Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Connecting Two endpoints in space using a Wormhole.

  1. Jul 22, 2011 #1
    Theoretically, a wormhole could be used to connect two points in space time and be stabilized using exotic negative matter for practical uses.

    My question is "how exactly (theoretically) would one actually go about connecting two completely different coordinates in space time? How do you actually make a wormhole go where you want it to?"

    Anyone welcome to post!
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 22, 2011 #2

    bcrowell

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This doesn't quite answer your question, but once a wormhole was created, you could then move either mouth to another location using gravitational forces. (This requires the godlike ability to move stars and planets around at will in order to create those gravitational forces, but you presumably had those godlike powers in the first place in order to create the wormhole.) There is a discussion of this in the final chapter of Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy by Kip Thorne.
     
  4. Jul 22, 2011 #3
    One would have to tear the fabric of space. A black hole does this most dangerously, but math proves a wormhole can exist by traveling through a black hole and into a wormhole. Although negative energy would be needed to keep it open. However...entering a black hole is almost impossible without being ripped apart and if that didnt kill you then the radiation would.
     
  5. Jul 22, 2011 #4
    Ok, thanks for your honest answer. How could one open a wormhole? Maybe taking one from the quantum foam, but how would you be able to "lock" onto one or even stretch it open. Any other way would be making one in space by collapsing a black hole, but I'm just guessing now.


    Also, could it be possible to connect them using quantum entanglement technology?
     
  6. Jul 22, 2011 #5

    Ryan_m_b

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Wormholes require exotic matter that has not been proven to exist. Quantum foam (as is my understanding) also has not been proven, at this stage it is a conceptual hypothesis. I don't know what you mean by "collapsing a black hole", black holes do not behave like this.

    Quantum entanglement is not similar at all, QE does not allow the transmission of any information faster than light.
     
  7. Jul 22, 2011 #6
    QE does allow for 2 electrons to recognize eachothers spin fasater than light, but the info is random and therefore helpless. Multiple things travel faster than light bur arent useful. And agreed a black hole doesnt collapse in on itself, however it is believed that a singularity lies at the center of a black hole that has infinite mass and infinite gravity.
     
  8. Jul 22, 2011 #7

    Ryan_m_b

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I repeat: Nothing travels faster than light. And it is not believed that a singularity actually is an object of infinite mass and infinite gravity. Current theories predict that the centre of a black hole would be a place of infinite density, zero volume however contemporary physics does not accept that this is an accurate prediction. More likely we will have to wait for a more comprehensive theory to explain what goes on inside a black hole.
     
  9. Jul 22, 2011 #8

    pervect

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Last I heard it was impossible to create a wormhole classically without using a time machine, using classical GR.

    This is briefly mentioned in http://authors.library.caltech.edu/9262/1/MORprl88.pdf, the Morris-Thorne-Yurtsever wormhole paper, with a cite to the original proof by Geroch, though I belive it's mentioned more explicitly in Thorne's popularizations, which is where I first read it.

    This implies that you probably wouldn't go out and create a wormhole, but that you'd find a naturally occuring quantum-scale wormhole (which would most likely be fleeting in nature), catch it, and stabilize it somehow.

    Stabilizing a womrhole isn't a trivial task, if it's possible at all. It's known that exotic matter is required, it's a matter of some debate as to whether known physics (such as the Casimir force) could provide what's needed.
     
  10. Jul 22, 2011 #9
    No. Things do travel faster than light, its just useless. For example, if you were to stand in an open field that stretch for miles and shined a flashlight that hit the end of the universe and rapidly turned in circles then the end of the light that was hitting the end of the universe would cover the "walls" of the universe before actual light could go around it by itself. (Even though the flashlight light wouldnt be carrying an information. So yes things do travel faster than light, but just dont carry any information so there would be no reason to use it.
     
  11. Jul 22, 2011 #10

    bcrowell

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    My reading of the paper is not so much that you can't create a wormhole without using a time machine as that a wormhole can be converted into a time machine.

    Reference 7 in the paper is apparently a spacetime in which a wormhole is created from scratch -- I don't have access to it. I assume it violates energy conditions left and right.
     
  12. Jul 22, 2011 #11

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    This is fallacy. It has been discussed many times on PF. Very briefly:

    No "thing" is travelling anywhere. A "sweeping shadow" or "sweeping light beam" is an entirely semantic construct, made by creatures with sight, when they see multiple closely spaced areas that are filling with (or being bereft of) impinging light. Compare to a machine gun firing bullets. What we call a spray of bullets is not a "thing" at all, and does not travel, except in our perception.

    Please do not derail this thread by pursuing that discussion. Instead, search for topics on superluminal movement, shadows, machine guns, etc.
     
  13. Jul 22, 2011 #12
    True. However I still believe that the EPR paradox proved that the information could travel faster than the speed of light (QE). Thats why Einstein referred to it as "spooky".
     
  14. Jul 22, 2011 #13

    bcrowell

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No, that's incorrect.
     
  15. Jul 22, 2011 #14

    bcrowell

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Doesn't creating a wormhole require a topology change? There's a considerable literature on that, establishing various constraints. I think you either have to violate energy conditions or have CTCs: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9406053
     
  16. Jul 22, 2011 #15
    I would also appreciate it if someone explained what is the actual difference between anti-matter and exotic negative matter. Are they not the same thing?
     
  17. Jul 22, 2011 #16
    Exotic matter is matter that violates a so-called "energy condition". Energy conditions are proposed definitions of physical reasonableness for matter, e.g. its energy density cannot be negative.

    Antimatter is not exotic, because it satisfies the energy conditions. For example, a positron (the antimatter counterpart of the electron) satisfies the Weak Energy Condition in that the positron's mass is positive.
     
  18. Jul 22, 2011 #17

    Here's a paraphrase of Geroch's 1966 Theorem:

    If a compact spacetime manifold is time-orientable, free of closed timelike curves, and contains no matter that violates the Weak Energy Condition, then the topology of the manifold cannot change.

    So if there's one classical CTC or one classical violation of the WEC, the theorem does not forbid classical topology change.

    Classical CTCs are associated with rotating black holes (Kerr solution).
    Classical WEC violations are technically possible with certain curvature-coupled scalar fields. [See http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0003/0003025v2.pdf".]

    [A decent source of info on this is https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Star...sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1291241017&sr=1-7" by the same author.]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  19. Jul 22, 2011 #18
    Here's what I found at this http://www.webfilesuci.org/wormholefaq.html" [Broken]:

    How difficult would it be to create a wormhole?
    The ability to create a traversable wormhole is well beyond current human technology. It would require the enlargement of one of the many submicroscopic quantum wormholes believed to exist within any volume of space. The process would likely require an intense, ultra-high frequency negative energy source -- something we have no idea how to produce.

    ---------

    As for collapsing a black hole, I don't think that would work. Black holes formed this way are not wormholes. [Only special (contrived) black hole solutions to Einstein's equations are wormholes.]

    Lastly, quantum entanglement is unrelated to wormholes in that the former does not permit the transfer of information (or matter) and the latter does.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Connecting Two endpoints in space using a Wormhole.
  1. Two balls in space (Replies: 27)

Loading...