Wormholes...

[PERCON]

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]

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

 

[Winters_Sorrow]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?