Wormholes...

[j d worthington]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[scalem X]

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]

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]

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]

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]

(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]

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

 

[scalem X]

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]

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]

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?