No Wormholes: Exploring a Theoretical Impossibility

  • Thread starter nomadreid
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Wormholes
In summary: Black Holes and Time Warps":"The possibility that a wormhole might not be a time machine has been raised in the past by some theorists...However, a more recent analysis using the semiclassical approach to incorporating quantum effects into general relativity indicates that a feedback loop of virtual particles would circulate through the wormhole with ever-increasing intensity, destroying it before any information could be passed through it, in keeping with the chronology protection conjecture. This has been called into question by the suggestion that radiation would disperse after traveling through the wormhole, therefore preventing infinite accumulation. The debate on this matter is described by Kip S. Thorne in the...book."
  • #1
nomadreid
Gold Member
1,668
203
As far as I understand, the latest calculations say that wormholes do not exist. Nonetheless, as a theoretical construction, they would be a "bridge" between two non-contiguous portions of spacetime. At first I thought they might just be a discontinuity in spacetime, but then I read of the metric defined "inside" them. Since they are described as a bridge between two parts of spacetime, any "inside" would be by definition not part of spacetime, which seems odd if a spatiotemporal object (an electron, whatever) could exist in it. So what would they be "made" of, if not spacetime? If they are part of spacetime, then they no longer fit the description of "bridge". Help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2


Possible bridge approach to descibing wormholes...

Wormhole is just a tube connecting two points. This tube since not seen must be extremely small as to not affect the areas of space which it travels through.


The walls would be ultra dense gravitational fields which feed back upon itself on the exterior of the tube so as to limit the effects on its surrounding. The inside of the tube can still be large(relatively speaking) To anyone or thing traveling through the tube.
The inside would be comprised of stretched spacetime such that one foot forward means several light years just outside the tube.

The wormhole mouths are transitional states between the normal densities of spacetime and the "special" conditions on the inside.

Once created the only energy really needed would be to keep the "feed" end open. Though bi-directional travel would be possible you would only need to input energy from one opening to determine its internal characteristics and direction(which point it ties to on other end)

With this said it is entirely possible some big event started a worm hole and one opening tied itself to some form of sustained energy release(Jets from galactic Black hole?) in order to keep the wormhole active..The problem with this is fluctuations in the energy being absorbed by the worm hole, in startrek terms it would have an unstable end point constantly shifting from place to place...Albeit probably predictably.


Hertyque
 
  • #3


Thanks, Hertyque. Very clear answer.
 
  • #4


nomadreid said:
As far as I understand, the latest calculations say that wormholes do not exist. Nonetheless, as a theoretical construction, they would be a "bridge" between two non-contiguous portions of spacetime. At first I thought they might just be a discontinuity in spacetime, but then I read of the metric defined "inside" them. Since they are described as a bridge between two parts of spacetime, any "inside" would be by definition not part of spacetime, which seems odd if a spatiotemporal object (an electron, whatever) could exist in it. So what would they be "made" of, if not spacetime? If they are part of spacetime, then they no longer fit the description of "bridge". Help!

Wormhole are part of spacetime. See

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1597469#post1597469
 
  • #5


Hertyque said:
The problem with this is fluctuations in the energy being absorbed by the worm hole
Can you elaborate on this ? What fluctuations ?
 
  • #6


Fluctuations... Assume we built a device to create a wormhole(Stargate-except they need a gate on the other side) The energy input we give it would be steady. The particles we inject into it would be at very precise intervals, else we may not know where the end opens at or how large the tube would be.

Jets from galactic centers are by far nowhere near contiguous. They fluctuate in particle density as well as types of particles. The same holds true for the electromagnetic radiation streaming through the jet. By no means very steady at all.

Though the source of the energy holding the naturally occurring wormhole open could vary I am not sure of any natural phenomenon which would be precise enough in its energy output to create a very stable wormhole.

Heryque
 
  • #7


I'm not sure I clearly follow what you refer to.

Quantum fluctuations in a closed timelike curve will amplify like in a laser's resonant cavity except there is no need to pump energy in, there is no way to prevent that. It sucks the energy you developped to create your wormhole. This as far as we know prevents wormhole. It is well-known and Thorne discuss about this at length in "Black Holes and Time Warps", and is even in wikipedia's article on wormhole :
It is thought that it may not be possible to convert a wormhole into a time machine in this manner: some analyses using the semiclassical approach to incorporating quantum effects into general relativity indicate that a feedback loop of virtual particles would circulate through the wormhole with ever-increasing intensity, destroying it before any information could be passed through it, in keeping with the chronology protection conjecture. This has been called into question by the suggestion that radiation would disperse after traveling through the wormhole, therefore preventing infinite accumulation. The debate on this matter is described by Kip S. Thorne in the book Black Holes and Time Warps. There is also the Roman ring, which is a configuration of more than one wormhole. This ring seems to allow a closed time loop with stable wormholes when analyzed using semiclassical gravity, although without a full theory of quantum gravity it is uncertain whether the semiclassical approach is reliable in this case.
 

1. What is a wormhole?

A wormhole is a hypothetical tunnel-like structure in space-time that could potentially connect two distant points in the universe. It is a concept that has emerged from Einstein's theory of relativity and is often depicted in science fiction as a means of traveling through space and time.

2. Why is it considered a theoretical impossibility?

While the idea of a wormhole has been explored in theoretical physics, there is currently no scientific evidence to suggest that they actually exist. The concept of a wormhole also presents many challenges and paradoxes, such as the possibility of creating a time loop or violating the laws of causality. Therefore, it is considered a theoretical impossibility until there is concrete evidence to support its existence.

3. What are some proposed methods of studying wormholes?

Because wormholes are not yet proven to exist, there are no direct methods of studying them. However, some scientists have proposed using gravitational lensing, which is a phenomenon where the gravity of a massive object can bend light, to look for any signs of a possible wormhole. Another approach is to study the effects of gravitational waves on space-time, as a wormhole would likely produce unique gravitational wave patterns.

4. Could wormholes be used for time travel?

The concept of using wormholes for time travel is a popular one, but it is purely speculative. Einstein's theory of relativity suggests that traveling through a wormhole could potentially cause a time loop or violate the laws of causality, making it an unlikely means of time travel. However, this is still a topic of ongoing research and speculation in the scientific community.

5. Are there any other potential applications of wormholes?

Aside from the idea of using wormholes for time travel, some scientists have proposed other potential applications such as using them as a means of faster-than-light travel or as a way to study and access distant parts of the universe. However, these ideas are purely speculative and require further research and evidence to support their feasibility.

Similar threads

  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
14
Views
3K
Back
Top