# Wormole and reactionless drive

1. Jun 21, 2009

### Edi

Ok, so, correct me please - there is a picture attached + title of topic should explain the idea. Where am i wrong? Am i?

#### Attached Files:

• ###### system.JPG
File size:
21.5 KB
Views:
179
2. Jun 21, 2009

### Staff: Mentor

I can't make any sense of that pic.

3. Jun 22, 2009

### HallsofIvy

Do you have two wormholes with something (water?) going in one end and out the other or is that two ends of the same wormhole? What is causing the water to come out of the wormhole? What happens as your "ship" moves away from the wormhole?

4. Jun 22, 2009

### Edi

Well, it is supposed to be one wormhole with both ends in the "ship". Watter, for example, is pumped in the lower hole and it comes out the upper, other end of the hole. What causes it to come out? Inertia (spell?)?
When the pump pushes watter out of it self it recoils back, but the watters kinetic energy isn't absorbed by the back of the "ship", but instead comes out the other end of the wormhole and is absorbed by the front of the "ship".
Now, this cant really be, because it violates some laws and would make "reaction-less drive" possible. What I want to know is where is this wrong, so no laws are broken. (?)
And the wormhole is supposed to be ON/IN the "ship".

5. Jun 27, 2009

Staff Emeritus
"Please help me with my perpetual motion machine" is not something that this forum is well suited for - even if the help is trying to understand where it's wrong. There's a reason why perpetual motion machine threads seem to get locked quickly.

You've postulated a quasi-magical pair of disks where something going into one with momentum p comes out of the other with momentum -p, all without changing the disks' momentum. Why are you surprised that this doesn't conserve momentum?

6. Jun 27, 2009

### Edi

Because its a wormhole - you don't hit anything when going in one, you don't touch anything. Just go through it without losing momentum. If one loses momentum, where does it go?
I'm not saying this is true, just want to know what and how.

7. Jun 27, 2009

### m.starkov

I guess all you have to understand is that such holes can't exist w/o massive object.
But if you will get one (massive object) then all momentum will come to it :)

8. Jun 28, 2009

Staff Emeritus
Because it's a fribbitz.

Because it's a globschnurz.

You can always postulate something with unphysical properties and give it a name. That doesn't make its properties any more physical.

9. Jun 28, 2009

### Phrak

How old are you, Edi?

These GENTLEMEN might be more inclined to help, if you had a better drawing. I can't understand it, myself.

10. Jun 28, 2009

### HallsofIvy

Aww, c'mon. Who are you calling a GENTLEMAN!

11. Jun 28, 2009

### Phrak

Sorry. I was overreacting.

12. Jun 28, 2009

### Edi

Ok, so its a fast sketch. I understand it :tongue:
17 btw.

A large wormhole might need a lot of mass/ energy, but how about i micro one? Subatomic level. And the water is not water, but a photon, for example.
The mass... the mass... that rises another question. To create a wormhole one would need to put a lot of energy/ mass in small enough space, but where does that energy go? Does the "mouth" of a wormhole have mass?

Last edited: Jun 28, 2009
13. Nov 14, 2009

### Relay

I've never seen a real wormhole like the one everbody is talking about here. The only wormholes I've seen was when I was worm picking oh so many years ago. It wasn't a bad job, it paid well for the time. Anyhow, has anybody actually seen a real life step in here and step out on mars type of wormhole. What are the chances of a wormhole forming at the center of the sun and the other end in Florida someplace. I could never wrap my brain around this concept.

14. Nov 14, 2009

### pervect

Staff Emeritus
Wormholes have not actually been observed, but are - not exactly a prediction, but rather perhaps a distant possibility, according to General Relativity. For instance, the Moris-Thorne wormhole.

They are of enough theoretical interest to have inspired numerous scientfic papers which investiage their predicted properties.

Of course, those sorts of wormholes that are predicted as possible by GR conserve momentum when they are in a closed system, though they do have other strange properties.

I suppose I should add that the property of conserving momentum implies that the space-drive discussed by the original poster wouldn't work, in case it isn't obvious.

15. Nov 14, 2009

### JesseM

I remember pervect had an interesting post about wormholes and energy conservation in post #6 of this thread...

16. Nov 14, 2009

### pervect

Staff Emeritus
Some scenarios involving wormholes have one of the mouths acquiring negative mass, since when an object (possibly just interstellar gas) exits a wormhole, that end of the wormhole mouth loses mass (ADM mass).

This gets weird quickly. I haven't seen any good theoretical resolution to this issue. Personally I find it hard to believe that negative mass exists, and no such thing has actually been observed.

I'm not really sure if anyone has looked for negative mass wormhole mouths in any of the large number of gravitational lensing studies that have been done - though I know there was either a paper or a letter that was written about the issue by Cramer, Benford, et al.

Last edited: Nov 14, 2009