hey! science geeks!

[Dracomax]

I found this here site while randomly trawling, and wanted to know what you think of the logic:
http://quantumweird.wordpress.com/2007/ ... wormholes/

[Jesusabdullah]

It's past my bedtime, and I admit that I didn't read it as closely as I should, but I do see one thing: I'm pretty sure that wormholes are different from the time dilation an object experiences from travelling near C. In the case of a wormhole, space would actually have its shape changed. That fancy graphic, as I understand wormholes, is actually representative of how the hole would work, though reduced to a two-dimensional world; In the case of irl, it'd be, like, a three(four?)-dimensional flat-thing twisted around in four(five?) dimensions. Similarly with a warp drive--Warp drives, as I understand them, would actually bend around space-time so that the space that the ship is in "travels," basically uneffected by the intergalactic speed limit. Of course, pretty much all of this (afaik) is still in the realm of though experiment (or perhaps at, "the math says that it might work with a single elementary particle over short distances"-status).

[Rkolter]

This person clearly knows some science, but does not know much about wormholes - one of the first sentences he says gives that away - "I believe this is the first time most, if not all, of these problems have been identified."

Problems with wormholes have been identified, and accumulated, many times before. And they aren't these problems.

His premise: "That limit is c and it applies to the Long Way Around (LWA) path length." is not even wrong. The cosmic speed limit is indeed c, but what does the velocity of the object have to do with the path that it takes? The speed of light is not a measure of time. What he means to say is that the minimum time taken must equal the time taken to traverse the Long Way Around at the speed of light. But that's not true. The basic premise requires the universe to select which way is the Long Way Around.

Let me give you a quick example - If I were to open a wormhole from downtown New York to downtown London, the trip between the two places might be 3 feet (the length of the wormhole). By his calculations, it should take as long to go through as to take "The Long Way" around. But what is that? Is the long way around the several thousand miles following the curve of the earth between New York and London? The somewhat shorter straight line flight of a neutrino? The "wrong way" around - flying West across the US and then the Pacific, and then the Asia plate?

Ok, that established, let's see the problems with his problems.

#1: "A common wormhole is created by every photon that exists."
What is a common wormhole? That concept does not exist. More fundamentally, as JA points out, what this person is referring to is the time diallation a photon experiences - as it moves the speed of light, it never experiences time. To the photon, no time has passed since it's birth. But this is not to say the photon didn't travel 4.22 light years (in his example).

We can experimentally verify that photons do in fact, traverse the space between two points. The remainder of his problem statement, that because photons are themselves travelling in wormholes, the minimum time required for an object to traverse the wormhole is equal to the time it takes a photon to go "The Long Way" is invalid.

Additionally, a photon can be intercepted on it's way from point a to point b - this precludes it from travelling in a wormhole, or at least, in a wormhole as they are classically described.

#2: "The second problem is that a wormhole cannot be established before it is created at each end."
This is actually a bizarre mix of time travel and wormholes, and wormholes. Again, not even wrong. While it is true that to use a wormhole for time travel, you would need to create both ends, then move one end to another location, There is nothing to suggest that if wormholes can be created, that you must "dig at both ends" so to speak, to create a wormhole.

#3: "My third problem involves getting into any wormhole that moves you along at light speed."
This is actually a valid point - but he is assuming that upon entering a wormhole you would accelerate to the speed of light - there is nothing that suggests this is the case, except for his original statement that photons travel through wormholes, which is not true. Besides, objects with mass cannot attain the speed of light.

#4: "The fourth problem is getting out of the wormhole."
True again, assuming that the wormhole somehow accelerates you to light speed. But this further assumes that the wormhole has some way to slow you to your original speed - and physics to explain why this would occur. There's no reason to suspect this would occur, and no physics I know of to back it.

#5: My fifth problem involves reversibility.
One sentence in this really captures the logic of the writer: "However, it appears to me that it is very likely that the arrow of time exists only in the direction of the creation of the wormholes." There is no reason to suspect this is true - You would have to explain such a CPT violation.

Overall, it's interesting. But without anything to back it, it's science fiction.

[Parables]

Thanks, rkolter. I actually didnt' read much of the essay past his first point and it's mention of 'common wormholes,' which left me rolling my eyes. I don't claim to know a huge amount of science, but I know the difference between a wormhole and a photon.

I find it interesting that, despite all of his speculations, he never addressed the biggest problem with wormholes as far as I understand it- the immense gravity well of a wormhole would easily crush anything trying to pass through it. Since it represents a massive bending of space, a wormhole is essentially a gravity well with two open ends. Something that bends space that much would be unusable for travel- it's essentially the same as travelling into a black hole. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I use wormholes extensively in my comic, along with some wormhole 'physics' that a friend came up with. But science fiction aside, wormholes don't seem like the solution to getting around the universe's speed limit. (And not for the reasons described in this essay.)

[Jesusabdullah]

My assumption was that the "Long Way Around" bit applied to a hypothetical case of empty space, in which case the "Long Way Around" would be the straight-line distance following the rules of ye olde Euclidean geometry (assuming, of course, that Euclidean geometry is valid irl).

[Rkolter]

My assumption was that the "Long Way Around" bit applied to a hypothetical case of empty space, in which case the "Long Way Around" would be the straight-line distance following the rules of ye olde Euclidean geometry (assuming, of course, that Euclidean geometry is valid irl).

The danger of making such assumptions is that you lend credence to his hypothesis without any effort.

Sure, it could be a perfectly straight line between point A and point B. But he links all this to photons and his hypothesis they travel in wormholes. Photons do not travel without regard for the matter and energy around them - they're regularly redirected, absorbed, reemitted, and so on.

[Jesusabdullah]

I just figure that the whole thing's rubbish anyway. If it wasn't, I'd probably analyze the initial assumptions with more scrutiny.

It could be worse. Warning: This video is SO stupid that it's physically painful to watch. You'll need the Feynman chaser. Trust me.

[BrownEyedCat]

The video doesn't work. And I wanted my brain to be burned!

Is it as bad as that one where someone argued that if evolution were true, peanut butter would spontaneously 'evolve' ants?

[Jesusabdullah]

Oh man, I really want to see that now.

This one argued that, because a) e=mc^2 and b) there's a lot of open space between atoms, that (clearly), the m approaches zero, such that e=c^2, or just light! Further, Steven Hawkings says that everything is made of tiny vibrating strings--like, literal violin strings, and blah blah blah auras blah blah homeopathic medicine totally works because it's made with love^H^H^H^Hlight?

Yeah. It's been a while since I've seen it, and I don't have flash installed in Opera right now (I have to open that stuff in Fahrfox). >_>; That, and I refuse to subject myself to that again.

[Dr Neo Lao]

I always love the "let's bend space" method of travel.

Because grabbing the far end of the galaxy, giving it a half nelson and gingerly stepping onto the other side would use sooo much less energy than simply travelling there normally. Last I checked, space was frictionless, so once you've left your solar system, turn the engines off and coast the rest of the way.

Of course, this method requires a whole lotta patience. About fifty thousand generations' worth.

I also liked the explanation given in "Event Horizon" with the paper and the pencil - "fold" space and make an instant jump. Sounds cool in theory, but what about half the galaxy you just destroyed with your space-bending? And what happens if you leave a crease in space-time?

Ah, it's all fun.

Edit: I just re-read that and it comes across a little snarky. Please note that I'm not attacking anyone here or the author of the article, I'm making a tongue in cheek satirical diatribe - but the tone dose not convey in written form. Apologies if anyone frowned.

[Risky]

I always love the "let's bend space" method of travel.

Because grabbing the far end of the galaxy, giving it a half nelson and gingerly stepping onto the other side would use sooo much less energy than simply travelling there normally. Last I checked, space was frictionless, so once you've left your solar system, turn the engines off and coast the rest of the way.

Of course, this method requires a whole lotta patience. About fifty thousand generations' worth.

I also liked the explanation given in "Event Horizon" with the paper and the pencil - "fold" space and make an instant jump. Sounds cool in theory, but what about half the galaxy you just destroyed with your space-bending? And what happens if you leave a crease in space-time?

Ah, it's all fun.

Edit: I just re-read that and it comes across a little snarky. Please note that I'm not attacking anyone here or the author of the article, I'm making a tongue in cheek satirical diatribe - but the tone dose not convey in written form. Apologies if anyone frowned.

You can't bash the space taco theory without breaking a few hearts. Insensitive cad.

[Jesusabdullah]

Turns out space-time was crunchy. Who knew?

[Killbert-Robby]

Turns out space-time was crunchy. Who knew?

I did

[Dracomax]

I always figured that space was cheesy.

I knew something didn't sound right in the logic. just couldn't point my finger at what.

[Rkolter]

No red dwarf tomatos please.

[Jesusabdullah]

Turns out space-time was crunchy. Who knew?

I did

You gonna back that up, Hawkings? Because my school of thought suggested that space-time was more of a grilled chicken quesadilla!

[Joel Fagin]

If I ever write a heavy sci-fi novel, I'm hiring* Ryan as a technical consultant.

- Joel Fagin

* Er... Not actually with money, though.

[Rkolter]

If I ever write a heavy sci-fi novel, I'm hiring* Ryan as a technical consultant.

If you ever write a heavy sci-fi novel, I'll sign on as technical consultant for free.

[Parables]

Found the video.

Sorry.

[KWill]

If I ever write a heavy sci-fi novel, I'm hiring* Ryan as a technical consultant.

- Joel Fagin

* Er... Not actually with money, though.

Or you could update that webcomic of yours... =P