You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
That would be true. Imagine-wormhole computer.
You brought up a very cool application for that breakthrough.
Thanks noosfractal; there are many possibilities in theory. We need to verify the related mathematical framework and check the results at the lab.
My guess is a wormhole would need constant Negative Energy to stop it from collapsing? Anyone done any work on that?
You need it for some moments to traverse through it; then the apparatus could be off, like a communication by mobile phones.
Even if just a small tiny wormhole could be created it would still allow instant communication, wouldn't it? So there wouldn't be a time lag between colonies.
I guess so too.
I'm not so sure that if Hawkings chronology protection conjecture is true that worm-holes would could be created at all. As I understand it this conjecture states that in situations in which a closed-time-curve could occur, a horizion forms causing the loop to be destroyed. The problem with that is that in any situation in which information can be transmited FTL, the possibility for a closed-time-curve exists, (indeed it _MUST_ exists for some frame of reference). This seems to me to indicate that such a machine would thus be destroyed a soon as it could be created (if indeed it could be created) as it would be in violation of this principle. Or it simply may not be possible to create at all.
Traveling with FTL speed and violating the causality in our own universe are two different things. Hawking’s argument is a strong tool against time machines, not wormholes.
As for the Novikov consistency conjecture, that seems to me to be simple hand-waving. There is no mechanisim proposed as to how causality violating events would become impossible, just that their probability is 0. With no real explanation as to why.
In any case both of these 'conjectures' hardly even rise to the level of theory as they both appear to be impossible to test. And make-handwaving assumptions of physics that we do not know to be true.
Who knows? Maybe we could do it! The nature must reply us at the lab. This is not math, it’s physics, the science of experiment.
Your wormhole work is interesting and - in another forum, where the reaction was unreasonable scepticism - you've asked what the implications of wormholes might be. I'd like to put a few thoughts out there.
Firstly, the impact of wormholes will depend on the necessary technology and power-levels. If they're easy to generate and maintain, then the impact will be incredible - I'll elaborate in a moment. If they require lots of energy and are difficult to keep open, then their uses will be much more limited until the energy problem is solved.
Thanks for the comment. I believe there is the required technology to do vital experiments to verify if we could build a traversable wormhole. Theorization is enough, the only obstacle between me and realizing my ideas, is the problem of funding & facilities.
Secondly, if wormholes are restricted to being made and connected locally, then moved around at sub-light, they will be useful short-cuts, but the wave-front of human endeavour will expand at sub-light. If wormholes can be projected, or moved via warp-metrics, at FTL speeds then that situation changes totally.
We can have both situations technically.
But let's look at the possible uses, starting with direct travel.
To ship a wormhole, assuming it's low-mass, we can attach a rocket to its cage and fire it off - just about any rocket will do, then we can pipe propellant to it via the wormhole. To push a wormhole/rocket combination weighing 1 ton to near lightspeed would take ~ 100,000 tons of propellant - assuming we're using a steam rocket with 3 km/s exhaust velocity. That water is a lake a hectare in area and ten metres deep. A cubic kilometre of water lets us move ~ 10,000 tons, or 10,000 wormholes. That's enough wormholes for roughly every star within ~ 94 light-years, which would be reached in ~ 127 years at the latest. In about ~ 110,000 years every star in the Galaxy could be linked up via wormhole. Using merely Earth's water - which we wouldn't - the job would be done with just ~ 0.74% of the total.
Assuming a 10 gee rocket we could send a wormhole to Pluto in ~ 5 days. If wormhole maintenance costs are low enough, then we could profitably ship frozen nitrogen and methane from its surface. We could mine hydrogen clathrate from Sedna or some other Inner Oort Cloud object. Or suspend a wormhole mouth via a balloon and funnel hydrogen/helium direct from the Jovians, petrochemicals from Titan's lakes, raw sunlight from Mercury, or - assuming advanced reflective materials - pipe intense sunlight straight from the photosphere of the Sun.
Assuming a wormhole stable against the conditions we could send them into the core of the Sun to cause mixing between the Core and the outer layers, thus increasing the Sun's remaining lifespan 10-fold. The process would take ~ millions of years because the inner regions are very dense, but we're talking billions of years anyway.
The transport implications are complex because we have so few parameters on what wormholes will be possible - there's questions of conservation of momentum and energy when transferring between different points on the Earth or in-space: Will masses moved between planets keep the momentum they had relative to their original position? Does an equal amount of mass need to pass both ways to keep the balance?
Imagine wormholes at different heights in a gravity well - say a mass falls into the lower wormhole then emerges from the upper wormhole aimed at the lower again - would the mass keep gaining energy indefinitely, looping through the holes to ridiculous speeds? Would that drain energy from the wormholes instead? Do you have answers to these questions Mansouryar?
I am not sure about such possibilities; let us take the first step; … then we could appropriate a long time to deal with such details.
Oh, and qraal, if it was on a loop like the one you mentioned, it wouldn't keep gaining energy indefinately. On Earth it would hit 37 m/s then stop accelerating. What we might be able to do is to xract free enrgy from it, as once we extract energy the object would accelerate under gravity again. Any answers for that Mansouryar?
Do any manipulation with that, but you cannot violate the physical laws; however if you could, that wouldn’t be the known physics, and we would need some generalized rules, novels interpretations, or additional exceptions.
Hmmm... if I had one end of a wormhole with me and piloted into a black hole, saw what it was like beyond the event horizan, then hopped through the wormhole back to a safe distance, I wonder what would happen? Would the wormhole be destroyed, or would the black hole travel through the Wormhole and destroy wherever the other mouth was?
Quite unsolved scenarios in this branch of physics. Although, Sean Hayward et al, have written some related papers on this subject:
S. A. Hayward, "Dynamic wormholes", Int. J. Mod. Phys. D8 (1999) 373, gr-qc/9805019
S. A. Hayward, "Unified first law of black -hole dynamics and relativistic thermodynamics", Class. Quantum Grav. 15, 3147 (1998), gr-qc/9710089
D. Ida, S. A. Hayward, "How much negative energy does a wormhole need?", Phys. Lett. A260 (1999) 175, gr-qc/9905033
S. A. Hayward, "Black holes and traversible wormholes: a synthesis", gr-qc/0203051.
S. A. Hayward, "Recent progress in wormhole dynamics", gr-qc/0306051
H-a. Shinkai, S. A. Hayward, "Fate of the first traversible wormhole: black –hole collapse or inflationary expansion", Phys. Rev. D66 (2002) 044005, gr-qc/0205041
Glad to see at least some physicists are taking wormholes seriously. Have you thought about wormholes that already exists? According to one Physicist, they would give of 'Negative Enegy', the stuff driving the expansion of the universe, so rapidly expanding areas could hide them. If so, one wormhole might be enough to stablise the others.
The implications for time travel would only occur if the time at one mouth was slowed down to cause a difference in time ewhen brought together again. Another implication could be if you enveloped someone in a wormhole, would you be able to draw it over them and compress them into a sort of disc?
This is not an unknown field of research. Look at this list of published papers having the word “wormhole” in their abstracts, from 1992-2008:
http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/abs:+worm … r_page=100
For a layman introduction, see these essays:
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw33.html
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw39.html
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw53.html
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw69.html
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw103.html
http://www.analogsf.com/0505/altview.shtml
If they allow information to be transmitted FTL (to some observers) then it is also possible that they transmit information into those observers past, causing causality violations. How would this be avoided?
Indeed, the information in my framework can be sent with FTL speed. Also, a combination of the Hawking chronology protection conjecture, along with the Novikov consistency conjecture would prevent the formation of a time machine and causality violation out of a wormhole system IMO.
*********************
Hi qraal. Expect another reply soon ...
For the record, wormholes don't allow FTL.
Yes they do. Please read these carefully:
M. Morris, K. Thorne, “Wormholes in spacetime and their use for interstellar travel: a tool for teaching general relativity” Am. J. Phys. 56, 395 (1988).
M. Visser, Lorentzian Wormholes: from Einstein to Hawking (American Institute of Physics Press, New York, 1995).
But FTL isn't out of the question in GR so long as lightspeed isn't violated locally. So when travelling through a wormhole from A-to-B you don't go FTL at any point along the way, but a distant observer will see things quite differently.
Yes; we are talking about the difference between the local velocity of moving, and the “effective velocity” of a passenger.
There is no numerical reply for your question in the literature. The calculations are excessively complicated and sensitive. However, the qualitative estimations must make you confident of the availability of the plan:
M. Visser, S. Kar, N. Dadhich, "Traversable wormholes with arbitrarily small energy condition violations", Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 201102 (2003).
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301003
S. Kar, N. Dadhich, M. Visser, "Quantifying energy condition violations in traversable wormholes"
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0405103
P. K. F. Kuhfittig, "Wormholes supported by small amounts of exotic matter: some corrections"
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508060
Hi noosfractal, thanks for the comment. You mentioned the primary point. Now the question is: How? :?:
Thanks cIclops. And for the readers who doubt on its validity, here is four peer-reviewed citations of that paper, by seven physicists: 8)
Can you summarize your ideas please. Is it based on the Casimir effect?
Yes it is. Please see this as a summary:
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=561
This article says more about the required energy discussion:
http://www.scientificarabian.com/spacewarp.html
Also, this one does the same for the geometry discussion:
http://www.scientificblogging.com/manso … a_stargate
Feel free to ask more if the above info is not enough.
jumpboy11j,
Yes. By means of traversable wormholes, going to Mars would be as easy as going to the near street or the upper floor in a building. The red planet would be in our fist!
I ask you please disregard this item. There are strong physical reasons against converting that configuration into a time machine. Please note to its name: spacewarp, not spacetime-warp. Please consider only reducing the physical distance, not affecting on flow of time. This interview might be cool to you: 8)
Hello mansouryar,
Ramifications for what?
Hello cIclops,
Ramifications of realizing the traversable spacewarp!
Einstein’s General Relativity Theory does not forbid FTL travels by wormholes, warp drives, etc. The related physics is rational.
How would be the ramifications? :?:
Pages: 1