Wormholes: possible or not?

Post Reply New Topic

Of course they exist. How do you think worms get in the ground?

It is not really theoretically possible. The kind of wormhole within a Kerr space-time is not traversable. In other words, it's not of the kind that could allow matter to pass through it. Additionally, computer simulations designed to simulate the formation of Kerr black holes in realistic situations show that the Kruskel extension region of the Kerr space-time (or wormhole region if you like), is replaced by the the region of collapsing matter from the star. So the wormhole in a Kerr black hole doesn't even exist in realistic situations.

Why not? The arguments against Kerr black hole traversibility have to due with such an object being unstable due to the fact that while it possesses rotational symmetry, it lacks spherical symmetry.

Creation of wormholes would be possible but would require exceptional amounts of energy, more's the pity.

[citation needed]








The Kruskal extension applies to the space time inside a Schwarzschild Black Hole which is uncharged and has no angular momentum. Speaking of which, have you seen This paper BTW?

Last edited by AspieRogue on 27 Mar 2012, 9:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Theoretically they are not only possible but they do exist.

Now, creating/manipulating a wormhole to the extent it's usable... whole other deal. The amount of energy required would be immense, you'd need something akin to a matter/antimatter mutual annihilation reactor, if that would even do the job...

More correctly: we have no evidence that they exist.

ruveyn

As I said, theoretically. Theory is not fact.

Some things that are theoretically possible do exist. For example neutrinos. First they were postulated to preserved the conservation of momentum. Latter they were actually detected.

ruveyn

i believe that the 5th dimension of reality is the reality of "planar time".
there is a dimension of reality which is composed only of possibilities.

nothing is impossible, and also nothing is inevitable. it seems like a paradox until it is thought through (in my mind at least).

nothing does not exist, and therefore it is impossible, but nothing is guaranteed to happen which makes nothing inevitable.

the answer in my mind lies in the sea of probability. i believe that the 4th dimension is a line of time, and it has not width or height, but only length.
all things happen because of a cause, and all things that happen have an effect on things that happen after they occur. it is completely linear, and as such it is the first dimension of the time triad of dimensions.

but when one considers that everything that happens happens because it has the highest probability of happening, then one can also consider that alternative time lines can happen given their "greater than zero" probabilities of happening because nothing is impossible.

i think that everything that has any possibility of happening is happening, and i believe that all possibilities of occurrence of any probability of occurrence (given infinite chance) are happening now, and i believe that every possible manifestation of reality is concurrently happening even though we are stuck in our own line of cause and effect (dimension 4).

i think that the chance of every electron behaving the way that it does in our existence has also the a chance of happening in the same way in alternative locations, and if that is the case then we already exist elsewhere or even everywhere..

some people are considering quantum entanglement as an interesting alternative to the speed limit of light, and of those people, some see it as pre ordained, and some see it as a spooky thing.

einstein was not impressed about the spooky idea and he said that god does not play dice with the universe, so he saw everything as preordained.

an example is that he said if 2 sets of gloves were arranged into 2 left handed gloves and 2 right handed gloves and sealed in a box, and no one knew it happened, and the 2 right handed gloves in their box were placed anywhere in the universe, then the fact that we can open the box with the 2 left handed gloves and instantly know that the other box must contain 2 right handed gloves no matter how far they are away is the explanation of how information can be transmitted instantaneously (or faster than light).

others maintain that the contents of the other box (placed any where in the universe) are affected instantaneously by the contents of the box they have here,

it was shown that einstein was not correct by experiments that changed the contents of the local box, and that resulted in altering the contents of the distant and "unrelated" box (ie: altering the state of an electron instantaneously alters the state of the entangled electron).

but i see it as that the plane of possibilities are identical in that particular circumstance between 2 non approximal boxes, and so their realities are altered as a result of them following the execution of the greatest possibility, and possibilities are instantaneously real throughout the entire universe because they can transverse the line of time.

if something is possible here, then it does not take light years for it to be possible light years away.

whatever, i am very tired and i am not explaining myself well, so i shall desist. i will talk more when i am fresh of mind (but then i will be absorbed with other interests not related to WP i guess).

Which means that neutrinos are no longer a theoretical particle, we know them to exist.

A good example would be a black hole. As far as I know we have no conclusive, absolute evidence that they exist either, but they are generally accepted as existing.

1. There is no such thing as absolute positive evidence in physics. There is always the possibility that an experiment is flawed.

2. Motion of stars about an unseen bodies indicate that black holes do exist.

By definition black holes do not emit light so any evidence for their existence must be indirect. We infer their exists by means of gravitational effects.

ruveyn

Most black hole candidates show features associated with a rotating(Kerr) black hole, whose interior geometry is not simply connected as a result of its angular momentum. In fact, computer simulations of coalescing binary neutron stars(or Scharzschild black holes)demonstrate how such a black hole can form. With regard to the simulations of rotating stellar collapse, were the effects of quantum gravity taken into consideration?(cuing Jono)

No, because for most practical purposes and applications in astrophysics, quantum gravity is not needed and there is no complete theory of quantum gravity either (the most developed developed approach to a full theory of quantum gravity is string theory but it is not complete). Quantum gravity might explain physics in the presence of a black hole singularity where the physics of general relativity breaks down but unless we are talking about so-called "naked singularities" which have never been proven to exist anyway, no one can ever test such predictions since we cannot see inside a black hole.

However, applying quantum gravity to black holes in the form of what is usually called "semi-classical" gravity, since it's not really a full theory of quantum gravity, has produced other predictions such as Hawking radiation.

There is of course, the no-hair theorem which states that the only properties of a black hole that can be externally observed are it's mass, charge(if any), and angular momentum. Also, the Kruskal extension, as I pointed out earlier, is based on the Schwarzschild metric which involves a static black hole with perfect spherical symmetry.

According to Lee Smollin string theory is not even wrong. See his book: The Trouble With Physics.

ruveyn