Any stop point in practical wormholes technology?

mammad · Nov 21, 2006

Hey guys, Let’s discuss on the benefits and dangers of a world with the wormhole communicational system. Please assume this technology is achievable within the current decade, and tell how would it be its effect on the relations between us, humans, and other probable intelligent beings. Guess it’d be a profound debate, covering more branches than space sciences, i.e., sociology, politics, psychology, law, etc. So I invite all to leave a comment. Thank you, MM

mammad · Nov 21, 2006

For a better insight, see this: http://www.remoteviewer.nu/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3040&theme=Printer&newlang=fra

mrmorris · Nov 21, 2006

You're barking up the wrong singularity here. I'd suggest a switch to the Phenomena forum.

mammad · Nov 21, 2006

Ok, I was moved here, nobody wants to comment? Come on! Don’t be shy!

yevaud · Nov 22, 2006

Give them some time. If they're interested, they'll respond presently. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

cretdob · Nov 22, 2006

The wormhole topic is purely conjectural, almost like discussing some wild fantasy. I think that even black holes are still not conclusively proven and certainly not understood except in principle. If we achieved the ability to manipulate or utilize the presumed wormhole, we’d be actualizing virtual miracles within the universe. Where could a wormhole take us assuming it could take us somewhere? 1) Into the past 2) Into the future 3) Into another dimension 4) Into another universe 5) In rapid transit to other star systems 6) Perhaps into a black hole and out the other side Your imagination can run wild with the possibilities. The most intriguing to me, however, is the time travel issue. We still don’t know if it’s possible, even with the cooperative availability of the conjectured wormhole. Man, this is a doozy of a topic. I can’t wait to hear the POV of the “Great Minds” and “Geniuses” who inhabit these forums. Intellectual Rabbits – Please Ruminate!! Thank you.

mammad · Nov 22, 2006

Hi cretdob, Let’s the assumption of this forum be considering the wormholes as spacewarps not timewarps; there are tight physical arguments against traveling through time by means of them. Compare the WWW with a wormhole communicational system which is a natural generalization of a global net exchanging the data, and tell your dreams about that picture. I’ve encountered to at least two efforts in this direction, one unpleasant, the other rather satisfying, for a better insight, I could address them if there would be any interest.

cretdob · Nov 22, 2006

mammad: Please do. I'd like to read them. I'll comment later. Thanks.

mammad · Nov 22, 2006

cretdob, These are what I meant: The unpleasant debate: http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6160 The satisfying debate: http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=39532

cretdob · Nov 24, 2006

mammad: It may be impossible to enter a wormhole much less exit one. The forces alone may annihilate any "thing." That is structure itself would collapse or be subsumed into something else. Various unknown or yet unaccounted for waves and particles (if there is a distinction) may pass through unimpeded. There may be an interconnection through these port holes so that events are affected by other events no matter how distant. A worm hole would not have to be reached to get there. They/it is/are ubiquitious. This may be the cause for being. Some sort of tension/vibration creates "things" out of nothing. We may pass through worm holes all the time. On some levels of size and perspective, we may possess the protective exotic material to withstand the journey. The journey would not mean traversing a distance either. We may simply stand still to relocate or be relocated. Would this be random or could we control/predict our target point? Light speed or for that matter any rate of speed is irrelevant within the hole because of the bending of both time and space. I don't need great speed to cross one foot ahead of me provided the warping/bending of distance occurs. We are stuck on the problem of energy just as we are on the issue of light speed. Unbelievably, energy may not be required to do some improbably fantastic things within the universe. There are other principles that may govern what "space" is. If we discover that, we might not have a problem with being crushed out of existence in an instant. Let's face it, on a practical level, you can't generate an infinite amount of energy to achieve your goal. That's like saying I'll always need more than I need. Once your need is met, nothing further is needed. We may slip into other universes through these holes, particularly if we're standing still within one in the classic sense. Could we slip through the separating skins? It's not a matter of that.

mammad · Nov 24, 2006

Cretdob, Thanks for the message. My assumption is an artificial wormhole (spacewarp), not a natural one in cosmic scenarios, so one has already solved the problem of tidal forces. By that definition, we know what we want from a wormhole, also this framework (you may call it Mansouryar spacewarp!!) hasn’t shown any specific need to string theory and quantum gravity, so one can predict and control it. Besides, we don’t care to light speed too much, the goal is a distance reduction, that’s it! Also, I agree with you, we don’t know many details of how the universe works. Visiting time frames is a so controversial subject, and I’ve been convinced that causality violation is impossible within the known physics, e.g., see these: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0109029 http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0111054 However, I don’t want to discuss on this feature. Anyway, I’m eager to know your other thoughts on the social aspects of this technology...

cretdob · Nov 25, 2006

mammad: thanks for the respectful response to my musing. I'll get back to you after a while on social aspects of wormhole tech. This is a difficult subject and my brain is occupied continuously with these. If I had to describe my one true interest in science, it is "infinity." I have struggled with this concept since my teen years. It is a tremendous problem and seems to elude verbal grasp. Expressing a problem is important toward solving it. Expression formulation makes this one extremely challenging and difficult. My God, mammad, if you could "artifically" create this worm hole as you believe possible, think of the technology, energy and advanced intelligence you would need. Mammad: How do you know you might not create utter havoc in the Universe or even annihilate yourself and the rest of us? We need to experiment and test things prior to successful applications. Would you model all these on a computer-assigned program first?

mammad · Nov 25, 2006

You’re right. This subject is difficult, in both physical and social considerations. To the best of my knowledge, there is no reason to be anxious; main part of the story depends on some experiments, however the theory seems promising. Studying the possible models is the current project of some of the experts of the field and also somehow me... You see? This subject is under investigation, and that’s the main reason I requested you to ONLY discuss on the social aspects...

cretdob · Nov 25, 2006

You know, mammad, I am still trying to visualize this hole. Suppose you get through - where are you going to? If you crawl around it, will you still reach the same place? If you squash it while preserving the hole, will you ever be able to return or simply have to take the long way home? If it is squashed, is it resilient? Once in, also out, or forever stuck inside? Why should the hole ever open? Couldn't there be many holes within the structure? What's causing the holes? Are they always opening and closing? Isn't the integrity of the structure compromised each time? What the hell is the structure that contains the hole anyway? Why should it exist at all and whence derives its power to bend the fabric of space? In fact, why would it or should it? How can it bend, mammad, how? Think of what space is, is it not some indefinable abstract? If a substance, how could the hole accomplish the mechanism of the bend? How can you bend this thing?? mammad: I respect your research but it is so difficult to understand this thing. We don't even know that it is. Social ramifications would be many. And that topic could be the stuff of novels. I'll get back to you when able. Thanks for the challenge and for the effort you've put into this.

mental_avenger · Nov 25, 2006

Theoretical physics is a fascinating field, but it mathematically allows things that cannot exist in the real world. There is no reason to believe that anything such as a “wormhole” or “subspace” exists. “Warp drive”, and all the other FTL concepts, are nothing more than plot mechanisms used to complete a story line within a small portion of the characters’ lifetimes. Wormholes are a hypothesis based on a theory which is based on an assumption of something we still do not know for sure exists. “Wormholes in space” probably do not exist. The proof that the wormhole/warpdrive/hyperdrive does not work is we are not now part of an intergalactic trade organization with regular visits from alien vendors. Naturally, this depends on the existence of at least one ET Alien race somewhere that was capable of developing this technology. Of course there are plenty of wormholes in apples, and in wood, and in the ground, but they probably won't take you where you want to go. Theoretical Physicist John Wheeler did science a great disservice back in 1967 when he coined the phrase “Black Hole”. The highly misleading term leads many people to think it is, or can be, an actual “hole” leading somewhere. I prefer “hyperdensity”, a term I coined. Besides, “black hole” becomes obscene when translated into French or Russian. It has been suggested that so-called “black-holes” would be the source of a “wormhole”. That, of course, is utter nonsense. Rather than being a gateway or “tunnel” to somewhere else, “black holes”, if they even exist, are the densest objects in the known universe, virtually the exact opposite of a hole. Currently there is no proof that “wormholes” (the space travel variety) of any size exist, micro, macro, or in between. There are a great many mathematical concepts that do not have a counterpart in the real universe, and so-called “wormholes” is one of them. In order for the wormhole/space travel concept to work, the wormhole w <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Nov 25, 2006

My theory on wormholes is that they are made by worms eating their way through a piece of fruit like an apple. I have seen the holes in the apples, and I have seen the worms in the holes, but I have never actually seen a worm making a wormhole, so it is just a theory. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mammad · Nov 25, 2006

First: If you think spacetime wormholes cannot be, please launch a topic and discuss on your counter-arguments of their existence, please respect to the title of this topic. Second: All of the story began from these articles: M. Morris, K. Thorne, U. Yurtsever, "Wormholes, Time Machines, and the Weak Energy Conditions", Phys. Rev. Lett. 61. 1446 (1988). 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). Also, you can search the word “wormhole” in the Abstract field of the category gr-qc (General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology) of the website: http://arxiv.org You’d find many technical papers, however I accept visualizing the related geometrical and topological discussions is rather hard. Therefore, I suggest you to read these well-writing essays first: http://www.physics.hku.hk/~tboyce/sf/topics/wormhole/wormhole.html 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 As a cooler suggestion, maybe watching the movie "Contact" (starring Jodie Foster) or "Stargate" (starring Kurt Russell) would be a good pleasure. This theory is full of math cretdob, so your questions can be answered by the details

mental_avenger · Nov 25, 2006

mammad says: Please assume this technology is achievable within the current decade, and tell how would it be its effect on the relations between us, humans, and other probable intelligent beings. Good, start the discussion with a loaded comment. “Probable intelligent beings” assumes a fact not in evidence. In fact, it presumes a great number of things that cannot be proven, or even studied with our current level of technology. It is “possible” that there are other intelligent species/races in the Universe, but there is no indication it is “probable”. mammad says: So I invite all to leave a comment. It is inconsistent to invite “all” to leave a comment, and then request someone who does leave a comment to “launch a topic…” and “respect the title of this topic”. mammad says: As a cooler suggestion, maybe watching the movie "Contact" (starring Jodie Foster) or "Stargate" (starring Kurt Russell) would be a good pleasure. How would watching science fiction movies be relevant to this discussion? Easy, that is apparently what the concept is based upon, science fiction. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

yevaud · Nov 25, 2006

Reading the Bibliography you posted, I note that one of the authors in all of them is Kip Thorne. Thorne would be the absolute first to note to you that wormholes are nothing more than a pretty mathematical construct, and are utterly unworkable in the real world. Physics, I can tell you, is full of such things. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

mammad · Nov 25, 2006

Mental_Avenger, … “Probable intelligent beings” assumes a fact not in evidence … There are many evidences. Increase your info on UFO mythology; however, I have no interest to discuss with you on this subject, herein. …It is “possible” that … there is no indication it is “probable”… Continue playing with the words. I wish you good luck. ...It is inconsistent to invite “all” to leave a comment … …” and “respect the title of this topic”... I meant related comments. I think this point is so obvious that there is no need to say it explicitly. If you disagree this topic, it’s reasonable to release your ideas in somewhere else, then I’d respect to your goals of launching that topic. OK? … How would watching science fiction movies be relevant to this discussion? Easy, that is apparently what the concept is based upon, science fiction … Sci-fi literature has always been a good source of inspiring ideas for inventors, particularly along with two last centuries. The sci-fi novels & movies can show the complicated scientific concepts to a layman watcher. If you think my suggestion is an insult to you, alright, I can address you technical papers & books on differential geometry and advanced general relativity or maybe quantum field theory in curved spacetimes. Perhaps, those texts are “cooler” to you than watching a movie. Yevaud, As far as I know, Kip Thorne hasn’t published any paper on wormholes for many years. He’s shifted his field of research to gravitational waves. I can address you active authors in this field, if you want. BTW, the science has no dependence on personal beliefs. Particularly sciences like physics & chemistry can only be verified in the lab. Remember even Newton & Einstein themselves had their own special personal beliefs…

yevaud · Nov 25, 2006

Yes, I am aware of this from professional experience. That being said, no that's not true at all. Science, as I'd said, is chock-full of mathematical constructs that are utterly unworkable in the real world. Wormholes et al, require conditions that are beyond any possible ability of any possible technology. They are unstable; only of subatomic dimensions; require "exotic" matter or negative energy conditions to even exist or be held "open." And, I might add, the very same equations that state that they can exist also state that the entrance of any mass into them collapses them instantly. Bit of a problem, don't you think? (What is it about the "Phenomena" forum that people automatically assume that the person who says "this is not possible" is ignorant of the science under discussion? Mystery to me...eh, not to worry. It appears to be a fundamental defect with the Phenomena forum and the topics under discussion, I suppose. Not your fault.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

mammad · Nov 26, 2006

Yevaud, I know, but my studies show wormholes (more exactly, a kind of spacewarps) can be workable. I’m talking about this particular case, not many other items. My work claims to has solved many problems of them, e.g., stabilizing, humanoid dimensions (note, there is another wormhole discussion in high energy physics, a quite different concept), and the required exotic matter in which by sufficient amount of them, it’d get applicable to pass any mass while not collapsing. Besides, to minimize the defects of this forum, I suggest you to consider the starters’ policies, more than past. BTW, no comment(s) on social aspects?

mental_avenger · Nov 26, 2006

mammad says: There are many evidences. “Evidence” in no way implies proof or existence. Anyone can claim that virtually anything is “evidence”, but evidence is meaningless if it cannot lead to proof. mammad says: Increase your info on UFO mythology; That is the point, it really IS mythology. myth: noun Etymology: Greek mythos 1. ancient story: a traditional story about heroes or supernatural beings, often attempting to explain the origins of natural phenomena or aspects of human behavior myth: 2. idealized conception: a set of often idealized or glamorized ideas and stories surrounding a particular phenomenon, concept, or famous person myth: 3. false belief: a widely held but mistaken belief myth: 4. fictitious person or thing: somebody who or something that is fictitious or nonexistent, but whose existence is widely believed in. mammad says: Continue playing with the words. I wish you good luck. Part of debate is conveying ideas through appropriate words. When you use leading or loaded statements, you are biasing the communication. It isn’t about “playing with words”, it is about accuracy. In case you are unaware of it, science is based on, and depends upon precision in terminology. mammad says: I meant related comments. I think this point is so obvious that there is no need to say it explicitly. If you disagree this topic, it’s reasonable to release your ideas in somewhere else It is not your prerogative to arbitrarily determine what is and what is not a relevant response to your statements. This is an open forum, and posting questions or soliciting responses to your ideas invites any comments which the members of the community deem relevant. If you cannot accept this, please refrain from posting in the first <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

yevaud · Nov 26, 2006

(Number 37 in progress) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

yevaud · Nov 26, 2006

I find it difficult at best to discuss social ramifications of a technology that doesn't exist. The problems inherent in Wormhole "use" are not surmountable. It would require physical paradigms that are not possible, likely will never be possible. It's not a matter of "if I just apply a little more energy here," as the issues involved are beyond simple manipulation of technology. Assume Wormholes do exist; all of the issue I'd mentioned above are part-and-parcel of the theorizing about Wormholes themselves, e.g. no matter how hard you try, they cannot be "stabilized." As far as the issues involved here in this forum, they existed long before you arrived, and will remain long after you and I depart. Little to do with you or me; it's the nature of the issues discussed. By definition ("Phenomena"), they are not proven and most will always remain unprovable. Yet people wish to debate them in terms of "this is possible." That's good, and it does lead to active debate, but will rarely if ever achieve actual solutions. That puts the person in my spot in a quandry. I say it's not possible; the other party then states "but it may be, if we only <whatever>." That's a problem, as it allows one party to make claims with no proof and no evidence, as if the claim itself makes it all real. In brief, it means the claimant may say any old thing, and then requires the disbeliever to prove why it isn't so. That's a reversal of good Scientic thinking. As I said: not your fault. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

Any stop point in practical wormholes technology?

mammad

Guest

mammad

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

mammad

Guest

yevaud

Guest

cretdob

Guest

mammad

Guest

cretdob

Guest

mammad

Guest

cretdob

Guest

mammad

Guest

cretdob

Guest

mammad

Guest

cretdob

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mammad

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

yevaud

Guest

mammad

Guest

yevaud

Guest

mammad

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

yevaud

Guest

yevaud

Guest

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page