Vacuum energy destruction of wormhole

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the implications of vacuum energy on wormhole stability, as described in Kip Thorne's "Einstein's Outrageous Legacy." It concludes that a wormhole connecting two points in spacetime, with a time difference but not spatial proximity, can lead to vacuum energy accumulation, ultimately causing collapse. The key restriction is that light must have sufficient time to travel between the two mouths, allowing for significant time differences if the mouths are far apart. The conversation highlights that wormholes can theoretically be arranged to avoid time travel paradoxes, such as the grandfather paradox, by maintaining appropriate distances.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of wormhole physics and general relativity
  • Familiarity with vacuum energy concepts in theoretical physics
  • Knowledge of spacetime diagrams and light cones
  • Basic grasp of time travel theories and paradoxes
NEXT STEPS
  • Research Kip Thorne's theories on wormholes and vacuum energy
  • Study the implications of spacetime curvature on wormhole stability
  • Explore the concept of light cones in relation to time travel
  • Investigate solutions to time travel paradoxes in theoretical physics
USEFUL FOR

The discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, students of general relativity, and anyone interested in the complexities of time travel and wormhole dynamics.

nomadreid
Gold Member
Messages
1,773
Reaction score
256
In Kip Thorne's popularization "Einstein's Outrageous Legacy", the author explains why a wormhole which has been arranged to connect two points in spacetime so that they are spatially close to one another but not the same time would find vacuum energy entering the "future" mouth, exiting out the "past" mouth, and then traveling through normal space towards the "future" mouth, and after the time period separating the two mouths, re-entering the "future" mouth, and so forth in a snowballing attempt, eventually having too much positive energy in the wormhole, which then would collapse. However, it seems to me that the only restriction on the distance/time differences is that light must have time enough to travel from one mouth to the other in normal spacetime. I see no need for the mouths to be nearer to each other. Is this correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I haven't read "Einstein's Outrageous Legacy", but if he just says "spatially close to one another but not the same time" that is a fairly ambiguous description. I believe you're right that this sort of feedback loop is only postulated to happen when the wormholes are moved in such a way that the point where you enter one mouth crosses over into the future light cone of the point where you exit the other mouth (considering only light thtat travels through 'normal' spacetime and not through the wormhole itself). So if this idea is right, you could arrange wormholes such that entering one mouth would allow you to exit the other mouth 100 years in the past as long as the wormholes were over 100 light-years apart (relative to some quasi-inertial frame, assuming spacetime is close to flat everywhere except the immediate vicinity of each mouth), but as soon as you tried to move wormholes with a 100-year time difference to a distance of 100 light years or closer they would be destroyed.
 
Thanks. With appropriate tinkering, this would seem to take care of the paradoxes of time travel which a stable wormhole might create: you couldn't get back to your starting point fast enough to murder your grandfather.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K