Wormholes

[123rock]

Wormholes don't and can't

I was talking about 4th extended spatial dimension. No shit 4th dimension is time, where do you think I've been living, under a rock?

Quite frankly you piss me off for the very reason for the lack of back up of facts or any analogies

What definition. Want a definition consult with MX and a dictionary, there can be more, they're just all excommunicado with each other.

 

Reason wormholes can't exist:

 

For contact of another Bent in the 4th <B><STRONG>EXTENDED SPATIAL</B></STRONG> dimension, or in the higher than the present one (in our case the higher would be 4). For parallel universes to exist they must be in the higher dimension to be parallel. This by itself does not show that wormholes can exist, as gravity bends space-time without causing it to go into the next dimension. However, besides the laws of thermodynamics, which states that energy and matter cannot be lost or created in which case would be created if we had contact, for the universe to adjoin with another one, it would have to break down its 4D curves and that would cause it to go to the higher dimension, wiping it out.

 

Think of a hollow ball of paper. The 2D people live on the surface, not the inside, so for another ball of paper to adjoin theirs, they would have to snap the surface and very foundations of their universe, which is disallowed by the rules and properties of our universe as observed by science.

 

Thank you for those that actually read all of it, or most of it.

[123rock]

Stephen Hawking recently announced that all matter and energy released from a black hole can be retraced back to its original source from which it came, meaning no wormholes, or parallel universes.

[Sayonara]

Think of a hollow ball of paper. The 2D people live on the surface, not the inside, so for another ball of paper to adjoin theirs, they would have to snap the surface and very foundations of their universe, which is disallowed by the rules and properties of our universe as observed by science.

Which rules and properties?

 

 

Stephen Hawking recently announced that all matter and energy released from a black hole can be retraced back to its original source from which it came, meaning no wormholes, or parallel universes.

He didn't say anything about tracing, he only said the information is not permanently lost. Which quantum physics already required.

Even assuming he's right (Steven Hawking in "I solved a paradox I created by saying it was wrong" shocker is a bit... dodgy, let's be honest), I don't see how A leads to B.

[Thales]

123Rock, calm down a bit please, this site is supposed to be about science, not vendettas.

 

That aside, yourdadonapogos, I have given a definition of the universe that is not all encompassing several times. We have already discussed that arguing the semantics of its definition does not rule out the possibility of other regions of space time, with differing physical laws, existing. Sure we may never be able to reach them, sure we may never be able to prove their existance, but science is not always about incontravertable proof, it is quite often about faith. Faith in models which make realistic, testable predictions about the world in which we live. Take atomic theory for instance. Can you prove to me atoms exist? No you can provide reasoning and experimental evidence, but what if someone comes up with a different theory that explains it equally well and provides more detailed predictions?

 

That is the premise of scienctific theories. There are a few of you here who need to stop proffessing the non-existance of things you don't really understand.

 

If a TOE is discovered and it yields a result suggesting the existance of other regions of space-time that are independent of ours and indeed have different laws of physics, then that would, in my mind, define another universe.

 

As for the existance/none existance of wormholes, not enough is known about quantum scale gravity to say whether two spartial seperated regions of space-time can indeed be linked by a hyper-dimmensional bridge. It is plausible, so keep an open mind.

[ydoaPs]

Wormholes don't and can't

I was talking about 4th extended spatial dimension. No shit 4th dimension is time' date=' where do you think I've been living, under a rock?

Reason wormholes can't exist:

 

For contact of another Bent in the 4th <B><STRONG>EXTENDED SPATIAL</B></STRONG> dimension, or in the higher than the present one (in our case the higher would be 4). For parallel universes to exist they must be in the higher dimension to be parallel. This by itself does not show that wormholes can exist, as gravity bends space-time without causing it to go into the next dimension. However, besides the laws of thermodynamics, which states that energy and matter cannot be lost or created in which case would be created if we had contact, for the universe to adjoin with another one, it would have to break down its 4D curves and that would cause it to go to the higher dimension, wiping it out.

 

 

Thank you for those that actually read all of it, or most of it.[/quote']

 

 

 

uh, why is an extra spatial dimension needed? would it not just need the three extended ones? the ripped dimensions "heal" with others?

[AtomicMX]

Flak, give the book name.

That would be some sort of acelerator. (what you mentioned)

 

1.)wormholes DO exist

Where is the mathematical or scientific explanation.

 

2.)fourth dimension is time.

..... well.... yes and no. dimensions are plenty, in case everything that tends to infinite could be a dimension.... but talking about space time is not a dimension.. though time is a dimention.

 

 

4.)I should reach through my computer and kick your ass for talkin to me like that.

yeah.

5.)still no definition of "universe" that allows there to be more than one

agreed.

[AtomicMX]

Wormholes don't and can't

I was talking about 4th extended spatial dimension. No shit 4th dimension is time, where do you think I've been living, under a rock?

Quite frankly you piss me off for the very reason for the lack of back up of facts or any analogies

What definition. Want a definition consult with MX and a dictionary, there can be more, they're just all excommunicado with each other.

There is one one definition of any particular thing.

But there can exist very much meanings for a thing.

Science does not use meanings but definitions

123rock Listen, math didn't made the x,y,z longitudes, math (physics) abstracted those bounds from the things that exist.

Math didn't make the bounds, bounds made the variables of space. so where are you going to get an extra dimension, where from.

 

Can you prove to me atoms exist? No you can provide reasoning and experimental evidence, but what if someone comes up with a different theory that explains it equally well and provides more detailed predictions?

.... Yes you can, you do not have to use only your eyes so see that something exist. that why you use math. for avoiding your senses from playing you tricks.

About the atome thing, you can improve, but if its scientifically accepted then should have no mistakes.

(and impovement does not contradict the last theory).

[Flak]

Flak' date=' give the book name.

That would be some sort of acelerator. (what you mentioned)

[/quote']

 

Is a somewhat old book (I readed it on 90`s), in english if I remember corretly. The book was not mine so I have no idea where it comes from.

[Flak]

I had remembered it, the book is called "A Brief History of Time, from Big Bang to Black Holes" from Stephen Hawking. Since your are from Mexico you will find it under the name of "Historia del Tiempo, del Big Bang a los Agujeros Negros"

However there is a little detail, when searching for the book I found my thesis that I did when bring the theory to practice by my "experiment theory" explained above.

So for sure in the book, the author talks about the "in order to create the black hole is needed an infinite cylinder" and a lot better explained. So my part is not sustained. Sorry if I confuse you.

[ydoaPs]

I don't remember that being in A Brief History of Time.

[Flak]

I´m not really sure however, thats is the book I should got such info. If not I have no idea from where I got it. I asked a friend about before post and he confirm me that it would be there such theory.

[ydoaPs]

I´m not really sure however, thats is the book I should got such info. If not I have no idea from where I got it. I asked a friend about before post and he confirm me that it would be there such theory.

 

huh? let me guess, english isn't your first language.

[AtomicMX]

Thank you anyway, by the way... stephen hawking is not a very very well sustainable scientifc source.

In his case you should better read him... and decide if you like him or not... but not to put his words in your mouth.. (as a suggestion).

 

As i said. A wormhole is not a black hole, and does not exist. If anyone else sustain that wormholes exist then bring mathematical explanations.

[AtomicMX]

"Historia del Tiempo, del Big Bang a los Agujeros Negros"

Lo voy a buscar.

[DreamLord]

http://www.nidsci.org/articles/davis/wormhole_induction.html

 

There's some math there. And why do you need mathematical proof? Why are you so quick to disprove things? If everyone only discussed things that they know are true science would get nowhere.

 

What about some Einstein quotes...

 

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality.

 

Even scientists must never stop thinking about these sorts of things. Maybe we've never found one. But nobody has ever proved that they can't exist.

 

And the BBC article I posted earlier about the Russian theorist who came up with a formula says this:

 

a Russian theorist has come up with a calculation for a large, stable wormhole that is compatible with the known laws of physics.

[123rock]

For two pieces of paper to be parallel to each other they have to be in the third dimension, otherwise as AtomicMX said they would be us.

[AtomicMX]

I will read it trougtly but.. as far as i read, that does not concord with your definition of wormhole, in the other hand... it looks more like a time tunnel. and the could be possible.

[Thales]

As far as most people are concerned a tunnel in space or time would constitute a wormhole.

 

Oh and DreamLord, I couldn't agree more. Many peoples narrow mindedness will be their downfall, don't let it get you down though, it just means there is more to discover, for those of us who don't pretend to hold sway over the unfathomable amount of information that makes up the universe and everything in it.

[Flak]

I will read it trougtly but.. as far as i read, that does not concord with your definition of wormhole, in the other hand... it looks more like a time tunnel. and the could be possible.

 

I had check the book at the library today, hmm, not much time with it but I didnt found the definition I told before.

[DreamLord]

As far as most people are concerned a tunnel in space or time would constitute a wormhole.

 

Oh and DreamLord' date=' I couldn't agree more. Many peoples narrow mindedness will be their downfall, don't let it get you down though, it just means there is more to discover, for those of us who don't pretend to hold sway over the unfathomable amount of information that makes up the universe and everything in it.[/quote']

 

Haha. True. We must all keep open minds about things. Do not be so quick to assume something cannot be real just because you cannot prove it. Because if you can't disprove it there is always that chance that it is real. And someone may find it someday, someone may prove it, someone who never stopped thinking about it.

[AtomicMX]

Haha. True. We must all keep open minds about things. Do not be so quick to assume something cannot be real just because you cannot prove it. Because if you can't disprove it there is always that chance that it is real. And someone may find it someday, someone may prove it, someone who never stopped thinking about it.

I may disagree of your comment.

You cannot rely on unproved, you can have faith on the unproved but you cannot trust in it.

As Kekule said.

" Sueña, tal vez encontrarás la verdad pero abstente de publicar tus ideas antes de ponerlas a prueba con la mente despierta"

The translation would be like this:

" Dream, you may find the truth but avoid publishing your ideas without having them test them before with the awakened mind"

Its not narrow minded, but you should understand that about the things we dont see we dont know, we just can dream. and we cannot disprove what it is not proven first.

So in order to do the things right, first prove it.

 

As far as most people are concerned a tunnel in space or time would constitute a wormhole.

Well the everything should be a wormhole my friend. even common travelling throught gallaxies.

[Thales]

The point which you seem to miss Mr MX is that without faith, without confidence in as yet unproven idea's, there would be no idea's to build on and to prove in the first place.

 

I think you also misunderstood the meaning of my post, take it literally if you wish but please refrain from pushing your ultra-rationalist approach on the other free thinkers in this forum. I'm sure you are very competent in your respective field(which I take to be mathamatics) but remember what Einstein said; 'Imagination is more important than knowledge'.

 

If you understand that concept then you may begin to understand where DreamLord and myself are coming from. It is not that we rely on or trust the comments and ideas we manifest it is merely that we think they are interesting points of discussion that deserve to be considered before they are dismissed.

 

You on the other hand seem to hold a baseless contempt for idea's which exist independently of mathematics. Just because a concept has not yet been given rigrous mathematical proof, it does not disprove/prove its existance. Newton, for instance, had to invent an entirely new(depending on who you ask) branch of mathematics to 'prove' his theory of universal gravitation(amoung other things). However the concept of gravity existed prior to Newtons 'proof' of it.

 

If you are to only ever do things you know to be "true" and never step outside your rational self, challenge yourself and the world around you(including the facts), then your scientific career will be one tied up in working out the semantics rather than making any new, truly revolutionary discoveries. Just a thought. No proof required.

[Severian]

I may disagree of your comment.

You cannot rely on unproved' date=' you can have faith on the unproved but you cannot trust in it.

As Kekule said.

" Sueña, tal vez encontrarás la verdad pero abstente de publicar tus ideas antes de ponerlas a prueba con la mente despierta"

The translation would be like this:

" Dream, you may find the truth but avoid publishing your ideas without having them test them before with the awakened mind"

Its not narrow minded, but you should understand that about the things we dont see we dont know, we just can dream. and we cannot disprove what it is not proven first.

So in order to do the things right, first prove it.

[/quote']

 

How much 'proof' do you need? Nothing in physics is 100% certain (except of course certain logical statements, but they are not physics). As a case in point, someone on another thread said that it wasn't 'proven' that the photon is massless. I pointed out that it has been, but he does have a (very weak) point, because there is only a limit on the mass of the photon. If could have a mass of 10^-20 eV and still be consistent with experiment. So what is 'proof'?

[TheProphet]

Thales: Amen !

After reading K.C. Coles ; First you build a cloud. (more accuratly she rewrote it) I most truly hold the same ground as Thales so deligthfully described! Another of Einsteins words where: everything should be made as simple as possbile, but no simpler. Which to me clrearly states that imagination first then theory. And last Math to prove it with. Not the other way around. Altough that where Einsteins way of working SR out.. but he did had an idea first of what to seek for!

 

So there's always a point to discuss and speculate your selve to sleep! Since most of what we know of today are aproximations, so one should always question the existed!

 

Cheers

[Flak]

As a case in point, someone on another thread said that it wasn't 'proven' that the photon is massless. I pointed out that it has been, but he does have a (very weak) point, because there is only a limit on the mass of the photon. If could have a mass of 10^{-20[/sup'] eV and still be consistent with experiment. So what is 'proof'?}

 

^{, maybe becuse I`m "inane".}