Something I don't get about Wormholes

• Silverbackman
In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of wormholes and how they could potentially create a shortcut for traveling through space. However, it is mentioned that space is not a simple void and has multiple dimensions, including time, making the idea of a shortcut more complex. The topic of extra dimensions and string theory is also brought up, with some participants expressing skepticism and others believing in their existence. Overall, the conversation highlights the ongoing speculation and lack of concrete evidence surrounding these concepts.
Silverbackman
How would it create a shortcut? It doesn't make sense. Yes, if you drill a hole through the Earth and travel through the hole you will reach the other side of the Earth quicker than if you were to travel on the surface. However, in space there is no surface. Space is space, a 3D plane in which you can go any direction. Whether it be North, South, East, West, Northwest, Southeast, Northeast, Southwest, ect. ect. it would make no difference because you can move in ANY direction in space. So how would a wormhole be effetive in traveling time or traveling to the other side of the universe? Where are we going to drill a hole in empty space? Space is a giant hole in a way. Please explain.

Under General Relativity (which is where the concept of wormholes comes from), space (or, I should say "spacetime") is a flexible/warpable thing and not simply a void with 3 directions of motion.

Silverbackman said:
How would it create a shortcut? It doesn't make sense. Yes, if you drill a hole through the Earth and travel through the hole you will reach the other side of the Earth quicker than if you were to travel on the surface. However, in space there is no surface. Space is space, a 3D plane in which you can go any direction. Whether it be North, South, East, West, Northwest, Southeast, Northeast, Southwest, ect. ect. it would make no difference because you can move in ANY direction in space. So how would a wormhole be effetive in traveling time or traveling to the other side of the universe? Where are we going to drill a hole in empty space? Space is a giant hole in a way. Please explain.

Lets use the hole in the earth. From what i understand, you when you step into the opening of the hole in USA, you step out at the same instant in China (it would really land somewhere different i think, but to keep with the joke 'dig a hole deep enought, you will end up in China.').

space has 10 dimensions, and a time dimension. So the idea of creating a shortcut does work :D

nickthrop101 said:
space has 10 dimensions, and a time dimension. So the idea of creating a shortcut does work :D

What dimension are we in?

all of them.
Scientists have an idea that their are 3 enlarged dimensions, forward and back, up and down, and left and right. Their is also time.
But the over dimensions are rapped up in tiny shapes called calibi-yau shapes.
So we only feel the 3 enlarged ones. But we are in eccense in all of them
Is that ok?

Spacetime is not "straight" and dimensions are not "square".
Shortcuts are all over the place, though they are not all wormholes. If you were to take a path :"straight" to pluto, it would require a lot of time and a lot of rocket fuel. However, Pioneer probes were able to take advantages of shortcuts by doing a "gravitational swing" that would slingshot those probes around massive bodies in our solar system. they took the "real straight path" to Pluto, which is that curved path.

You can also consider a black hole to be a "time shortcut". If our sun was a large black hole, then we could "swing around it" at such high speed that you could reach the nearest star (4 LY away) in minutes of your time, though everyone on Earth would age 4 years in that time.

Wormholes are a different topic. When I find one, I'll let you know how it works :)

nickthrop101 said:
space has 10 dimensions, and a time dimension. So the idea of creating a shortcut does work :D

That's an unproven conjecture of String Theory and has not been verified by any experiment. We can only prove 3 spatial and 1 time dimension through experiment.

If extra dimensions are out there, LHC should ferret them out. I doubt that will happen. My apologies to string fans. I would love to be proven wrong.

Chronos said:
If extra dimensions are out there, LHC should ferret them out. I doubt that will happen. My apologies to string fans. I would love to be proven wrong.

If the LHC doesn't find evidence for string theory it doesn't mean string theory is false. There is a CHANCE that the energy required to produce certain string theory predictions might be a lot lower than we once thought and achieavable by the LHC.

Of course, that's the great benefit of a theory with such open possibilities as string theory. There is always at least possibility that remains to be proven false no matter what experiments show.

What I'd like to see is a single prediction, just one, that everyone in string theory would agree is: a) predicted by the theory, b) would falsify string theory if not found, and c) we might be able to see in the next century.

Lots of smart serious physicists believe extra dimensions exist, yes. So you are not in bad company if you agree with them.

However, as I stated earlier, there are no experiments which show any indication of extra dimensions. At this point it is pure conjecture put in place to make a particular theory and its offshoots work. It might be true that these dimensions exist but we have no actual experimental or observational indication that they do. The idea of extra dimensions is pure speculation and conjecture at this point.

I find the addition of extra dimensions to make it's offshoots (as you worded it) work to be slightly akin to a set of parameters that need to be manually added to make a model work. I can't seem to remember exactly what it is for some reason though, it isn't any of the 19 parameters of the standard model is it? If anyone knows what I'm on about.

nickthrop101 said:
space has 10 dimensions, and a time dimension. So the idea of creating a shortcut does work :D

Well this thread sure didn't take that shortcut. It took 5 years to get there!

You would have to accept that Einstein was right about space and time being some form of fabric and not just an open nothingness. Thus taking in the concept of several and not just a few dimensions. A worm hole would be possible.

Worm holes do exist, but they are too small to be identified. Scientist had concluded that space was not smooth and has many holes in them. Take a pool ball. It looks very smooth to the naked eye, but if u were to magnify it, you will notice many holes on their surface. This is the same time. Whenever there is 2 holes in time at the same time, they will connect. However, due to feedback, they could only last for a nano second. All we have to do now is to find a way to enlarge them and keep them on.

inflector said:
That's an unproven conjecture of String Theory and has not been verified by any experiment. We can only prove 3 spatial and 1 time dimension through experiment.

We can only 'see' 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension thanks to our relative view of the universe. How do we see or perceive these dimensions? Cells. Cells carry out their functions via molecules. Molecules carry out their functions via atoms. Atoms carry out their funtions via electrons, nucleons. They carry out their functions via the various leptons, mesons, baryons, quarks etc. How are their processes simultaneously connected?

inflector said:
However, as I stated earlier, there are no experiments which show any indication of extra dimensions. At this point it is pure conjecture put in place to make a particular theory and its offshoots work. It might be true that these dimensions exist but we have no actual experimental or observational indication that they do. The idea of extra dimensions is pure speculation and conjecture at this point.

The dimension of space or an object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point Within it.
Wormholes are compact regions of spacetime which boundary is topologically trivial but whose interior is not simply connected.
With the LHC and other such things we know that many mesons are made in high energy collisions, so they exist naturally somewhere in between the atomic nucleus and the surrounding electrons to mediate the forces as force carriers to and fro through everyday molecular interactions.
This atom reminds me something that has an interior which is not simply connected. Or a cell, which has an internal evironment which is not simply connected. Even the Earth's creates it's own internalized topological environment redirecting the bombarding radiation from the sun via magnetic field; which we have much to speculate on how we are alive to observe these amazing phenomena possibly as force carriers ourselves. Thinking of relativistic time dilation and such.

"Conjecture is contrasted by hypothesis, which is a testable statement based on accepted grounds."

Last edited:
Just a question. If space did have 10+1 dimensions why can't we at least feel the 10 dimensions even if we can't see them? I mean, if an object exists in and occupies space then it must exist in and occupy ALL dimensions of space right? Even if we call a piece of paper as a 2 dimensional object we call it so only because its height is negligible (and not zero).

Hunter612 said:
Just a question. If space did have 10+1 dimensions why can't we at least feel the 10 dimensions even if we can't see them? I mean, if an object exists in and occupies space then it must exist in and occupy ALL dimensions of space right? Even if we call a piece of paper as a 2 dimensional object we call it so only because its height is negligible (and not zero).

Think of an ant walking along a garden hose. The garden hose is the ant's 2-dimensional world. Very long in length, but very short in width (circumference). He has complete freedom of movement, but his sojourns to left or right will very quickly bring him back to zero in the circumferential dimension.

The ant decides to walk stright, but his path is not exactly along the length of the garden hose; it is off by one degree, (i.e. he traces out a helix). He passes through this 2D space, completing one journey though the circumferential dimension every few feet before he comes back around to the top again.

Now, that's fine of the garden hose's circumferential dimension is macroscopic (say, an inch), but what if it is very very small - smaller than an atom? For all the ant knows, he is walking straight along a one-dimensional wire.

Note that the ant is indeed still passing freely through both length and circumferential dimensions, he just has no experience of one of them because its too small to have any effect on his motion.

DaveC426913 said:
Think of an ant walking along a garden hose. The garden hose is the ant's 2-dimensional world. Very long in length, but very short in width (circumference). He has complete freedom of movement, but his sojourns to left or right will very quickly bring him back to zero in the circumferential dimension.

The ant decides to walk stright, but his path is not exactly along the length of the garden hose; it is off by one degree, (i.e. he traces out a helix). He passes through this 2D space, completing one journey though the circumferential dimension every few feet before he comes back around to the top again.

Now, that's fine of the garden hose's circumferential dimension is macroscopic (say, an inch), but what if it is very very small - smaller than an atom? For all the ant knows, he is walking straight along a one-dimensional wire.

Note that the ant is indeed still passing freely through both length and circumferential dimensions, he just has no experience of one of them because its too small to have any effect on his motion.

I've always thought that is a terrible analogy.

It doesn't even begin to explain more than three dimensions. Just because you can't see something clearly from a distance is in no way comparable to it being in another dimension.

Hunter612 said:
Just a question. If space did have 10+1 dimensions why can't we at least feel the 10 dimensions even if we can't see them? I mean, if an object exists in and occupies space then it must exist in and occupy ALL dimensions of space right? Even if we call a piece of paper as a 2 dimensional object we call it so only because its height is negligible (and not zero).

We still only know of three dimensions.

Many physicists reject the idea of more than three dimensions (and string theory) because it has no proof whatsoever.

Chimps said:
I've always thought that is a terrible analogy.

It doesn't even begin to explain more than three dimensions. Just because you can't see something clearly from a distance is in no way comparable to it being in another dimension.
Do better then.

DaveC426913 said:
Do better then.

With all due respect, I'm not trying to convince anyone of an extra dimension.

Chimps said:
With all due respect, I'm not trying to convince anyone of an extra dimension.
Neither am I.

I am capable of imagining things that can exist conceptually, whether or not they necessarily exist physically.

The poster provided the qualifier: "if spacetime did have 10+1 dimensions..."

Your complaint was that it was a bad analogy. Do you have a better one (in one post or less)?

Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
Neither am I.

I am capable of imagining things that can exist conceptually, whether or not they necessarily exist physically.

The poster provided the qualifier: "if spacetime did have 10+1 dimensions..."

Your complaint was that it was a bad analogy. Do you have a better one (in one post or less)?

I'm not sure I understand why I have to provide a better one.

I don't think it is possible to provide any analogy to help visualise more than three dimensions. It is beyond human comprehension to imagine such a thing.

Chimps said:
I'm not sure I understand why I have to provide a better one.

I don't think it is possible to provide any analogy to help visualise more than three dimensions. It is beyond human comprehension to imagine such a thing.
I assure you I am quite capable of imagining such a thing, as are most of the rest of the people here on PF.

DaveC426913 said:
I assure you I am quite capable of imagining such a thing, as are most of the rest of the people here on PF.

Why?

because you think they are just curled up really small so you can't see them!

You like the mathematics. Where is the proof?

Chimps said:
Why?

because you think they are just curled up really small so you can't see them!

You like the mathematics. Where is the proof?

I'll say it again: I make no claim (here) about whether they do indeed exist physically; but they can very easily be constructed mathematically and conceptually.

And I am talking generally here, not necessarily the curled up ones that string theory proposes.

And when did anyone claim we were looking for proof of anything?

You are fighting a battle against an opponent that you invented yourself.

Library example of multiple dimensions - the position of a character in a book is page, line number and character offset [3 dimensions]. Adding another book is another dimension - book number [4 dimensions]. Adding a shelf to the book case adds another dimension - shelf, book number, page, line and offset [5 dimensions] Add more shelves and you need row, shelf, etc. and you have 6 dimensions. Add floors to the library and you have 7 dimensions . . .

Last edited:
Chronos said:
Library example of multiple dimensions - the position of a character in a book is page, line number and character offset [3 dimensions]. Adding another book is another dimension - book number [4 dimensions]. Adding a shelf to the book case adds another dimension - shelf, book number, page, line and offset [5 dimensions] Add more shelves and you need row, shelf, etc. and you have 6 dimensions. Add floors to the library and you have 7 dimensions . . .

Agreed, but I'll step in for Chimp: The problem with these is that they are not really physical dimensions, they are conceptual ones.

Physically, the character on the page in the book on the shelf on the floor of library still only needs 3 dimensions to uniquely describe its location.

People who are opponents of extra dimensions will point that out right away.

Chimps said:
I'm not sure I understand why I have to provide a better one.

I don't think it is possible to provide any analogy to help visualise more than three dimensions. It is beyond human comprehension to imagine such a thing.
I am also not able to imagine such a thing. Its not our mistake . If everybody could do that , then there would be billion of eeinsteins.
That makes eeinstein different from rest of us.

Hyperspace2 said:
I am also not able to imagine such a thing. Its not our mistake . If everybody could do that , then there would be billion of eeinsteins.
That makes eeinstein different from rest of us.

You are overestimating the difficulty. I have three hypercubes at home in my cupboard that I built from wood and string, and I am not particularly Einsteinesque.

DaveC426913 said:
You are overestimating the difficulty. I have three hypercubes at home in my cupboard that I built from wood and string, and I am not particularly Einsteinesque.

We know , you are a genius.
Look from my presprective, then you will find me such a confused and such helpless person.
Everytime I make a conclusion about the dimension , and later I become so confuse about it.

Hyperspace2 said:
We know , you are a genius.
Look from my presprective, then you will find me such a confused and such helpless person.
Everytime I make a conclusion about the dimension , and later I become so confuse about it.

No! I'm no genius; I just read.

I'm not saying it's a simple as arithmetic, but it does not require Einstein.

I recommend any books about Flatland. They posit a 2-dimensional world inhabited by Flatlanders, that we, as 3-dimensional creatures can examine from our higher plane. After reading a few of these scenarios, one can begin to understand how to think 4-dimensionally.

Imagine a Flatlander coming upon the object on the left:

We tell him that it's possible to join all its sides so that each square shares an edge with another square, forming a cube. He claims "That's impossible - not without distorting the squares. What is a 'cube' anyway?"

with this analogy, we can begin to think about a bunch of 3-dimensional cubes, all of which share a face:

Last edited by a moderator:
DaveC426913 said:
he just has no experience of one of them because its too small to have any effect on his motion.

Ah. Too small to have any effect on his motion?? If we lived in flatland we wouldn't be able to have a factor called height (or one among the 3 dimensions). The ant does experience the other dimension, just that he is unaware. But let me hazard a guess and conclude that you don't rule out the possibility of other dimensions? I don't get it why one dimensions would have lesser significance than the other. Maybe an object might not be visible in multiple dimensions but surely it must occupy all available dimensions?

Hunter612 said:
Ah. Too small to have any effect on his motion??
Yes. If the garden hose is narrower than an atom, then the ant, while walking, will span its circumference many, many, many times for every inch he walks along its length. i.e. his experience is that he is simply walking along the length of a one-dimensional line.

Hunter612 said:
If we lived in flatland we wouldn't be able to have a factor called height (or one among the 3 dimensions). The ant does experience the other dimension, just that he is unaware.
Right. Two different analogies.

The Flatlander's world is 2D: a macroscopic experience of both length and width, but no height at all. (Analagous to our 3D universe giving us a macro experience of 3 dimensions, just like we've always thought.)

The ant's world is also 2D, length and circumference, but circumference is curled up, so that he only has a macroscopic experience of 1D. (Analagous to our universe maybe actually having 4 or more dimensions, but we only have a macroscopic experience of 3 because the others are curled up like the garden hose.)

Hunter612 said:
But let me hazard a guess and conclude that you don't rule out the possibility of other dimensions?
No. But I've never been asked to put my money where my mouth is.

Hunter612 said:
I don't get it why one dimensions would have lesser significance than the other. Maybe an object might not be visible in multiple dimensions but surely it must occupy all available dimensions?

The key issue is the extent of a dimension - how far one can go before it wraps around. Our familiar 3 dimensions are virtually limitless in extent, but maybe not infinite. They might wrap around in several billion light years - it depends on the shape of the universe. (Same as the garden hose, just a very very large circumference.)

• Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
11
Views
2K
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
12
Views
4K
• Cosmology
Replies
7
Views
1K
• Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
Replies
28
Views
2K
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
612
• Other Physics Topics
Replies
9
Views
2K
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
2
Views
3K
• DIY Projects
Replies
12
Views
968
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
22
Views
11K
• Classical Physics
Replies
5
Views
876