4 ms·

> No. You can't go faster than light. There are no loop holes. That's what I just said. Your objection is silly. You're basically saying "Look, if light follo

by wyager 10y ago

> No. You can't go faster than light. There are no loop holes. That's what I just said. Your objection is silly. You're basically saying "Look, if light follows an extrinsically curved geodesic that goes into a black hole it takes 10 minutes to reach the singularity. But if we shoot it straight into the black hole, the math says it only takes 9 minutes. Impossible! That's science fiction! It's going faster than light!" Information traveling through a wormhole is emphatically not going faster than light. It's just taking a shorter route to get to the other side. You can't necessarily violate causality like this; you can just bring objects closer together. The mathematics on wormholes is quite solid and appears to admit traversable wormholes in principle. There are many reasons why it might not actually feasible to build or use one, but your objection isn't one of them.

aaron695 10y ago
Traversable wormholes also imply time travel the idea is just cra cra. If wormholes can exist you won't be able to send information through them. I idea of information being sent faster than light is nuts. It might be mathematically interesting but that's it. I really don't get the tolerance around this idea of faster than light travel which also means time travel.
- wyager 10y ago
  There are several resolutions to this complaint. One popular suggestion is that any causality-violating wormholes would cause a feedback loop of virtual particles to accumulate inside the wormhole and destroy it. > It might be mathematically interesting but that's it That's exactly what they said about photons and antimatter. Both were discovered mathematically before they were discovered physically. "Oh, this is just a mathematical fluke, this couldn't exist in the real world." The best physical theory we currently have admits the existence of wormholes. If you have a problem with that, then feel free to try to come up with an alternate physics that explains the world better than we can right now.
  - aaron695 10y ago
    > One popular suggestion is that any causality-violating wormholes would cause a feedback loop of virtual particles to accumulate inside the wormhole and destroy it. I would imagine a more likely solution is, wormholes either can't exist or can't transmit information. > The best physical theory we currently have admits the existence of wormholes. Just because the maths says it can exist in one set of equations, doesn't mean it can/does exist in our universe, especially lacking any evidence. I'm not saying to stop researching the idea, but anyone sensible knows the outcome. They will not be possible not matter how much you want them to be true. Just because something can exist doesn't mean it's either likely or not crazy.
    - wyager 10y ago
      > wormholes either can't exist or can't transmit information. This would contradict known physics. Again, please provide a better solution. > Just because the maths says it can exist in one set of equations That "one set of equations" is everything we know about the universe. > but anyone sensible knows the outcome. You mean like Kip Thorne, Leonard Susskind, Mat Visser, David Deutsch, and any other physicist who's studied wormholes? Because all those people agree that either we're wrong about physics or wormholes are theoretically possible. Causality violation, probably not, but wormholes don't violate causality just by existing. > They will not be possible not matter how much you want them to be true I have no strong opinion one way or the other. However, I accept that, based on the best physical theories we have available to us, wormholes are physically viable. It seems like, for some reason, you really want them to be false. Perhaps it's your sense of "sensibility", which does not appear to be based in fact (unless you know something physicists don't).
      - aaron695 10y ago
        My point is, lots of things are still unproven but we know the outcome. This includes in mathematics. Things remain unproven but mathematicians know the outcome. It might piss the purists off to think like this but tough luck this is how the world works. You seem happy to throw out causality? but not the faster than light bit. This seems biased.
- swsieber 10y ago
  Wait, so your logic is "Time travel is impossible and so anything that implies it is impossible"? Where do you get the idea that time travel is crazy? Wormholes and the implications come from solid math (from what I understand). Given that, GR and wormholes seem more similar than not.
antidamage 10y ago
Wormholes are not a shorter path through space time. That's the mistake you're making. The whole topology/folded paper thing you keep mentioning has already been described as science fiction.

by wyager 10y ago

aaron695 10y ago

Traversable wormholes also imply time travel the idea is just cra cra. If wormholes can exist you won't be able to send information through them. I idea of information being sent faster than light is nuts. It might be mathematically interesting but that's it. I really don't get the tolerance around this idea of faster than light travel which also means time travel.

wyager 10y ago
There are several resolutions to this complaint. One popular suggestion is that any causality-violating wormholes would cause a feedback loop of virtual particles to accumulate inside the wormhole and destroy it. > It might be mathematically interesting but that's it That's exactly what they said about photons and antimatter. Both were discovered mathematically before they were discovered physically. "Oh, this is just a mathematical fluke, this couldn't exist in the real world." The best physical theory we currently have admits the existence of wormholes. If you have a problem with that, then feel free to try to come up with an alternate physics that explains the world better than we can right now.
- aaron695 10y ago
  > One popular suggestion is that any causality-violating wormholes would cause a feedback loop of virtual particles to accumulate inside the wormhole and destroy it. I would imagine a more likely solution is, wormholes either can't exist or can't transmit information. > The best physical theory we currently have admits the existence of wormholes. Just because the maths says it can exist in one set of equations, doesn't mean it can/does exist in our universe, especially lacking any evidence. I'm not saying to stop researching the idea, but anyone sensible knows the outcome. They will not be possible not matter how much you want them to be true. Just because something can exist doesn't mean it's either likely or not crazy.
  - wyager 10y ago
    > wormholes either can't exist or can't transmit information. This would contradict known physics. Again, please provide a better solution. > Just because the maths says it can exist in one set of equations That "one set of equations" is everything we know about the universe. > but anyone sensible knows the outcome. You mean like Kip Thorne, Leonard Susskind, Mat Visser, David Deutsch, and any other physicist who's studied wormholes? Because all those people agree that either we're wrong about physics or wormholes are theoretically possible. Causality violation, probably not, but wormholes don't violate causality just by existing. > They will not be possible not matter how much you want them to be true I have no strong opinion one way or the other. However, I accept that, based on the best physical theories we have available to us, wormholes are physically viable. It seems like, for some reason, you really want them to be false. Perhaps it's your sense of "sensibility", which does not appear to be based in fact (unless you know something physicists don't).
    - aaron695 10y ago
      My point is, lots of things are still unproven but we know the outcome. This includes in mathematics. Things remain unproven but mathematicians know the outcome. It might piss the purists off to think like this but tough luck this is how the world works. You seem happy to throw out causality? but not the faster than light bit. This seems biased.
swsieber 10y ago
Wait, so your logic is "Time travel is impossible and so anything that implies it is impossible"? Where do you get the idea that time travel is crazy? Wormholes and the implications come from solid math (from what I understand). Given that, GR and wormholes seem more similar than not.

antidamage 10y ago

Wormholes are not a shorter path through space time. That's the mistake you're making. The whole topology/folded paper thing you keep mentioning has already been described as science fiction.