• Launch Day is nearly upon us! Head over to this thread and share your thoughts before, during, and after Crew Dragon finally lifts off.

What Are Wormholes? Could We Really Travel Through Them?

Dec 26, 2019
12
5
15
The human curiosity is one such element of the psyche that simply can never be quenched, especially when it comes to space travel. Did you know that the annual funding of the Earth Science program worldwide totals up to a meager $11.6 billion?

Compare it with the budget of global space exploration – a whopping $70.9 billion – and you can see how our curiosity for space overrides our interest in Earth itself! Ironically, we know more about Earth than we do about space even today. And that is mostly because the distances between two objects in space are spread across hundreds of light-years, which makes it difficult for us to reach even the nearest heavenly body and understand its conditions better.

Covering such tremendous distances is a dream yet to be achieved. For example, it would take the Voyager I, one of the finest space exploration ships, to cover the entire circumference of the earth within an hour. But it will take that very spacecraft more than 80,000 years to reach our nearest star system, Alpha Centauri! The most probable alternative to overcome this distance hurdle is a cosmic shortcut, called a wormhole.

Read More: What Are Wormholes? Could We Really Travel Through Them?
 
Dec 19, 2019
17
2
15
As this theory has been around since the latter part of the 20th century, I do not find the concept of torsion geometry enough to convince me that we are living in a nesting of omnipresent black holes. The scale makes no sense. If it were possible that our universe began when a black hole in a separate universe 'opened', then we are expected to believe that there can be a consecutive chain of infinitely dense black holes, one inside of the other, all interdependent upon each other but then independent of each other's energy/total information. Should that even be probably, what is the origin of the first black hole?
Besides, the only way such a hypothesis would work is via a wormhole link to a white hole, so it would not be working against the tide of gravitational acceleration, somewhat like the promoted unidimensional singularity of the 'Big Bang'. Note that the maximally extended version of Schwarzschild solution describes an idealized black hole/white hole that exists 'eternally'(infinitely) from the perspective of external observers. The other side of the wormhole bridge becomes a new, growing baby universe. For observers in the baby universe, the parent universe would only appear as the 'Big Bang' of this white hole. Theorizing upon the equations of general relativity as time-reversible [i.e., exhibiting a Time reversal symmetry], general relativity must also allow for the time-reverse of this type of eternal black hole, that formed from collapsing matter. The time-reversed case would be a white hole that has existed since the beginning of the universe, and which emits matter until it finally explodes and disappears. Accordingly, the observable universe is created the Einstein–Rosen wormhole interior of a black hole existing as one of possibly many inside a larger universe.
The possibility of the existence of white holes was put forward by Russian cosmologist Igor Novikov in 1964. White holes are predicted as part of a solution to the Einstein field equations known as the maximally extended version of the Schwarzschild calculations describing an eternal black hole with no charge and no rotation. The theory of wormholes goes back to 1916, shortly after Einstein published his general theory, when Ludwig Flamm, an obscure Austrian physicist, looked at the simplest possible solution of Einstein's field equations, known as the Schwarzschild solution (or Schwarzschild metric).A 1935 idea from Albert Einstein and Nathan Rosen for unifying electromagnetism with gravity lives on in the minds of science fiction fans, which became known as an "Einstein-Rosen bridge" or Schwarzschild wormhole.
Why anyone would buy into the hypothetical of an ability to detect a wormhole confuses me. The expectation of trying to tie a black hole and a white hole together by the possibility of their proximity to each other does not in anyway demonstrate the existence of the fabled wormhole (which only exists in the fringe of mathematical theories). A proposed quantum entanglement of a black hole and a white hole together belies the nature of black holes in and of themselves. While the movie 'Interstellar' tried to promote this sci-fi notion first by having us believe that any ordinary matter could make it beyond the event horizon of black hole 1, and then secondly that ordinary matter could reintegrate outside the event horizon of black hole 2 [against the gravitational acceleration of the black hole].
This is similar to the improbability of the multiverse concept, wherein we try to account for every possible space-time line scenario to rationalize our philosophical view of existence. These are merely contorted thought experiments, like wormholes and time travel, to get around the concepts of an evolving universe from within a medium of dark energy, i.e., the nothingness. The information is consistently morphing between the forms of energy and matter in the multidimensional environment of its evolving existence. It is the convergence of space and time by degrees that governs any one' particular perspective. If you're interested in exploring how this is all orchestrated in the grander scheme of the universe, you can review the alternative theories presented in the book, 'The Evolutioning of Creation: Volume 2', or even in the reimagined ramifications of these concepts in the sci-fi novel, 'Shadow-Forge Revelations'. #shadowforgerevelations
 
Mar 30, 2020
5
2
15
I noticed that all the images of black holes are surrounded by stars that seem to be falling in.
The concept of travelling through a black hole was written in a really good novel called Troika by Alastair Reynolds. In his book an object appears in our solar system that has travelled through vast expanses of time as well as space.
The images we see in photographs seem to me to be similar to how the centre of a Catherine Wheel looks, thats a firework that spins and you stick it on a fence with a pin. Also if you look at nullschools website ( https://earth.nullschool.net) at a hurricane there is the characteristic black hole in the middle that reaches right through the atmosphere to ground level.
Do you think that the velocity could produce movement back or forwards through time and /or space, or do you think it could be an optical illusion of our dynamic universes pattern of movement? Or something else of course.
I mean, we are in a spiral arm but perhaps when we see a black hole in an image, we are actually looking at the rare instances when we look into the centre, along the very middle of a spiral arm with stars rotating it as we rotate ours?
In which case time travel could be feasible, because we experience time, we don't know what else does, or how. e.g. trees live for hundreds of years (which is why Ents talk so slowly)
 
Last edited:
Is there some entropy involvement here? Or are we working too close to the point where our normal physics breaks down?

Otherwise if 'our' Universe (or whatever) loses 'you' as a highly organised collection of matter entropy is increased. Correspondingly, when 'you' arrive at your new destination the entropy there must decrease (ipso facto) must decrease - new highly organised matter has arrived so net randomness is diminished.

Cat
 
Mar 30, 2020
5
2
15
Is there some entropy involvement here? Or are we working too close to the point where our normal physics breaks down?

Otherwise if 'our' Universe (or whatever) loses 'you' as a highly organised collection of matter entropy is increased. Correspondingly, when 'you' arrive at your new destination the entropy there must decrease (ipso facto) must decrease - new highly organised matter has arrived so net randomness is diminished.

Cat
(You joined on my birthday and I have 5 cats!)
Isn't entropy a cessation, a void, a black hole of nothingness? I think that it may be a non-entity (forgive the pun) .
There is always movement, energy is not visible but it exists everywhere, we see only it's manifestation, so if someone dies, the matter falls away to be recycled but the energy has to move.
Energy is Never destroyed, it changes it's path. We are limited beings who rely almost entirely on vision and our interpretations of what we experience, the visible effects are what we see. Energy is an invisible limitless collective (it doesn't take up space, except by moving through it) and everything moves.
 
Last edited:
Isn't entropy a cessation, a void, a black hole of nothingness? I think that it may be a non-entity (forgive the pun) .
There is always movement, energy is not visible but it exists everywhere, we see only it's manifestation, so if someone dies, the matter falls away to be recycled but the energy has to move.
Energy is Never destroyed, it changes it's path. We are limited beings who rely almost entirely on vision and our interpretations of what we experience, the visible effects are what we see. Energy is an invisible limitless collective (it doesn't take up space, except by moving through it) and everything moves.
"Energy is Never destroyed"
All energy ultimately becomes heat.
See Search Results
Web results

Heat death of the universe - Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org › wiki › Heat_death_of_the_universe
The heat death of the universe, also known as the Big Chill or Big Freeze, is a conjecture on the ultimate fate of the universe, which suggests the universe would evolve to a state of no thermodynamic free energy and would therefore be unable to sustain processes that increase entropy.

May I ask the source of your other assertions?

Cat :)
 
Nov 20, 2019
130
68
160
"Energy is Never destroyed"
All energy ultimately becomes heat.
See Search Results
Web results

Heat death of the universe - Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org › wiki › Heat_death_of_the_universe
The heat death of the universe, also known as the Big Chill or Big Freeze, is a conjecture on the ultimate fate of the universe, which suggests the universe would evolve to a state of no thermodynamic free energy and would therefore be unable to sustain processes that increase entropy.

May I ask the source of your other assertions?

Cat :)
More correctly - energy/matter can neither be created nor destroyed, is surely one of sciences most fundamental principles. Heat is energy.

If you buy into the heat death of the universe, which I don't, then absolute zero only comes after an infinite time has passed :)
 
Nov 20, 2019
130
68
160
I forgot to mention, there's also an alternative, fairly mainstream theory, called 'the big rip'. In this case, the fabric of space becomes so stretched that it rips apart, and all basic particles such as protons, also disintegrate (into what, I don't know). I guess Wikipedia would have something to say about this.
 
David, guess what? You are correct :)
"In physical cosmology, the Big Rip is a hypothetical cosmological model concerning the ultimate fate of the universe, in which the matter of the universe, from stars and galaxies to atoms and subatomic particles, and even spacetime itself, is progressively torn apart by the expansion of the universe at a certain time in the future. According to the standard model of cosmology the scale factor of the universe is known to be accelerating and, in the future era of cosmological constant dominance, will increase exponentially. However, this expansion is similar for every moment of time (hence the exponential law – the expansion of a local volume is the same number of times over the same time interval), and is characterized by an unchanging, small Hubble constant, effectively ignored by any bound material structures. By contrast in the Big Rip scenario the Hubble constant increases to infinity in a finite time . The possibility of sudden rip singularity occurs only for hypothetical matter (phantom energy) with implausible physical properties.[1]"

and much more of course . . .

Cat
 
Apr 6, 2020
8
2
15
If a wormhole could exist,
1. our radiation telescopes would sense a large amount of radiation coming from that area, maybe due to the wormhole's last transport. That radiation could still be left behind after it closes.
2. Black holes themselves could be wormholes because everything gets sucked in. And since we can't see what's inside(except for that one telescope that got a lucky close-up on a black hole and snapped a picture of its insides, jumbled up space-time), the black hole might just be a portal to a parallel universe.
dun dUN DUNNNNNN
 
If a wormhole could exist . . .

There you have it. All you can do with wormholes after the IF is go and write some more good fiction.

Let me try this game.
IF I could travel through time
I would come back from the future with the lottery results and enter the winning numbers before the draw.
Then you can go and write a good novel which is entertaining fiction about your adventures with all the money.
It has nothing to do with reality. Just like wormholes.

Cat :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007
Apr 6, 2020
8
2
15
What I'm saying is that wormholes couldn't exist unless we could upgrade our telescopes to be able to see the whole universe. But we'd need a telescope the size of Pluto to do that, not to mention the light from the centillions of stars' light out there still hasn't reached us.
Right now we can't even decide where to look.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007
What I'm saying is that wormholes couldn't exist unless we could upgrade our telescopes to be able to see the whole universe. But we'd need a telescope the size of Pluto to do that, not to mention the light from the centillions of stars' light out there still hasn't reached us.
Right now we can't even decide where to look.
"What I'm saying is that wormholes couldn't exist unless we could upgrade our telescopes to be able to see the whole universe."
What I'm saying is that you can't see things that aren't there even with the biggest telescopes which can (not yet) see the whole Universe.

Cat :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007
Oct 21, 2019
246
88
160
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 would have to be a “shortcut” to another area of space. Now, this is not a mathematical explanation, but it explains graphically why the “fold in space/wormhole hypothesis is unrealistic in the real universe. The inaccurate and totally misleading misrepresentation of space as a flat sheet or membrane makes it look easy. But, space is not flat like a sheet of paper, it is solid like a bowling ball. It is easy to fold a sheet of paper, but not quite so easy to fold a bowling ball. IMO, too many people have taken the woefully inadequate 2D flat sheet model and applied it literally to the 3D Universe.

A better and more reasonable representation of space and gravity would be that of a giant sponge the size of the Universe. The effect of gravity (i.e. a star) would be like reaching in to a point deep within the sponge and pinching some of the sponge material. You would end up with a region of dense sponge at the point of the “pinch”, immediately surrounded by a region of rarified density which gradually reverts to the original density as you move further from the “pinch”. The density of the sponge surrounding the “pinch” is analogously inversely proportional to the gravitational force of the star. Notice that no matter how hard you pinch an area, it never brings it any closer to any other area. It only changes the density of the sponge in that immediate vicinity, and that change in density varies inversely with distance from the pinched area. With this more accurate model, all those notions about folding space vanish.

Using this model, how would a “wormhole” work?

If wormholes do not exist, there can be nothing “on the other side”. A “black hole” is not a hole in any sense of the word, it is the extreme opposite. Nothing is going to go “through” a “black hole” and nothing is going to survive going “into” a “black hole”.
 
Oct 21, 2019
246
88
160
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.
 
Not quite sure what you mean M A . . .
Presumablt you have not seen either (alleged) the cosmic holes or the cosmic worms so your theory does not postulate cosmic wormholes? Belief in worms actually eating holes in fruit is not quite parallel. Please excuse if I am missing something :)
 
Oct 21, 2019
246
88
160
Not quite sure what you mean M A . . .
Presumablt you have not seen either (alleged) the cosmic holes or the cosmic worms so your theory does not postulate cosmic wormholes? Belief in worms actually eating holes in fruit is not quite parallel. Please excuse if I am missing something :)
I can excuse your misunderstanding my TIC humor post. I cannot excuse you ignoring my detailed explanation above it.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts