or is simply dreamweaving, so that those newer writers who are trying to do hard sf can also use this as a source to finding things out.

And to clarify, Chris: No, it wasn't a challenge; I mean asking any question, if seeking to improve knowledge and understanding, is not a foolish question. So no sabres today, please.


----------



## Jaxom_Ruatha (Jun 3, 2006)

So a wormhole would be a large mass of black (Actually since black is a color, and there is no light as it is trapped from the gravitational pull, and the refraction of light is what allows us to see color, what would a black hole look like?), but since as you said sound waves don't exactly travel themselves but rather ripple through matter, would you be able to hear a wormhole like they do in the movies? Or would it too be dragged down by the gravity rendering the wromhole completely silent?


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 3, 2006)

There shouldn't be any sound, because of nothing for the sound "waves" to "ride on". But I bow to Chris on this one -- I'm just a junior-league pedant, still learning (and earning my stripes, it seems; ouch!).


----------



## argenianpoet (Jun 3, 2006)

My question is this:  how do you figure out something that is entirely hypothetical to begin with; it would seem to me as though we would need to find one and explore it first before we could say for sure that it doesn't have sound or light or whatever, because really all of that is just guess work anyhow.  I prove my point by stating that there are lots and lots here on this Earth that we have not figured out and that stuff is right here in front of our noses.  If it's hypothetical then it shouldn't matter what take the writer uses to describe its reality, because it's not yet proven.  If something has been proven to be fact then the writer should submit and do his homework.  If he's writing about black holes or worm holes he should not have to read a text book to properly describe its reality.  I mean if every writer had believed that the world was flat way back when, their books would have all been written under the concept that the world is flat, because _so-and-so said so, _yeah right.  Honestly, how many people here are going to get upset if my version of a wormhole possesses light and sound?  Who cares...


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 3, 2006)

Well, for one thing, we don't have to go and explore one to find out. We have instruments to register different phenomena -- look at the number of planets that have been discovered. For that matter, just the planets in our solar system include ones we certainly haven't explored yet, but we know a great deal about them, through mass spectography, radio, infrared, ultraviolet and various forms of telescopy, "wobbles" indicating gravitational pulls influencing a body (whether planet, planetoid, or primary/binary), etc., etc., etc..... It certainly isn't "guess work"; this is the result of long, hard experience and study, a slow accumulation of information that can be tested and has very solid grounding (at least, in most cases; some of the higher aspects of astrophysics being somewhat more theoretical, but based on evidence, not on guesswork -- and not publicized as anything other than theory until evidence backs it up). And, as I said, that's the difference between fantasy and science fiction: fantasy allows things that science fiction can't, because (especially if it's "hard" or based in the physical sciences) science fiction, it will simply be laughed out of court if it ignores the latest evidence. It's part of the writer's responsibility to do their homework; just as, in fantasy that's set in an historical time period in, say, Britain, a writer must do their homework about the history surrounding that period: armor, battle tactics, politics, what is known about social structure and lifestyles, mores, etc.; if prehistory, then there's more leeway, but the writer should nonetheless be at least somewhat familiar with what paleoanthropology has to offer; otherwise they're asking for a great deal of trouble from the readers, and ignore these facts at risk of being roasted. It's much safer to build your own fantasy world, where you can make all the rules, physics as well as those created by sentient beings; but in anything that aims for science fiction readers these days, the readers tend to be too knowledgeable about what is based in scientific fact to allow much fudging; and they tend to be quite vocal, as well. Urban fantasy allows a great deal more bending of rules, as well; but that takes a special touch, too, and runs great risks. This is the "work" aspect of writing; doing the research to get your facts straight; doing the painful task of revision (often, in Hemingway's phrase, having to "kill your darlings"); learning and keeping abreast of rules of grammar, syntax, spelling, etc. (which sometimes change slowly, sometimes fast).... It's the part that most people have the most trouble with, because it's not nearly as fun (generally speaking; the research can actually be quite exciting and spark new ideas, not to mention making one familiar with just how far beyond our imagination the physics of the universe can sometimes be), but it is necessary if you want to be a good writer. This is the fertilizing, mowing, ploughing, pruning, etc. that lets the seed grow into a big, beautiful and unique plant. Without it, it's like -- in the biblical parable -- throwing one's seeds among the waste or the rock. The more one learns about the facts, the better one's understanding, and the better a writer he or she tends to be because of it.


----------



## scalem X (Jun 3, 2006)

Yeah (nice speech!), but to come back on topic. 
What "argenianpoet" (correct me if you don't think this way) and well me too have problems with is the deduction that is based on limited information.
We know A,B and C and can think of E. So we investigate and realise it's neither A nor B nor C, so we conclude it must be E. While in fact it might as well be D, who we completely missed out. 
There have been numerous theories of certain phenomena being wars fought by aliens. While most of these are quickly prooven wrong, some still stand. Should we believe in the alien wars, just because we can't proove that they aren't there?


----------



## mosaix (Jun 3, 2006)

scalem X said:
			
		

> Yeah (nice speech!), but to come back on topic.
> What "argenianpoet" (correct me if you don't think this way) and well me too have problems with is the deduction that is based on limited information.
> We know A,B and C and can think of E. So we investigate and realise it's neither A nor B nor C, so we conclude it must be E. While in fact it might as well be D, who we completely missed out.
> There have been numerous theories of certain phenomena being wars fought by aliens. While most of these are quickly prooven wrong, some still stand. Should we believe in the alien wars, just because we can't proove that they aren't there?



'Believe' is one of those words that I have difficulty with. I think it means different things to different people.

To me it means 'Thinking something to be true that I can't prove'. In most cases (especially important ones) I don't do it. I much prefer to have the evidence.

Now in some cases the evidence can be conflicting and then I tend to err on the side of caution. Some may regard this as a little dull but that's not to say I don't have a very active imagination, it's just that I keep it separate from my reality.

So I would probably not believe in alien wars.


----------



## Green (Jun 3, 2006)

Hmm on the old alien wars thing. Like mosaix says, you can believe whatever you want, but don't expect to be taken seriously  Science has a lot of fogey-isms and unpleasant/outdated traditions, but most of them are there for a reason. They tend to work 

As regards wormholes... it's been a while since I read much about them in pop-science literature, but I do remember that Michio Kaku's _Hyperspace_ talks a bit about them (it's a really interesting book in general, so give it a look next time you're in the science section of the bookshop).

There's an effect that I think is called the Casimir effect, where basically you take two sets of plates that you charge up in a certain way, and then go and take one set far away to wherever you want to take it (transport it at near light-speed and you'll have a kind of time-travel effect), and you can transport matter/information between the two instantaneously. This is basically the same as  a wormhole, though as I remember, not on the same scale that sci-fi readers tend to think of them.

When I read the book (about '98 or something), they had already seen the beginnings of the Casimir effect in the lab, so maybe there's been some progress on that. Mind you, that could mean anything. Maybe "beginnings" just means they've found some attractive electromagnets on ebay. Academia can be like that, sometimes.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 3, 2006)

If I remember correctly, Hawking had something on the Casimir effect in one of his more recent books, _Nutshell_, I think.


----------



## scalem X (Jun 3, 2006)

Before people think I'm crazy, I do not believe in alien wars either.
It was a mere example to proove that if you believe every possible theory, just because it might be an explanation for certain things that are observed,(including the one of the explanation of the "black holes") that you'll end up believing crazy stuff.
I must say that I can indeed only compare this to religion. Say we have 2 theories, one saying A because of three major things that this first guy observed and one saying B because he observed three other major things to believe he's right. We have not yet the equipment for further investigation.
Who would you believe if you know that should the theory A be right, the theory B is totally wrong and if B is right, A is wrong? It makes you realise that the right answer might even be neither one of the theories. The same goes for religion, you've got many religions claiming they're right. Yet they can't be all right, so that raises the doubt whether any of them is right.
If you bring that back to theories about space, one must be careful not to "believe" too much. That doesn't include that you should ignore all that is said and thought of (yeah some stuff is really interesting), but beware not to make 100% sure assumptions before you really are 100% sure. 

I tend to prefer stuff about tiny particles and magnetc fields and such than searching in space, where it's so hard to be sure.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 3, 2006)

As said above, though, the difference is that these are backed by ever-increasing mountains of evidence, very carefully examined, cross-checked, and subject to peer review. It doesn't rely on "belief" unless one considers that to take in the commonplace notion that physical phenomena we've witnessed -- such as gravity, for example -- will still be effective the next time, as it has continued to be throughout our experience; however, in science, this is still open to change if gravity should suddenly fail. The difference between this and religion tends to be that religion begins with an assumption, usually from some form of authoritative source (Holy Writ, revelation, etc.), that, generally speaking, is non-testable and usually non-repeating. Science relies on evidence that is testable, repeatable, and falsifiable (in other words, one can conceive of conditions in which it would not apply). And the evidence for black holes, at least, has been mounting for quite some time now, at least since the late '60s; and the more evidence we have, the more it tends to confirm much of the model from earlier research; the devil is in the details, of course, because such things are always being refined, but _not overturned_. Like the claim several years ago that Gould had made statements denying evolution; not so. What he did was, in light of newer evidence, agreed that the _mechanism_ was, perhaps, different than the classical model; but the overall theory still applies. And "theory" in science has a different meaning than in everyday usage: these days, it's even called "gravitational theory" rather than the older "law of gravitation", because of the possibility that we may encounter a suspension of this phenomenon, which would require a revision of the theory; therefore it cannot be "proved with finality", as it's always open to experiential contradiction as long as there are observers to test conditions. In general usage, "theory" can simply mean "I have an idea about", but does not require evidence; in science it does, and such, I repeat, is put through massive amounts of review (and scientists are not loathe to shred something that's faulty, very quickly).

This applies to what we know of wormholes as well; what evidence we have, this "theoretical phenomenon" explains better than any other model, just as our model of gravitational theory fits the evidence better than any other that has ever been posited. "Belief" simply doesn't apply.


----------



## mosaix (Jun 3, 2006)

Good post J.D.

BTW how have you managed 220 posts since you joined in May. What were you doing BEFORE you joined?


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 4, 2006)

Er, um, would you believe, doing a lot more reading? 

Actually, I'd been working on some literary analysis of various types: biographical/historical; linguistic; influences (both inflow and out); etc. I'd managed to get up a rather lengthy manuscript on this, though it's by no means finished. But of late my personal life has been such a roller-coaster (or switchback, if you prefer), that I've had to put that aside for the time being, seldom having the energy to do a good job on it, since some of this also includes things like etymology, and I'm still having to pick my way through when it comes to foreign or classical languages, as what I learned in that area was a very, very long time ago, and not much of it remains *sigh*. Hope things settle down soon -- I'd like to get back to that; but so far, no sign of it letting up.

You know, thinking about my posts, I realize that I did nearly everything a long time ago. What the heck happened to the last 20 years??!!


----------



## genisis2 (Jun 4, 2006)

chrispenycate said:
			
		

> (and that "I'm not sure there is such a thing as a stupid question" - is that a challenge, by any means?)


Chris you and Paige Turner always give me a good laugh. Sorry just wanted to toss out a compliment which as it happens is not relevent to the thread.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 4, 2006)

At this point, I'm not sure the thread is relevant to the thread.


----------



## scalem X (Jun 4, 2006)

> At this point, I'm not sure the thread is relevant to the thread.


I plead insanity, if it was me, it was beyond my control 



> As said above, though, the difference is that these are backed by ever-increasing mountains of evidence, very carefully examined, cross-checked, and subject to peer review. It doesn't rely on "belief" unless one considers that to take in the commonplace notion that physical phenomena we've witnessed -- such as gravity, for example -- will still be effective the next time, as it has continued to be throughout our experience; however, in science, this is still open to change if gravity should suddenly fail. The difference between this and religion tends to be that religion begins with an assumption, usually from some form of authoritative source (Holy Writ, revelation, etc.), that, generally speaking, is non-testable and usually non-repeating. Science relies on evidence that is testable, repeatable, and falsifiable (in other words, one can conceive of conditions in which it would not apply). And the evidence for black holes, at least, has been mounting for quite some time now, at least since the late '60s; and the more evidence we have, the more it tends to confirm much of the model from earlier research; the devil is in the details, of course, because such things are always being refined, but not overturned. Like the claim several years ago that Gould had made statements denying evolution; not so. What he did was, in light of newer evidence, agreed that the mechanism was, perhaps, different than the classical model; but the overall theory still applies. And "theory" in science has a different meaning than in everyday usage: these days, it's even called "gravitational theory" rather than the older "law of gravitation", because of the possibility that we may encounter a suspension of this phenomenon, which would require a revision of the theory; therefore it cannot be "proved with finality", as it's always open to experiential contradiction as long as there are observers to test conditions. In general usage, "theory" can simply mean "I have an idea about", but does not require evidence; in science it does, and such, I repeat, is put through massive amounts of review (and scientists are not loathe to shred something that's faulty, very quickly).
> 
> This applies to what we know of wormholes as well; what evidence we have, this "theoretical phenomenon" explains better than any other model, just as our model of gravitational theory fits the evidence better than any other that has ever been posited. "Belief" simply doesn't apply.



Ofcourse, I agree that one should not stay still.
Yet I hate the fact that in today's scientific articles, people always seem to discover marvelous things (or make discoveries seem like twice as great), who in the end sometimes proof to be assumptions or ideas.
Yes, I used sometimes in the last sentence. 
Today one doesn't sell his scientific magazine anymore if the cover doesn't have at least a possible cure for cancer, a robot who might take over men's work within the next ten years, an undiscovered space phenomenon or something else alike on the cover.
Think about all the articles you've read that had a way to search for a cure for cancer. Maybe those researchers are on the right track, but maybe it's just too soon to know. I don't want to discourage them, but be careful not to build your own theory on other not yet fully proven theories. If we have this magnificent theory that uses the black holes (as in the theory we now have on them) and we could use one to let's say "warp" to another dimension that would be great. Yet it would be a bummer if we wasted our time, basing our amazing warp technology on something that isn't what it seemed at all (or maybe is what it seemed, but just slightly different).

Just don't sell the bear's skin before you killed it. (literally translated saying in Dutch, don't know if it exists in English)


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 4, 2006)

Agreed, one needs to look at the amount of evidence in favor of before accepting a theory as proven, or even probable. Scepticism and caution in these are indeed virtues.

As for the translated saying -- I like that; may have to use it sometime. Okay if I infringe on your copyright?


----------



## scalem X (Jun 4, 2006)

> As for the translated saying -- I like that; may have to use it sometime. Okay if I infringe on your copyright?



My copyright . It's funny you ask, in fact I have a lot of people quoting me when using stuff I said in real life, while I never said they should say I said it  
Maybe I should get copyright on the things I say.
now copyrighted by scalem;
"Just don't sell the bear's skin before you killed it." (as the translation of a dutch proverb)
"Duplolas" (as a joke name for the younger legolas from Lotr)
"swift as a shadow, blinding as sunlight" (to describe unbelievable stuff and for usage in signatures)
"It all wouldn't have happened to you, if you'd just known some Japanese"
"I see,... dead people yeah I see them, but that's irrelevant at the moment"
"...dead people, I know me too" (as a responce to another person saying 'I see')
"I see,... and no I'm not mocking with blind people"
"I see,... I would even see it better with my glasses on"
"I see,... It's a miracle and I can walk too!!! and ...(takes a sip) nah damnit still water"
"I see,... It's a miracle and I can walk too!!! and ...(takes a sip) it's wine, you must be Jezus" (pushes person into pool) "Hey, how come you do not walk on water?"
"It's all fun untill you get banned to the humour section, hey wait..."

Anyway you'd be surprised to see how many times "I see" is followed by a silence. Perfect to say weird stuff .

Sorry to go so off-topic. Where would a post like this be on topic anyway?


----------

