Scientists investigate the possibility of wormholes between stars

Feb 25, 2011 by Lisa Zyga report
Artistic illustration of wormhole travel. Image credit: NASA/Les Bossinas (Cortez III Service Corp.)

(PhysOrg.com) -- Wormholes are one of the stranger objects that arise in general relativity. Although no experimental evidence for wormholes exists, scientists predict that they would appear to serve as shortcuts between one point of spacetime and another. Scientists usually imagine wormholes connecting regions of empty space, but now a new study suggests that wormholes might exist between distant stars. Instead of being empty tunnels, these wormholes would contain a perfect fluid that flows back and forth between the two stars, possibly giving them a detectable signature.

The scientists, Vladimir Dzhunushaliev at the Eurasian National University in Kazakhstan and coauthors, have posted their investigation of the possibility of wormholes between stars on arXiv.org.

The scientists began investigating the idea of wormholes between stars when they were researching what kinds of astrophysical objects could serve as entrances to wormholes. According to previous models, some of these objects could look similar to stars.

This idea led the scientists to wonder if wormholes might exist in otherwise ordinary stars and . From a distance, these stars would look very much like normal stars (and normal neutron stars), but they might have a few differences that could be detectable.

To investigate these differences, the researchers developed a model of an ordinary star with a tunnel at the star’s center, through which matter could move. Two stars that share a wormhole would have a unique connection, since they are associated with the two mouths of the wormhole. Because exotic matter in the wormhole could flow like a fluid between the stars, both stars would likely pulse in an unusual way. This pulsing could lead to the release of various kinds of energy, such as ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays.

For now, the difficult part is calculating exactly what kinds of oscillations are occurring, and what kind of energy is being released. This information would allow scientists to predict what a wormhole-containing star might look like from Earth, and begin searching for these otherwise normal-looking stars.

Explore further: Eclipsing binary stars discovered by high school students

More information: Vladimir Dzhunushaliev, et al. "A Star Harbouring a Wormhole at its Center." arXiv:1102.4454v1 [astro-ph.GA]

Related Stories

Time travel? Maybe

May 11, 2010

Imagine that you're a science-fiction writer on a tight schedule. You'd like to play in the vast expanses of the universe, but you have too much scientific integrity to conjure up a warp drive or a DeLorean out of thin air. ...

Now you see it, now you don't

Feb 22, 2006

Some stars emit radio waves fairly steadily, while some compact neutron stars flash like beacons in the sky. But others brighten and dim erratically, without any discernible pattern to the outbursts, according to Maura McLaughlin ...

Physicists Identify New Kind of Star

Apr 01, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Stars don't exactly ease into retirement, and for some stellar objects, the twilight years just got more complicated.

Young Star Clusters

Oct 12, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Most stars form in clusters. Recent studies of nearby star forming regions find that about three-quarters of their young stars are located in groups with ten or more members. The formation ...

Signatures of the first stars

Apr 15, 2005

A primitive star with extremely low iron content has been discovered by an international research team from Sweden, Japan, Germany, USA, Australia and Great Britain. This indicates the original composition of the gas from ...

Making massive stars

Sep 10, 2010

Massive stars -- those with more than about eight times the mass of the sun -- are arguably the most important actors in the universe. Much hotter and more luminous than the sun, they live only hundreds of ...

Recommended for you

Swirling electrons in the whirlpool galaxy

18 hours ago

The whirlpool galaxy Messier 51 (M51) is seen from a distance of approximately 30 million light years. This galaxy appears almost face-on and displays a beautiful system of spiral arms.

A spectacular landscape of star formation

Aug 20, 2014

This image, captured by the Wide Field Imager at ESO's La Silla Observatory in Chile, shows two dramatic star formation regions in the Milky Way. The first, on the left, is dominated by the star cluster NGC ...

Exoplanet measured with remarkable precision

Aug 19, 2014

Barely 30 years ago, the only planets astronomers had found were located right here in our own solar system. The Milky Way is chock-full of stars, millions of them similar to our own sun. Yet the tally ...

New star catalog reveals unexpected 'solar salad'

Aug 19, 2014

(Phys.org) —An Arizona State University alumnus has devised the largest catalog ever produced for stellar compositions. Called the Hypatia Catalog, after one of the first female astronomers who lived in ...

User comments : 185

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

abzu
4.1 / 5 (21) Feb 25, 2011
"...scientists predict that they would appear to serve as shortcuts between one point of spacetime and another." This translates, roughly, to: "...scientists think it would be cool if they existed." There is as much evidence of wormholes as there is of deities. You can look and look for the proof, but until it shows up, it's slow news day material.
jamesrm
3.2 / 5 (13) Feb 25, 2011
A classic case of Publish (rubbish) or perish
sstritt
3.9 / 5 (19) Feb 25, 2011
I think people have a hard time letting go of the sci-fi nature of long distance travel without the peski and unattainable speed limit of light.

With the 2 ends of the wormhole in the center of stars, it is hard to see any conceivable usefulness as a means of travel.
BlankVellum
3.5 / 5 (13) Feb 25, 2011
This is ammunition for all manner of quackery. Stick with the science guys!
StandingBear
2.8 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2011
suppose one of the stars went into gravitational collapse that normally generates a 'black hole'. But instead all the matter goes into the wormhole and the whole thing goes out like a light. However, the mouth of the original wormhole would remain after all this. Would that mouth be like a cosmic vacuum cleaner suckin up all nearby objects? And what of the matter pumped through the wormhole? There might not be enough to black hole the star on the other end if that star is large enough and still had plenty of fuel?...But if it did, the people living on the planets in the goldilocks zone of that star would sure have a nasty surprise waiting for them.....watching their home star suddenly 'go black'.
JYK
4.7 / 5 (13) Feb 25, 2011
With the 2 ends of the wormhole in the center of stars, it is hard to see any conceivable usefulness as a means of travel.


Why, it's all very simple. All you have to do is come up with a space ship which can pass through the sun at each end of the wormhole without damaging the cargo. An ablatable hull would do the trick. A ship the size of Mars might get a cargo the size of a pea through unharmed. ;)
jscroft
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 25, 2011
Doesn't the math proving that a worm hole can theoretically exist also state that if any matter entered it would immediately collapse because it's so unstable?


My understanding--and this is a lay understanding, as I have NOT worked through the math--is that ANY wormhole will collapse unless it is stabilized by "exotic" matter, in this case meaning matter with a negative energy density.

Find me some of that, and I'll build ya a wormhole. :)
Raygunner
2.8 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2011
I think the same would apply for black holes although it would be almost impossible to prove. I wonder if some stars, neutron stars, and even black holes could harbor intelligence? If so wormholes could be their "internet connection" and communication link. Stars of all kinds have intense electrical and magnetic fields so I reason that these fields could become self-sustaining, reinforcing, and even sentient given a few billion years. This awareness could be be initiated by the wormhole at the center, should they exist. It could be that sentient stars created the wormholes to allow communication. Just wondering, that's all. The truth will be even stranger than we can imagine.
jscroft
4.1 / 5 (13) Feb 25, 2011
I dunno, I've got a pretty lurid imagination. :)

Have you ever read _Schild's Ladder_, by Greg Egan? He imagines sentience arising out of a shifting pattern of physical LAWS. Impossible to explain in 1,000 chars or less, but the bottom line is that there's no reason not to suppose that ANY "sufficiently complex" dynamic system could evolve life, given an adequate substrate and enough iterations to get the job done.
Pyle
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 25, 2011
Wormholes, singularities, time travel... Maybe we should spend some time revisiting the theories that spring such unintuitive phenomenon? Just a thought.

Crank away!!!
Raygunner
2.8 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2011
I'm reminded of the quote from Jurassic Park: "Life will find a way". I firmly believe that "intelligence will find a way" in all the possible forms that could take. Taking this further, it's reasonable to believe that the quantum flux could be sentient, although in a way that is probably totally incomprehensible to us. On a scale of 1 to 10, humanity's smartest would probably tip the universal IQ scale at .001, IMHO! I will give that book a look, sounds like something right up my alley. Thanks jscroft!
Raygunner
3.8 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2011
Wormholes, singularities, time travel: I really like Carl Sagan's "Contact", where wormholes were a transportation system developed and built by some great intelligence eons ago, the point being that wormholes were not natural and could not be produced by nature. Singularities are a scientist's worst nightmare from what I read and they hope never to find one. Time travel? I just believe in "now" and not in time travel. The past is in our memories and the future in our imaginations. All a very powerful illusion reinforced by circadian rhythms, schedules, day/night cycles, I could go on and on. I used to be really into time travel until I took a few days to seriously think it over. (long discussions in past posts on Physorg). I think the concept, paradoxes, and embedded structures are way to complicated for the universe to WANT to deal with. You know that "universal" motto: KISS!
panorama
5 / 5 (7) Feb 25, 2011
these wormholes would contain a perfect fluid that flows back and forth between the two stars, possibly giving them a detectable signature.

So...Fluidic Space? We need to watch out for Species 8472.
trekgeek1
4.4 / 5 (8) Feb 25, 2011
With the 2 ends of the wormhole in the center of stars, it is hard to see any conceivable usefulness as a means of travel.


Why, it's all very simple. All you have to do is come up with a space ship which can pass through the sun at each end of the wormhole without damaging the cargo. An ablatable hull would do the trick. A ship the size of Mars might get a cargo the size of a pea through unharmed. ;)


Nonsense! You simply create a phase inverter that causes your ship to become slightly out of phase with the stars matter. You can then pass through it like it isn't there. Just make sure your phase inverter doesn't give out half way through.
Alburton
4.4 / 5 (14) Feb 25, 2011
I believe your all being to hard with the theroretical physicists.Let them imagine and calculate!
What if someone had convinced Newton to "stop that silly pencilpushing" and start doing some real work (help plowing,f ex)
Science has to imagine all limits in order to being able to test them.
What if this was true? It would mean tons and tons of instant awesomejuice!!
And what are we as a race but awesome-thriving monkeys?
rcoldman
4.2 / 5 (13) Feb 25, 2011
"It's absurd! Anything traveling more than 20 miles an hour would shake itself to bits, obviously!" Isn't that what they said about steam trains?

It still surprises me how absolutely certain many of us are of our limitation - how deeply unwilling to think outside of the box, or even listen to anyone else who will.
Poliguna
1 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2011
I think the wormholes could be more easily found when a new galaxy is going to be form, could be the point to start a galaxy due to the dark matter prevails hot and vibrating a high speed so could origin wormholes as a consecuence of the movement of dark matter in space when a galaxy is formed.

oldkid
2.5 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2011
The idea of space travel is desirable and intriging, however, the talk of a naturally formed wormhole seems ludicrous to me, the sci-fi type of thinking, not science....
PS3
1.7 / 5 (10) Feb 25, 2011
Stargates are real.
btw,who is to blame for the stupid redesign of site?
beelize54
1 / 5 (8) Feb 25, 2011
IMO "worm hole" is quite trivial end of every merging of neutron stars. The thin neck formed will be filled with neutron superfluid from the cores of both stars. I don't understand, why such neck should allow us to travel into "another universes"... It's sad, physicists didn't realize, what they're really describing with their abstract models even after seventy years...
ScientistAmauterEnthusiast
3 / 5 (7) Feb 25, 2011
Stargates are real.
btw,who is to blame for the stupid redesign of site?


You need to elaborate on the first thing you said, because what pops in my mind when see the word stargate, doesn't exist.

But you are right, why did they make this site so ugly D:
Telekinetic
2.6 / 5 (11) Feb 25, 2011
Why so many of you have dug your heels in in opposition to this concept astounds me when you can accept a theory like quantum entanglement. I think these scientists may be onto the channel that's used by "entangled" particles at great distances. Scaled up, these could be seen as "entangled" stars.
that_guy
3.5 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2011
I think it's the scientist's perogative to look for evidence based on a mathematical theory. It's not like they're beating a dead dark horse. They're just throwing it out there and taking a look.

MY issue with this is that they're saying, hey, there might in fact be wormholes that you can travel through. But the only catch is if we find them, you can't get to them because they're in the center of a star!
malapropism
4 / 5 (9) Feb 25, 2011
"...scientists predict that they would appear to serve as shortcuts between one point of spacetime and another." This translates, roughly, to: "...scientists think it would be cool if they existed." There is as much evidence of wormholes as there is of deities. You can look and look for the proof, but until it shows up, it's slow news day material.

Well, I suppose you may be right - it certainly would be cool - but I think the salient difference between wormholes and deities is that the wormholes are apparently predicted by mathematics whereas I really doubt the same is true of deities.
DamienS
3.5 / 5 (13) Feb 25, 2011
Why so many of you have dug your heels in in opposition to this concept astounds me when you can accept a theory like quantum entanglement.

Probably because this paper is ridiculous beyond belief. There are so many unphysical obstacles for this notion to be even remotely possible, that it could have been proposed by Oliver K!

You are right about quantum entanglement being unintuitive and the notion would probably have been dismissed prior to the advent of quantum mechanics, but the key difference is that entanglement was observed to exist, not predicted by some wacko theory.
Telekinetic
1.8 / 5 (9) Feb 25, 2011


You are right about quantum entanglement being unintuitive and the notion would probably have been dismissed prior to the advent of quantum mechanics, but the key difference is that entanglement was observed to exist, not predicted by some wacko theory.

There is a whole host of plausible theories proposed recently; a two-dimensional holographic universe or bumping universes that leave bruises on their respective outer edges, truly "wacko", to use your term. Let me remind you that today's "wacko" ideas are often tomorrow's established facts. There is also no shame in respecting science fiction, because in the case of Jules Verne, he predicted accurately the future of science. Quantum entanglement has been observed, but barely any more than that, engendering many more questions than have been answered.
Ensa
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2011
Great Success!
I am like!
jamey
1.5 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2011
Some people might want to consider reading some of the science fiction written by some of the harder science practitioners. For example, works by *DOCTOR* Robert Forward, who actually *WAS* a gravitational physicist? And consider that quantum theory *does* allow for certain things to have a "temperature" below absolute zero - which might well fit the requirements for exotic matter? After all, Hawking Radiation was recently confirmed by making a black hole that only worked on phonons - sound vibrations in objects. Dan Alderson might also have some commentary, since he developed a theoretical star drive for Pournelle and Niven that while normally started in interstellar space, could in certain conditions actually form inside of a star. (And it's not that hard to actually penetrate a star, even - Brin's Sundiver novel comes to mind).
soulman
4.3 / 5 (15) Feb 26, 2011
Let me remind you that today's "wacko" ideas are often tomorrow's established facts. There is also no shame in respecting science fiction, because in the case of Jules Verne, he predicted accurately the future of science. Quantum entanglement has been observed, but barely any more than that

I'm all for having an open mind, but not so open that my brains spill out.
soulman
4.2 / 5 (10) Feb 26, 2011
And consider that quantum theory *does* allow for certain things to have a "temperature" below absolute zero

I'm sure that isn't the case. What does it even mean for something to be colder than absolute zero? If you're sure about your claim, please provide a reference, as I'd love to read it.
Hawking Radiation was recently confirmed by making a black hole that only worked on phonons - sound vibrations in objects.

Not so. While a lab facsimile of a black home may provide important scientific insights, it doesn't actually confirm HR, any more than a medicine that works in mice will necessarily work in humans.
frajo
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2011
btw,who is to blame for the stupid redesign of site?

But you are right, why did they make this site so ugly D:
And now, please explain why you think the new design is ugly. Any reasons which can be verbally conveyed?
vidyunmaya
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2011
Sub:Desirable change in concepts
Wormholes,Singularity, Blakhole concepts need change.
Search for Cosmic Function in the Universe. Plasma cavity helps to link-up Plasma tracks to Magnetic fields as direct route- see more in Cosmology Vedas Interlinks-Vortex modes
Vidyardhi Nanduri
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (8) Feb 26, 2011
(And it's not that hard to actually penetrate a star, even - Brin's Sundiver novel comes to mind).
With the help of a handwavium powered x-ray laser a Unobtainium powered perfect reflective shield and a few other things. Dr. Brin was writing fiction and he knew perfectly well the X-refrigeration gimmick is impossible and was a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

In other words he needed to break the laws of physics for the story to work so he did it. Good story but it has some truly impossible science.

Unobtanium is in Dr. Brin's Startide Rising, clearly as a joke. Wish he would write some more fiction.

Ethelred
Thingumbob
3.3 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2011
I can't really say whether stars might have wormholes in them, but I think that this particular research proves beyond a doubt that we should look for holes in certain astrophysicists' heads. Thanks for your kind consideration.
FrankHerbert
1 / 5 (54) Feb 26, 2011
Why so many of you have dug your heels in in opposition to this concept astounds me when you can accept a theory like quantum entanglement.

Probably because this paper is ridiculous beyond belief. There are so many unphysical obstacles for this notion to be even remotely possible, that it could have been proposed by Oliver K!

You are right about quantum entanglement being unintuitive and the notion would probably have been dismissed prior to the advent of quantum mechanics, but the key difference is that entanglement was observed to exist, not predicted by some wacko theory.


Positrons were a purely mathematical construct until they were actually proved to exist.
TabulaMentis
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2011
Anyone out there know how to transfer information from one dimension to another without the use of wormhole tech?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 26, 2011
Anyone out there know how to transfer information from one dimension to another without the use of wormhole tech?

Yes. Get up and move.
TabulaMentis
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2011
Yes. Get up and move.
How is that related to different dimensions?
MorituriMax
1 / 5 (1) Feb 26, 2011
With the 2 ends of the wormhole in the center of stars, it is hard to see any conceivable usefulness as a means of travel.

The most obvious benefit would be that they can even exist at all. If they can exist, then they could exist elsewhere, not just there.
Telekinetic
2.5 / 5 (15) Feb 26, 2011
Most of you naysayers have made a career of fantasizing about fast cars and bikini-clad women, which, I assure you, will never happen. On the other hand, these world-class
astrophysicists that you repudiate have made a career out of high-level thinking, possibly the highest we know of. In their field, tossing out mindless theories would subject themselves to ridicule by their peers, which none of you are. So it occurs to me that your infantile reactions are based not on thoughtful consideration, but what rubs against the dogma you'll defend to the death, much like the religious who you despise. These researchers are visionaries, who are pushing the envelope of what we know.

frajo
4 / 5 (13) Feb 26, 2011
Positrons were a purely mathematical construct until they were actually proved to exist.
Maths and physics don't exhibit a one-to-one relation. Not every mathematically conceivable object leads to a physically meaningful object. Unless it is experimentally/observationally demonstrated, a mathematical object has no existence in physics.

Otherwise we'd found tachyons, singularities, and time travel long ago.
Alex_Reynolds
2.5 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2011
This article does an amazingly poor job of explaining things, but there is nothing in relativity that prevents wormholes and the great cal tech physicist Kip Thorne actually showed the physics behind traversable wormholes.
Alex_Reynolds
1.7 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2011
Despite being completely inconsistent with a common-sense approach and the expected behavior of "normal" matter, negative mass is completely mathematically consistent and introduces no violation of conservation of momentum or energy. It is used in certain speculative theories, such as on the construction of wormholes. The closest known real representative of such exotic matter is the region of pseudo-negative pressure density produced by the Casimir effect.
Alex_Reynolds
1.8 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2011
Kip Stephen Thorne (born June 1, 1940) is an American theoretical physicist, known for his prolific contributions in gravitation physics and astrophysics and for having trained a generation of scientists. A longtime friend and colleague of Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan, he was the Feynman Professor of Theoretical Physics at Caltech until 2009[1] and one of the world’s leading experts on the astrophysical implications of Einstein’s general theory of relativity. He continues scientific research in addition to writing a film.
Alex_Reynolds
2 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2011
Thorne was one of the first people to conduct scientific research on whether the laws of physics permit space and time to be multiply connected (can there exist classical, traversable wormholes and "time machines"?). Kim, Thorne identified a universal physical mechanism (the explosive growth of vacuum polarization of quantum fields). He showed that traversable Lorentzian wormholes can exist in the structure of spacetime only if they are threaded by quantum fields in quantum states that violate the averaged null energy condition (i.e. have negative renormalized energy spread over a sufficiently large region). This has triggered research to explore the ability of quantum fields to possess such extended negative energy. Recent calculations by Thorne indicate that simple masses passing through traversable wormholes could never engender paradoxes. That is, that any situation in a time travel story turns out to permit many consistent solutions.
Alex_Reynolds
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2011
Thorne predicted the existence of red supergiant stars with neutron-star cores (Thorne-Żytkow objects). Most importantly, he laid the foundations for the theory of pulsations of relativistic stars and the gravitational radiation they emit. Thorne derived from general relativity the laws of motion and precession of black holes and other relativistic bodies, including the influence of the coupling of their multipole moments to the spacetime curvature of nearby objects. Thorne has also theoretically predicted the existence of universally antigravitating "exotic matter" — the element needed to accelerate the expansion rate of the universe, keep traversable wormhole "Star Gates" open and keep timelike geodesic free float "warp drives" working. He laid foundations for the theoretical interpretation of experimental tests of relativistic theories of gravity. Thorne is currently interested in the origin of classical space and time from the quantum foam of quantum gravity theory.
Alex_Reynolds
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2011
The type of fluid that theyre talking about in the article sounds like superfluids to me-- note that there's already an established connection between worm holes and superconductors *gauge gravity duality) via string theory, which also explains quantum soup and quantum entanglement-- and this can further be extended to include superfluids, which possess some special properties (like zero entropy-- transfer of mass without the transfer or expenditure of energy) which lends itself especially well to worm holes. A unified description of superconductivity and superfluidity is possible in terms of gauge symmetry breaking. It's also connected to BEC -- Bose Einstein Condensate, which is theorized to exist inside black holes and could be the seedling to new universe formation.
Alex_Reynolds
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2011
In physics, certain systems can achieve negative temperatures; that is, their thermodynamic temperature can be a negative quantity. Negative temperatures can be expressed as negative numbers on the kelvin scale. A system with a truly negative Kelvin temperature is hotter than any system with a positive temperature (in the sense that if a negative-temperature system and a positive-temperature system come in contact, heat will flow from the negative- to the positive-temperature system). Some systems have a maximum amount of energy that they can hold, and as they approach that maximum energy their entropy actually begins to decrease. Because temperature may be formally defined by the relationship between energy and entropy, such a system's temperature becomes negative, even though energy is being added -- implying that the system's heat capacity is negative.
Alex_Reynolds
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2011
Negative mass would possess some strange properties, such as accelerating in the direction opposite of applied force. For example, an object with negative inertial mass and positive electric charge would accelerate away from objects with negative charge, and towards objects with positive charge, the opposite of the normal rule that like charges repel and opposite charges attract. This behavior can produce bizarre results: for instance, a gas containing a mixture of positive and negative matter particles will have the positive matter portion increase in temperature without bound. However, the negative matter portion gains negative temperature at the same rate, again balancing out.
lomed
not rated yet Feb 26, 2011
Bose Einstein Condensate, which is theorized to exist inside black holes
Are you refering to the duality between the descriptions of the interactions of black holes and those occurring in cold matter described as being a proof of the validity of the math of string theory? If not, do you know of a paper I could read about this?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (16) Feb 26, 2011
Yes. Get up and move.
How is that related to different dimensions?

If you understood what a dimension was then the answer would be apparent to you.
TombSyphon2317
2.5 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2011
We don't have a wormhole in our sun. So can we please scrap the interstellar travel through a star idea. You want wormhole......make your own. I keep mine in the basement.
TabulaMentis
2.1 / 5 (10) Feb 26, 2011
If you understood what a dimension was then the answer would be apparent to you.
Dude, you have a serious problem. Try telling Edward Witten or Brian Greene that if you wish to portray yourself as being a comedian.
Alex_Reynolds
2.2 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2011
Hey you forgot Michio Kaku..... read up mkaku.org, some interesting articles right there.

And yes I was talking about the connections between the AdS/CFT Correspondence and Gauge-Gravity Duality aspects of string theory in being able to describe black holes, superconductors, quantum entanglement and the liquid phase of quark soup discovered at Brookhaven and recently rediscovered at the LHC.

BTW there are interesting articles on this site that came out in the last couple of months about superfluids at the center of neutron stars and a highly anomalous high energy gamma ray flare in the Crab Nebula. Look those up-- there are some interesting connections that can be drawn.
DickWilhelm
2 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2011
Physorg trolls everyone with these articles.
Alex_Reynolds
1 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2011
Well idk I subscribe to New Scientist and Scientific American and it's in there also.
resinoth
2 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2011
it's natural that theoretical science will be highly related to science fiction literature. Science is traditionally related via literature - we really ought to try to merge the fields more officially and open science fiction literature to peer review of the scientific concepts imbedded, so that science fiction can become a more legitimate and credited source of scientific theory.

regarding the wormholes, my question is: how do you describe the conduit or space traced out by the matter/information (it amounts to the same thing)? Or is it not 'literal'... This seems to need (at least) one extra physical dimension to make a connection, otherwise you're talking about stellar entanglement (a transpatial link, not a tube or hole of any kind - which is much more strange, if it exists, than the demonstrated quantum entanglement).
also, a crucial question: where inside a connected star does the event horizon of the wormhole exist? what exactly IS the link, the hole?
-Joseph Berlin
mg1
not rated yet Feb 27, 2011
"but they might have a few differences that could be detectable. "....

Perhaps double its mass for its size? Wouldnt a connected star show the mass of itself and the mass of its brother in the same space on the one side?

or

If there is a flow from core to core, assuming thermodynamics holds up, you would notice it by the fact the star would be getting bigger or smaller more than predicted norms.
SteveL
not rated yet Feb 27, 2011
"but they might have a few differences that could be detectable. "....

Perhaps double its mass for its size? Wouldnt a connected star show the mass of itself and the mass of its brother in the same space on the one side.


If this were the case then both would show their mass and the mass of the other, effectively doubling the classically expected mass. This would provide an alternate theory to DM to compensate for unobserved galactic masses. However, we should expect this added mass to show up via local effect.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2011
If you understood what a dimension was then the answer would be apparent to you.
Dude, you have a serious problem. Try telling Edward Witten or Brian Greene that if you wish to portray yourself as being a comedian.

Both of whom would agree with me.

htp://www.ted.com/talks/brian_greene_on_string_theory.html
soulman
4.2 / 5 (10) Feb 27, 2011
Science is traditionally related via literature - we really ought to try to merge the fields more officially and open science fiction literature to peer review of the scientific concepts imbedded, so that science fiction can become a more legitimate and credited source of scientific theory.

Oh god, no. How do you peer review FICTION?

Many theoretical physicists are already criticized for dabbling in what sometimes appears to be metaphysics - theories than can never even be tested, so they don't need more encouragement.

Mind you, I'm not against that kind of spit-balling, but things have been going down that road a lot lately, prompting Lee Smolin to write a book on the matter.

more...
soulman
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2011
Can we learn any new science from science fiction authors? I say no.
There are two kinds of fiction authors: amateur enthusiasts with no formal training in science; actual physicists that have written peer reviewed papers and know their stuff.

You can rule out the first category because those writers will simply make shit up, base it vaguely on something sciency and do a lot of arm waving to paper over the cracks.

You can also rule out the second group. Their writing will be a lot more believable, they'll talk about real principals of physics, but will ultimately still add a 'magic' ingredient to make the fiction work. And if they didn't need the 'magic', they wouldn't be writing it up in a novel, but a peer reviewed journal and maybe waiting for an email from Stockholm.

Having said that, it is true that scientists can be inspired by a work of fiction, to perhaps ignite a creative spark, but that's about it.
frajo
4.2 / 5 (10) Feb 27, 2011
This article does an amazingly poor job of explaining things, but there is nothing in relativity that prevents wormholes and the great cal tech physicist Kip Thorne actually showed the physics behind traversable wormholes.
Congratulations. This comment seems to be really yours.
But each sentence of the following seven comments with your nick can be traced to its proper source by simply googling.
Telekinetic
1 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2011
@soulman:

"The Invisible Man" written in 1897 by H.G. Wells-
"Scientists Closer to Making Invisibility Cloak a Reality"- Physorg
You've been hoist by your own petard.
TabulaMentis
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2011
Both of whom would agree with me.

htp://www.ted.com/talks/brian_greene_on_string_theory.html
You are definitely living up to your reputation of being a crank.

I checked out the site you referred to and heard the words: dimensions and frequencies. Maybe I should add two more words/terms: branes and parallel universes. If you were to sit back and think about it as I have done then you would come to the conclusion that the word dimension is the best title to use.
Ethelred
3.2 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2011
How do you peer review FICTION?

Become a member of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America and vote on the Nova Award.

ttp://whatever.scalzi.com/2011/02/22/the-2010-nebula-awards-nominees/

You can rule out the first category because those writers will simply make shit up,

Sometimes.
they'll talk about real principals of physics, but will ultimately still add a 'magic' ingredient to make the fiction work.

Sometimes. It is called science-FICTION. See Dr. David Brin's Uplift novels.
And if they didn't need the 'magic', they wouldn't be writing it up in a novel, but a peer reviewed journal and maybe waiting for an email from Stockholm.

Sometimes not. See Dr. Brin's Glory Season.

Ethelred
kaasinees
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2011
Lets transform our spaceship in a giant gluon and travel from star to star. yay.
frajo
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2011
Anyone out there know how to transfer information from one dimension to another without the use of wormhole tech?

Yes. Get up and move.
Let me translate: Get that 10 kg bag of rice in front of you and toss it to your left side.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2011
Both of whom would agree with me.
htp://www.ted.com/talks/brian_greene_on_string_theory.html
You are definitely living up to your reputation of being a crank.
oh? Last I checked, you were a Zephyr clone, not I. That and typically a crank needs several screennames in order to create false consensus, right A2G/TabulaMentis/Telekinetic?
Maybe I should add two more words/terms: branes and parallel universes.
Neither of which are dimensions.
If you were to sit back and think about it as I have done then you
Would be an idiot working with improper definitions.
the word dimension is the best title to use.
No, it isn't. When you are just sitting motionless on your couch, you are moving through 4 dimensions at a minimum, you are moving information through those 4 dimensions constantly. You need to learn what a dimension is.
Alex_Reynolds
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2011
I tried to post the links, but it came up as spam, anyway Im writing a series of articles on this called the Origin series.
As regards to the issue of linking through other dimensions, if you use Witten's M-theory you're dealing with 11 dimensions, however I like Hawking's idea of an additional second temporal dimension which existed before the big bang (which was likely a big bounce). This second temporal dimension would be what separates parallel time lines, which formed as a result of inflation in the very early history of the universe. The wormholes could have access to the extra spatial dimensions of M-theory and the extra temporal dimension ("Imaginary Time") that separates parallel timelines (think of time as two dimensional, "our" time exists on the X-axis and Imaginary Time on the Y-axis, and each time line would be a line plotted on that graph with co-ordinates in each axes. To journey in time, you'd have to use the second temporal dimension.
Tachyon8491
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2011
Me thinks it would be more fruitful to search for wormholes between brains, or rather than, as this article appears to display, the wormholes IN brains.

No doubt superluminal, non-local connectivity exists in the quantum domain on cosmic scale - however, the coming into being of macro-scale tunnel-like connectivity seems, from an ontogenic viewpoint, extremely unlikely... What technology should focus on at present is to get beyond Newtonian (reaction-based) propulsion systems - with liquid/solid fuels or even more advanced ion-propulsion / nuclear fuels, etc. space-exploration will get nowhere, not beyond a few local A.U. anyway. We are not designed to live in the cradle - although we have dared a few timid toe-touches outside, we should envisage a future of being a galactic, and not just a terrestrial species.

FV
Alex_Reynolds
1 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2011
I like your thoughtful evenhanded analysis.... what do you make of NASA's 100 year starship project? It seems as though they're willing to provide the brains but want a private corporation to provide the funds and gruntwork. Also, what do you think of the recent advances being made towards antimatter containment? I saw an article on that earlier in the week from a university website (I think it was Cal State.)
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2011
I am still waiting for that magical word or term that is supposedly more proper than the word dimension.

Plus, I am still waiting for an answer to an alternative system in which to transfer information from one dimension to another without the use of wormhole tech?
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2011
I like your thoughtful evenhanded analysis.... what do you make of NASA's 100 year starship project? It seems as though they're willing to provide the brains but want a private corporation to provide the funds and gruntwork. Also, what do you think of the recent advances being made towards antimatter containment? I saw an article on that earlier in the week from a university website (I think it was Cal State.)
If people would focus on what dark energy and dark matter is, then we could avoid all of the bizarre and corrupt ways NASA is trying to get us to spend our precious money.
kaasinees
2 / 5 (12) Feb 27, 2011
look at the psuedo-science parade being all serious... : )
Telekinetic
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2011
@Skeptic Heretic:
I thought you were done with that Captain Queeg paranoia. Let me make it clear- I am Telekinetic and share no one else's identity. You've forced me to give you a public wedgie.

Telekinetic - Nov 02, 2010
"What lab are you affiliated with, Skeptic?"

Skeptic_Heretic - Nov 02, 2010
"I'm a freelance metrology contractor. I deal with high end measurement apparatus for multiple labs, primarily medical. Why do you ask?"

Telekinetic- Pretentious, perhaps, but I'm not a pretentious liar.
TabulaMentis
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 27, 2011
look at the psuedo-science parade being all serious... : )
It is morons like you that is going to get all of us killed or enslaved for eternity.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 27, 2011
Pretentious, perhaps, but I'm not a pretentious liar.
First, you may not be a liar, but you are certainly ignorant of what a dimension is. Second, yes, I'm a metrologist. I work in a field that is primarily concerned with accuracy of measurement and description. Meaning I'm quite familiar with what a dimension is, and that neither a parallel universe, nor a brane is a dimension. Any other questions or statements, perhaps another quote from 6 to 8 months ago?
Telekinetic
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 27, 2011
You're not just a liar, Skeptic Heretic, you're a very bad liar. You're so transparent you're practically invisible.
frajo
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2011
I tried to post the links, but it came up as spam,
Why then don't you read and learn from other users how to handle links?
anyway Im writing a series of articles on this
Using the same methods?
frajo
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 28, 2011
Pretentious, perhaps, but I'm not a pretentious liar.
First, you may not be a liar, but you are certainly ignorant of what a dimension is.


[2] TabulaMentis ("table of reason") - not Telekinetic - is the guy who talks about dimensions without knowing the meaning of the word.

[1] Telekinetic is a liar:
By rating my comment on the relationship between maths and physics with "1" he suggested to have serious objections but never presented any.
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 28, 2011
"Such a model can be applied to describe stars as well as neutron stars with a nontrivial topology at their center.


Experiments have revealed a neutron star at the core of the Sun - a very ordinary star that serves as a model for other stars in the cosmos.

See: "Neutron Repulsion," The APEIRON Journal, in press (2011), 19 pages
arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1499v1

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
Alex_Reynolds
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 28, 2011
First of all the "methods" for writing a published article are quite different from posting comments. I thought it would be instructive to post a large quantity of information in a short time. If you're going to nitpick you obviously have WAY too much time on your hands and I don't.

Secondly, instead of acting like juveniles and fighting each other why don't all of you present your views coherently and respect those of others who disagree? Anything less shows narrowmindedness and anger frankly disables the rational capacities of the mind.
Alex_Reynolds
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 28, 2011
And I'm not taking sides here; I think you guys obviously think more deeply than the average human being (heh, that doesn't take much effort), but I think we can have a much more fruitful discussion if people would stop talking down to each other.
Alex_Reynolds
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2011
BTW Frajo you're wrong on two counts-- 3 of those 7 comments came from me and you're wrong on another count-- mathematical objects can be real-- just because they havent been found yet doesnt mean they dont exist. I believe it was Penrose who said that in an infinite universe everything that exists mathematically exists in reality somewhere at some time. And string theory has correctly predicted the properties of superconductors, quantum entanglement, quark soup and black holes. Don't put down mathematics, it lies at the base of reality. If you don't understand math you don't understand physics.

Maybe you should take more time out to learn science and math rather than throwing around useless comments or whining about meaningless comment ratings. Sounds like a budding inferiority complex-- you might want to seek professional help.
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 28, 2011
Penrose who said that in an infinite universe everything that exists mathematically exists in reality
We don't live in an infinite universe and even if we did that would still be untrue.

For instance we don't live a universe with four spatial dimensions thus Klein bottles do not exist.

Another example, at certain points in the exploration of mathematics people have found that we can go more than one way. Euclidean vs. Non-Euclidean geometry is what comes to my mind. We can only live in a universe with one or the other but not both. We live an Non-Euclidean universe though it often approximates a Euclidean universe.

And string theory has correctly predicted the properties of superconductors, quantum entanglement, quark soup and black holes
String theory predicts a lot of things. Some VERSIONS of string theory predicted those things. I am pretty sure that other versions don't predict them.

More
Ethelred
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 28, 2011
Don't put down mathematics, it lies at the base of reality.
I did not see Frajo put down mathematics. I do see you not understanding what he said.

What Frajo said:
Maths and physics don't exhibit a one-to-one relation. Not every mathematically conceivable object leads to a physically meaningful object.
Please see my remark on Klein bottles which shows the accuracy of Frajo's comment.

If you don't understand math you don't understand physics.
True and you don't understand that math can go down more paths then any Universe can. Only experimentation can tell us which path the Universe is on. If a String path then which one out of the vast number possible? If not a string path then which of many other mathematically valid paths is the Universe going on.

Sounds like a budding inferiority complex-- you might want to seek professional help.
For an apparent newbie you sure are sure of what others think. And you got it wrong.

More
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 28, 2011
May I suggest that you learn how to post links? Since you seem fixated on Kip I will use him for examples.

ttp://www.its.caltech.edu/~kip/ Note the missing 'h' at the beginning of the address. Some here like to leave out one 't'.

httpDELETEME://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kip_Thorne That one should obvious but it uses extra characters.

Small examples of what you want people to look at is a good idea. Wholesale copying just floods the thread without telling us what YOU think.

Ethelred
mauro48it
5 / 5 (1) Feb 28, 2011
A good test would be the verification of emission fluctuations synchronized between two or more stars, of course we would see the non-synchronous fluctuations due to different distances from the earth.
A search for related fluctuations would in any case a good search.
El_Nose
3.8 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2011
really people... all these educated physicts and they come to physorg to post comments about what is possible in the universe.

All the article stated was that we have known that wormholes are possible, and we have know this since Einstien and Bohr went back and forth years ago working out the math when they were trying to figure out if they were right about black holes, so in the 30's they figured out wormholes were a mathematical possibility and should exist somewhere. BTW they also figured that black holes should exist and we just found the first one within the last ten years and now we know where a whole lot of them are.

Science fiction got wormhoels from science... yes scifi probably came up with the nifty name we all know and love but the idea was not generated on Star Trek. --silly people

all they are saying is lets figure out the math if two stars were connected by a natural wormhole and check to see if we can find that signature.
Ricochet
not rated yet Feb 28, 2011
Personally, I'd rather they find what's there, if anything... To find it means they can study the structure, and from that may be able to figure out how to create them ourselves.
Burnerjack
1 / 5 (7) Feb 28, 2011
Hey, I'm all for expansion of knowledge but wormholes? Really?
Expand my knowledge: Who is paying for this "work". Why?
With so many problems in front of us that science may be able to assist with, isn't this type of thing squandering time and talent?
Or is this "Welfare for Theoretical Physicists"? Beyond incredible...
Ricochet
5 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2011
You're right... people like Albert Einstein should've just stuck with current issues, and not dared to dream...
jscroft
1 / 5 (2) Feb 28, 2011
Some people might want to consider reading some of the science fiction written by some of the harder science practitioners. For example, works by *DOCTOR* Robert Forward, who actually *WAS* a gravitational physicist?


Are you thinking of _Dragon's Egg_? One of my all-time favorites!
TabulaMentis
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 28, 2011
@Skeptic Heretic:

The user profile you created for yourself claims you to be a crank with many names you use to trick people. It is called trolling. So what, you are a troll who hates God.
Furthermore, those many different screen names require different email addresses so you can decorate yourself with 5s.
I am not a liar, nor is Telekenetic. We are not the same person.
TabulaMentis
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 28, 2011
@Skeptic Heretic:

I have added a few more words to the list:

Dimensions.
Frequencies.
Branes.
Parallel Universes.
Domains.
Planes.
Spaces.

It is a matter of semantics in my opinion, and which word or title I estimate will be most popular years from now. Maybe some sci-fi show, movie, game, book, magazine, etc. will help in brainwashing people as to which word is best to use for future generations.

Let me provide you with several examples in how the above words in the future will be used in regard to wormhole technology:

Multidimensional Scanner.
Multifrequency Scanner.
Multibrane Scanner.
Multiparallel Universe Scanner.
Multidomain Scanner.
Multiplane Scanner.
Multispace Scanner.

Which title out of the above list do you prefer? Maybe a word like Multidomainsional Scanner is the big winner for you?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.1 / 5 (13) Feb 28, 2011
It is a matter of semantics in my opinion, and which word or title I estimate will be most popular years from now. Maybe some sci-fi show, movie, game, book, magazine, etc. will help in brainwashing people as to which word is best to use for future generations.
Of course it would be a matter of semantics to someone who's wholly educated by sci-fi novels.

Dimensions are not branes. Branes are not universes. Universes are not dimensions.

The three are not interchangable as you believe. Read some textbooks, primarily math, and you will understand your errors. If you continue to read sci-fi novels, you will continue to inappropriately use these terms.
The user profile you created for yourself claims you to be a crank with many names you use to trick people. It is called trolling. So what, you are a troll who hates God.
Can't hate what doesn't exist, and the "Multinamed Crank" in my profile is Zephyr, the list is his known aliases and is used as a reference.
TabulaMentis
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 28, 2011
Very odd, all I hear is silence. It is not like you are going to loose lot of money in copyrights or someone is going to beat you to the bank if you reveal the sacred word. Weird. Maybe you people have no idea what I am talking about.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.8 / 5 (12) Feb 28, 2011
Very odd, all I hear is silence. It is not like you are going to loose lot of money in copyrights or someone is going to beat you to the bank if you reveal the sacred word. Weird. Maybe you people have no idea what I am talking about.

What are you talking about? So far all you've done is mentally masturbated with definitions that you have absolutely incorrect.
omatumr
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 28, 2011
The second sentence in the abstract admits possible similarities between the centers of ordinary stars and neutron stars:

"Such a model can be applied to describe stars as well as neutron stars with a nontrivial topology at their center."

That is also the conclusion of our new paper in print, "Neutron Repulsion: [The APEIRON Journal, in press (2011) 19 pages]

arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1499v1

The only difference between an ordinary star and a neutron star is the glowing sphere of waste products (H and He) in the photosphere that conceals the neutron star below.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
soulman
4.5 / 5 (16) Mar 01, 2011
That is also the conclusion of our new paper in print, "Neutron Repulsion: [The APEIRON Journal, in press (2011) 19 pages]

Just for kicks, I looked up this 'journal'. Here's what wikipedia had to say:

Apeiron uses a peer review system involving internationally established researchers, most of whom, however, cannot be regarded as mainstream. Apeiron has become a forum for "dissident" researchers and opinions not accepted by the conventional system.

Why doesn't that surprise me? Why didn't you publish your paper in, say, Physical Review Letters?
Alex_Reynolds
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2011
Really Ethelred, it seems you got what I was saying wrong. When I was referring to the "Infinite Universe" I wasn't just referring to our universe but the entire String Theory Landscape of all possible universes. Call it the Omniverse if you will. In this Omniverse, universes of different numbered dimensions are possible. And if you think this is "unprovable" you're wrong; evidence of other universes is attainable through analysis of the CMBR, which we shall have when the work of the Planck Satellite is complete. Physicists with far higher levels of education than you or I have confidence in that.
Alex_Reynolds
1 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2011
I will also refer you to Linde and Poplawski, the one who believes that creation of universes is possible within others (for example using a particle accelerator) and the latter who conjectured that our universe exists inside a black hole inside a larger universe. Common sense might make you think that the expansion of the universe would overtake the universe it exists within, but this isnt so. Since the inner universe expands into its own space-time and not the one of the larger universe, this does not occur.
Alex_Reynolds
1 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2011
It seems like a far-fetched possibility, but if they want to investigate it's their prerogative. One day in the far flung future we might actually be able to make use of this technology. A mere century ago, who would have believed in quantum entanglement, teleportation or tunneling? And now we've actually managed to teleport matter across ten miles of empty space!
Alex_Reynolds
1.3 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2011
Quantum Foam (micro black hole worm hole tunneling) is also worth exploring and I remember reading on Technological Review blogs that a workable model of these had been created, as well as a big bang/bounce simulation in 2+2 dimensions (2 of space and 2 of time) that holographically reduces to 2+1 dimensions-- this is worth noting because Quantum Gravity works in 2+1 dimensions, with the extra spatial dimension possibly "emerging" as a result of quantum probability. (New Scientist) And then there is Brian Greene, who in The Fabric of the Cosmos stated that he doesn't think space and time are fundamental but the result of processes that occur at the subplanck level.
Alex_Reynolds
3 / 5 (7) Mar 01, 2011
Oliver, there actually are quite a few differences between ordinary stars and neutron stars-- too many to fully convey in a short comment. But neutron stars are actually the closest thing we have to black holes without actually being one. As such, the density is so great that the electrons collapse into the nucleus and combine with the protons to produce neutrons. Thus gravity overcomes the EM force.
Alex_Reynolds
2 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2011
In addition to this, it has been theorized for a long time that superfluids exist within neutron stars and this has recently been confirmed with the analysis of the Cas A supernova neutron star/pulsar. This might actually be the "perfect fluid" mentioned in the above article. I find this interesting because since neutron stars are the closest thing we have to black holes, and much easier to observe and examine (and black holes-- specifically Kerr Black Holes which spin-- might house traversable worm holes and other universes-- I said MIGHT) then it's research worth exploring. Besides superfluids, the other item of interest was their mention of a high energy cosmic ray signature. Over the past couple of months data has been coming in of a highly anomalous very high energy gamma ray emission coming from the Crab Nebula neutron star region. Like I said, it's a possibility worth exploring.
Alex_Reynolds
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 01, 2011
I find the superfluid/superconductor/black hole/quantum entanglement/BEC/quark soup connection particularly intriguing because they all fall under the umbrella of gauge-gravity duality of the AdS/CFT Correspondence, one branch of string theory.
One other point, in regards to the idea of wormholes within stellar cores, one might look for synchronized nova bursts or emissions, since in the highly unlikely case this turns out to be possible, this would represent a macro version of quantum entanglement (note the above connection between these various phenomena provided by gauge-gravity duality.)
frajo
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 01, 2011
I find the superfluid/superconductor/black hole/quantum entanglement/BEC/quark soup connection particularly intriguing because they all fall under the umbrella of gauge-gravity duality of the AdS/CFT Correspondence, one branch of string theory.

I'm wondering why someone with a quite pronounced affinity for scientific buzz words fails to include "aether" in his connection-free enumeration.
frajo
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 01, 2011
Oliver, there actually are quite a few differences between ordinary stars and neutron stars-- too many to fully convey in a short comment. But neutron stars are actually the closest thing we have to black holes without actually being one. As such, the density is so great that the electrons collapse into the nucleus and combine with the protons to produce neutrons. Thus gravity overcomes the EM force.

I'm impressed - provided you are not older than 12 years.

Otherwise:
They all - omatumr, Ethelred, and most others participating in the "neutron repulsion" debate - already know what you wrote.

Seems your empathy deficit is quite pronounced:
You don't know the level of knowledge of others but assume you are the one who can teach others things you assume they don't know.
Alex_Reynolds
1 / 5 (9) Mar 01, 2011
Ha, I expected that kind of response from you because since you can't make any important contributions on your own, you seek to tear others down. I eat people like you for breakfast on a daily basis. A fortran programmer huh? What are you, 80 years old? Or is that merely the age of the technology you work with? Maybe you need to let go of old ideas and learn some new ones-- or is it true what they say about people like you? You really can't teach an old dog new tricks....
Alex_Reynolds
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 01, 2011
And I doubt you understand the meaning of any of those "buzz" words and if I had the time, I would educate you. However, I don't make it a habit to try and educate those who work with an archaic computer programming language. Upgrade your hardware and software first and then we'll work on your brainware :)
frajo
4 / 5 (8) Mar 01, 2011
Quantum Foam (micro black hole worm hole tunneling) is also worth exploring and I remember reading on Technological Review blogs that a workable model of these had been created, as well as a big bang/bounce simulation in 2+2 dimensions (2 of space and 2 of time) that holographically reduces to 2+1 dimensions-- this is worth noting because Quantum Gravity works in 2+1 dimensions, with the extra spatial dimension possibly "emerging" as a result of quantum probability. (New Scientist) And then there is Brian Greene, who in The Fabric of the Cosmos stated that he doesn't think space and time are fundamental but the result of processes that occur at the subplanck level.
You have read 10 cookbooks and now you want to have one single meal prepared by using 50 recipes out of the 10 books.
Mixing it all up without any consideration of the compatibility of the ingredients usually doesn't yield very nutritious results.
Alex_Reynolds
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 01, 2011
Wrong, Im actually writing my own book. I am from NYC and have met Brian Greene on more than one occasion. I don't think you understand what you are dealing with, but I would expect nothing less of a senile 80 year old fortran programmer.
Alex_Reynolds
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 01, 2011
I could say the same for all you hacks who rate people 1's without having the IQ to do your own research or write your own book (but see I dont care about that)-- seems like you guys hang out online rather than do any productive work on your own. I pity you. Perhaps when you're smart enough to be rated above the 99.9 percentile in IQ you'll have room to talk, but until that happens, you're like all the other rejects who don't have the intelligence to make important contributions. Can't say I'm surprised, but I do pity your pathetic lives :)
frajo
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 01, 2011
A fortran programmer huh?
Page 5, "Cosmological consequences of Modified Gravity", arXiv:1011.5174. Just one example.
What are you, 80 years old?
Ich falle halt nicht auf jede urban myth herein. Peirazei?
Alex_Reynolds
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 01, 2011
arXiv is known for publishing all sorts of BS-- did you ever read that nice little nugget about the SSC not being built because they received retrocausal information from the future about producing Higgs Bosons there leading to the destruction of the universe? That was good for a few laughs. It's only a prepress clearinghouse anyway.

You agree with MOND? I can't believe that-- although it fits some of the data, dark matter fits MUCH more.
Deesky
3.4 / 5 (17) Mar 01, 2011
Sorry frajo, I meant to give you a 5. I miss-clicked thinking I was rating that whackjob with delusions of grandeur, Alex_Reynolds.
Alex_Reynolds
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 01, 2011
Yes, and you've made a wonderful contribution kid. Go back to studying.
frajo
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 01, 2011
Wrong, Im actually writing my own book.
What are you referring to? Would you like to learn how to quote?
I am from NYC and have met Brian Greene on more than one occasion.
And this disproves what? Certainly it doesn't disprove that any anonymous user who really believes he can impress other anonymous users by telling them non-falsifiable trivialities indeed could engage in nullities of that kind.
I don't think you understand what you are dealing with,
You are assuming a lot about people you don't know. Ever pondered why? Is it a necessity? If yes, what are you afraid to lose?
but I would expect nothing less of a senile 80 year old fortran programmer.
What a lovely fervor - so willing, so un-self-reflecting, so useful.
Alex_Reynolds
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 01, 2011
There is no need to quote someone who has nothing useful to offer, therefore I'm certainly not going to oblige someone who isn't worth the effort. I'm not trying to impress since I doubt your lower IQ can actually handle any real knowledge; what they say about old dogs is true.....
ZephirAWT
Mar 01, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
frajo
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 01, 2011
arXiv is known for publishing all sorts of BS--
...
It's only a prepress clearinghouse anyway.
You agree with MOND? I can't believe that-- although it fits some of the data, dark matter fits MUCH more.

You should more often _not_ believe your own phantasmagoria. Because it doesn't look very mature when my quoting of an arXiv paper for the sake of showing the relevance of FORTRAN in modern number crunching applications
leads you to assume that I believe everything in any arXiv paper or everything in this arXiv paper,
leads you to publicly reveal that you don't know the difference between MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) and MOG (Modified Gravity),
leads you to reveal publicly your topical incontinence. MOND and arXiv were off-topic, FORTRAN was on-topic.
Alex_Reynolds
1 / 5 (8) Mar 01, 2011
No, it was actually your incompetence that led to that. I was talking about you working with an archaic computer language and you posted a link, so I assumed you meant that was your own work which was "published" there, meaning you did something outside of computer programming. I did not assume you believe everything on that site, but I was showing you that site is not 100% legit and being "published" there isn't officially being published. As far as the differences between MOND and MOG, that's off topic in any case, because either way, neither explains the data as well as dark matter theory.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (15) Mar 01, 2011
Wrong, Im actually writing my own book. I am from NYC and have met Brian Greene on more than one occasion. I don't think you understand what you are dealing with, but I would expect nothing less of a senile 80 year old fortran programmer.

Let's see, establishing false but unfalsifiable pedigree, check. Useless and irrelevant ad hominem production based on profile cues, check. Use of the term "quantum foam" without a full grasp of the mathematical implications, check. Mismash of incongruent theories, check.

You're an undergrad with a really high sense of self esteem. Probably an American, or perhaps Canadian, might be a University drop out, but if not completely withdrawn, not doing well.

So did you crack, or are cracking?
frajo
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 01, 2011
And I doubt you understand the meaning of any of those "buzz" words
You may doubt anything. So what?
and if I had the time, I would educate you.
In my native language? Or in the language of the porphyrogenitoi?
However, I don't make it a habit to try and educate those who work with an archaic computer programming language.
You are revealing your knowledge. Why?
Upgrade your hardware and software first
Why?
and then we'll work on your brainware :)
Are you experienced with working on brainware?
Alex_Reynolds
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 01, 2011
Ha wrong on all counts-- actually working on my Masters degree right now. Unfalsifiable eh? Actually string theory isn't unfalsiable if you look at the recent research and how it's proven successful in various areas of physics. Or would you actually pit yourself against a Rhodes Scholar (Brian Greene) and various other highly decorated physicists? Seems like you're the one who isn't as smart as he thinks. The funny thing is NONE of you have done any research in this area therefore not only do you not have a right to criticize, you don't even have the right to have an opinion. ATTACK FAIL. Maybe if you had something useful going on in your lives, you would be much happier. It doesn't affect me, because I'm pretty sure I will outdo all of you combined. I'm the one who's going to have a masters and then a doctorate in physics and publish a book while the rest of you are still clinging to old scientific concepts that were valid over a century ago. Sad, pitiful and pathetic.
Alex_Reynolds
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 01, 2011
It's funny to see you guys fighting like vultures. Why? Because while you fight over little tidbits and scraps, you're missing the big picture. But thanks for the great laugh. You can go back to your pathetic little lives while I make my mark in academia. Hey, look at it this way, talking to me will be the high point of your sorry little lives. You'll have nothing else, but at least you'll have that.
Mayor__Dooley
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 01, 2011
Such rabid egotism... Quite a hole you dig for yourself.
Alex_Reynolds
1.6 / 5 (13) Mar 01, 2011
Nah, I just enjoy putting the little dogs down :) Quite entertaining on my day off. I don't give a damn about anyone on here nor do I need to.
Deesky
3.5 / 5 (19) Mar 01, 2011
@Alex_Reynolds
Man, what a tool. I had him pegged from the start. Well, maybe not the total idiot he's revealed himself to be...
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2011
If you continue to read sci-fi novels, you will continue to inappropriately use these terms.
I read science fiction and I don't confuse dimensions and Universes. YOU should read some science fiction. If you want hardcore Hard Science fiction the standard is still Hal Clement's Mission of Gravity, if you can find a copy.

Even Fantasy can be of the Hard variety. The key is consistency of the rules. The standards there are Robert Heinlein's Magic Incorporated and L. Sprague De Camp and Fletcher Pratt's The Incomplete Enchanter (which is more readily available in several larger set of stories, The Compleat Enchanter and the Complete Compleat Enchanter, AND The Mathematics of Magic: The Enchanter Stories of L. Sprague de Camp and Fletcher Pratt )where the much of the magic is based on the concepts of contagion and similarity which came from an anthropologist who worked that out from the way much of tribal magic is supposed to work.

Ethelred
Alex_Reynolds
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 01, 2011
The hilarious thing is you guys were having a nice little childish fight before I ever started. I guess the truth hurts, doesn't it? You'll be doing this for years, while others make their mark in science. By your very vocabulary you reveal yourselves to be pretenders. Sorry guys, I don't give a damn about popularity and your gene pools will be gone long before mine is-- natural selection ;) I've been watching you guys "fight" with amusement for a long time, now I decided to give you a taste of your own medicine.
Alex_Reynolds
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 01, 2011
And the fact that some of you don't even know what dimensions are is just LOL-- how are you ever going to expect to understand string theory? Do you even know what a cartesian coordinate system is? This is basic primary elementary school stuff. I was interested in astronomy from the age of 8 and I knew more stuff then than most of you know now. Hilarious!
Ethelred
5 / 5 (8) Mar 01, 2011
This is cut down because it isn't worth the time it takes to post that many parts for someone that seems destined to act badly towards any disagreement.

Really Ethelred, it seems you got what I was saying wrong.
No. I understood what you SAID. I don't read minds. Are sure you are ready to write a book?

but the entire String Theory Landscape of all possible universes.
Since you did NOT say that, it was YOU that SAID it wrong.

but the entire String Theory Landscape of all possible universes.
The usual term is Multi-Verse or variants thereof. IF you had said that you would have been saying what you thought you were saying. Clarity is needed to convey an intended meaning.

n this Omniverse, universes of different numbered dimensions are possible.
Yes. BUT that wasn't what you said originally and neither Frajo nor I are obligated to read your mind.

And if you think this is "unprovable" you're wrong;
At the moment it IS unprovable. May always be.

More
Ricochet
5 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2011
I will also refer you to Linde and Poplawski, the one who believes that creation of universes is possible within others (for example using a particle accelerator) and the latter who conjectured that our universe exists inside a black hole inside a larger universe.

I often joke that our universe is nothing more than a big cloud of flatulance. That, ironically, explains the Big Bang, the rapid and accelerated expansion, and the Big Rip very clearly.
Ethelred
4.7 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2011
Physicists with far higher levels of education than you or I have confidence in that.
Some people fitting that description have confidence the LHC will find a Higgs Boson. I think it unlikely because I see no need for it to exist. Others are certain there will be a Quantum Gravity theory. That seems to go against the way gravity works in GR so again I think that is unlikely.

the one who believes that creation of universes is possible within others
Lots of people think it possible. Again that is unlikely to leave traces through a BB event.

atter who conjectured that our universe exists inside a black hole inside a larger universe.
So far that one is wrong. We live a Universe that appears open and thus is not a Black Hole.

Common sense might make you think that the expansion of the universe would overtake the universe it exists within, but this isn't so.
Depends entirely on the containing Universe. This stuff isn't new to me.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2011
Since the inner universe expands into its own space-time and not the one of the larger universe, this does not occur.
That probably doesn't work. The Universes should no longer be in container-contained relationship under those circumstances.

It seems like a far-fetched possibility, but if they want to investigate it's their prerogative.
Did you see ME say they shouldn't? Frankly I think they were just spitwadding. Nothing abnormal for physicists. Doing the same thing we are doing right here only without Oliver and Zephyr wasting bits with utter nonsense instead of POSSIBLE spindrifting. And without you rather nasty later posts. You respond very badly to disagreement of any kind.

A mere century ago, who would have believed in quantum entanglement, teleportation or tunneling?
QTE is overrated so far. Q Teleportation is just a transfer of the state of matter and not actual teleportation of matter. Q tunneling is very real and a consequence of Uncertainty.

More
Ethelred
4.8 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2011
And now we've actually managed to teleport matter across ten miles of empty space!
Not really. The STATE of matter was imposed on other matter that was already there. To use Star Trek as an example, as others have already done. Teleportation of matter is what they do in that series. Matter is REMOVED from one place and transferred to another where there was little or NOTHING before. What was done in that experiment was to scan Dr. McCoy and IMPOSE a copy of Dr. McCoy on matter already in the target zone while turning the original into a puddle of quantum goo. Rather a bit more disturbing that the TV series has it where only Dr. McCoy is bothered by it.

as well as a big bang/bounce simulation in 2+2 dimensions
Some universe may have those properties but life seems a lot less likely in such a place. Maybe since it still has a 4D space-time total.

More
ennui27
5 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2011
"You're an undergrad with a really high sense of self esteem. Probably an American, or perhaps Canadian, might be a University drop out, but if not completely withdrawn, not doing well. "

Hey, I resemble that remark. (from not an American)
Ethelred
4.8 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2011
holographically reduces to 2+1 dimensions-
Which remove causality from the system. Holographic universes have disconnected things effected each other as they were next to each other when they are not. Thus it has a causality violation and I see that as a logical failure.

that he doesn't think space and time are fundamental but the result of processes that occur at the subplanck level.
Sounds like hidden variables all over again. I don't think there is a subplanck level. Planck level yes. I really think there is minimum granularity to the Universe and the Planck level seems to be the size of it.

one branch of string theory.
Let me know when the math problems in String Hypothesis are fixed. Then it will be a theory. Thirty years now and it still isn't done.

And that is extent of your rational posts and even there you blamed me for your poor quality of writing. After that you went toxic.

Ethelred
Alex_Reynolds
1 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2011
Yay, you're the only one who displays educated responses instead of nonthinking putdowns so I will respond in kind. I agree with you about the Higgs Boson not being needed, I think QCD is the way to go here. I agree that the teleportation method they used was destructive, but I was just saying that these ideas were unheard of a century ago. What's your opinion on quantum behavior in biological organisms (such as what birds use to navigate, plant photosynthesis, etc.) Also what's your opinion on Aharanov's retrocausation? I'm not saying I advocate any of these, but I'm wondering what you think about this, particularly post selection.

BTW I wasn't trying to respond badly to disagreement (notice the first few posts of mine werent nasty), I just acted that way when people started putting out snide remarks without bothering to explain their position.
Alex_Reynolds
1 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2011
And not that this matters to you, but I'm giving you all 5s on your posts because you actually took the trouble to explain your positions in a very detailed and thoughtful manner.
Alex_Reynolds
2 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2011
Sorry, about not mentioning multiverse earlier, but I had a specific reason for that. I believe that word gets overused and people get confused by what is meant-- more people think that refers to MWI than String Theory Landscape. We could go by Tegmark's definitions as he charted the structure out pretty well.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 01, 2011
Ha wrong on all counts-- actually working on my Masters degree right now. Unfalsifiable eh? Actually string theory isn't unfalsiable if you look at the recent research and how it's proven successful in various areas of physics. Or would you actually pit yourself against a Rhodes Scholar (Brian Greene) and various other highly decorated physicists?
Someone attempting to attain a Master's degree would most likely have reading skills capable enough of determining context and understanding what is being said to them.

For example:
Wrong, Im actually writing my own book. I am from NYC and have met Brian Greene on more than one occasion.
Let's see, establishing false but unfalsifiable pedigree, check

But you didn't. You ran off into stating that String Theory is falsifiable, which wasn't my claim in the first place.
The funny thing is NONE of you have done any research in this area
Actually, you've very much incorrect in this statment, troll.
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 01, 2011
Oliver, there actually are quite a few differences between ordinary stars and neutron stars-- too many to fully convey in a short comment.


Thanks, Alex.

The difference between ordinary stars - like the Sun - and neutron stars is explained in the abstract of the paper: "Neutron Repulsion," The APEIRON Journal, in press (2011), 19 pages

arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1499v1

1. The neutron star at the core of ordinary stars - like the Sun - is obscured from view by waste products that accumulate in the photosphere.

2. Neutron repulsion is like the hot filament in an incandescent light bulb.

3. Excited neutrons are emitted from the solar core and decay into hydrogen that glows in the photosphere like a frosted light bulb.
Telekinetic
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 01, 2011
@Alex,
Imagine a gaggle of demented, limping altar boys chained at the neck connected to a towering shrine that reads: All That Is Known That Will Ever Be Known, and these slobbering altar boys snarl at passersby, goading each other to behave more grotesquely than the previous, and finally buggering each other to sleep.
I, for one, look forward to reading your book.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 01, 2011
@Alex,
Imagine a gaggle of demented, limping altar boys chained at the neck connected to a towering shrine that reads: All That Is Known That Will Ever Be Known, and these slobbering altar boys snarl at passersby, goading each other to behave more grotesquely than the previous, and finally buggering each other to sleep.

Sounds like aether theorists.
TabulaMentis
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 01, 2011
Call it the Omniverse if you will. In this Omniverse, universes of different numbered dimensions are possible.
Thank you Alex Reynolds. Omniverse Scanner does sound better. Multiverse is another good one, but the word multiverse can take on a religious meaning in some circles and be confusing. Ethelred did have the right idea with the statement
The usual term is Multi-Verse or variants thereof.
Now you people can spank me with a bunch of 1 stars.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 01, 2011
By the way, Mr. Reynolds, I read your 'rough drafts'. I'd strongly suggest you rethink attempting to publish this.

Especially if you're going to attempt to create a framework in which you treat hypothetical concepts as though you know of their attributes in such a manner.

For example, your second piece, 'Philosophy of Love' (odd chapter to have in a physics book) in which you attempt to describe the 'human soul' as a multidimensional extrapolation of human conciousness.

By the way, the Jersey Shore style pics and the constant obsession with calling yourself "Superman Alex the Great" have done nothing to dissuade me from thinking you're a cracked up undergrad drop out.
Alex_Reynolds
3.2 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2011
Well,Im not a drop out, but let me clear up the rest of that. The piece youre referring to is not part of the collection, (it's actually a philosophical paper based on Plato), I just put that in there as part of my blogs (it has nothing to do with what Im writing). The ones which are part of the collection are 1,2,4,5,6,7,8 (I think the third one is the one youre referring to, not the second one.) In any case, it's still a rough draft that I'm working on, but thank you for your suggestions.

My third point is that site isnt actually mine and those pictures arent mine (see, Im being honest) as a student I don't really have time for that, so a friend of mine lets me publicize my work on his sites. When I have time I will make my own site from scratch. Thanks for the suggestions. I'm giving you a 5 because you actually bothered to read it.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2011
My third point is that site isnt actually mine and those pictures arent mine (see, Im being honest) as a student I don't really have time for that, so a friend of mine lets me publicize my work on his sites.
Then are you using his screen name or is he using yours?
When I have time I will make my own site from scratch. Thanks for the suggestions. I'm giving you a 5 because you actually bothered to read it.
I read everything. Next time be careful of who you attempt to troll.
Alex_Reynolds
2.3 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2011
Im not trying to troll you. It goes both ways. I bet we each have far more knowledge than the other one gives us credit for. As for myself, I've been interested in astronomy since when I was 8, I knew all the chemical elements by heart, pi to 50 digits, all the constellations and all the presidents when I was in 7th grade-- not that memorization is any sign of intelligence lol. Anyway, that's to illustrate that I love all the sciences-- not just physics, but chemistry, biology, astronomy, all of them. That was part of the problem actually. I didnt know what to major in because I wanted them all.
Alex_Reynolds
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2011
I live in a very light polluted suburb of NYC but I still use my 8" SCT (its a celestron 8 SE) got it for portability along with a nice CCD imager (1.4 MP) to do some imaging work with light pollution filters. Not that you care, but just showing that Im not some fly by night operation.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2011
I had a similar issue at the time of my schooling, hence why I decided to focus on the science of measurement and definition. Which field have you chosen?
Alex_Reynolds
3 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2011
Astrophysics. An extreme amount of math is involved lol. I still keep up to date in biology, which was my second favorite science. BTW, Im an undergrad, but I hope to get my degree from NYU and go for a masters.
Alex_Reynolds
2.3 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2011
Im using his screen name, btw, just to be clear.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2011
Astrophysics. An extreme amount of math is involved lol. I still keep up to date in biology, which was my second favorite science. BTW, Im an undergrad, but I hope to get my degree from NYU and go for a masters.

I'm assuming 3rd year, with the large amount of bravado, potentially fourth.

So the logical question would then be, why did you register his screen name on 2/26/11, post only to this thread, and why is your typographical cadence exact to his twitter feed?

You can simply admit to it now. None of us will hold it against you, provided you straighten up of course.

We all like to wax hypothetical, and philosophy is big here, the deception is unnecessary. It was funny to watch the crank squad carry your water for about 20 posts though. Bravo, you did successfully troll them.
Alex_Reynolds
3 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2011
Well, I only registered to post to this one thread, but I've been following this site for a couple of years. I just never really thought about talking to anyone on here because I belong to physics groups on yahoo and such and those groups are so active that I get swamped with email. This is a really interesting community and I think, higher level, than the one on yahoo. There are a couple there who know their stuff, but its hard to learn there when you have 20 people talking about 20 different things at the same time. I just started my 2nd year. That bravado was an act lol-- if you see I wasn't being nasty in the beginning-- I just have a short fuse online. I know it's a weakness of mine. Those are all his sites connected together, so when he let me use Scribd, I have access to all the connected sites (facebook, twitter, blogs, etc.) If it was mine I would have told you, rest assured.
Alex_Reynolds
3 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2011
To be honest, the reason I started writing was because I had all these ideas and then I saw other people seemingly "steal" my ideas and get published, so I decided to write them up myself. I didnt have nearly the mathematical background they did, mind you, most of mine-- nearly as I can describe it, are intuition. I'm sure you guys just like to have fun with each other when you're fighting, but I thought it was serious for awhile. I found the whole dimensional debate amusing. As for myself, I'm intrigued by the possibility of multiple dimensions of time, but rarely ever see that discussed outside of a couple of papers I've read (F-theory was one of them). I like the constant pool of information one can find here, on the internet it's hard to get reliable information. I've really been frustrated by that.
Alex_Reynolds
3 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2011
And as for the different theories Ive espoused and written about-- its not that I actually put stock in any one of them over any other-- for all we know wormholes might not exist, this universe might be the only universe there is and everything else might be mathematical abstraction. Heck, aliens might not even exist-- SETI has been looking for a long time and has found nothing. I find the other possibilities of a "deeper reality" very intriguing, but I also try to stay grounded in what we do know. So if I went off with some crazy ideas earlier, it was just wishful thinking :P
Skeptic_Heretic
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 01, 2011
Welcome to Physorg. We're usually better than yahoo, but just as choked with creationist and freemarket garbage.
Alex_Reynolds
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2011
Thanks! And sorry about earlier. I mean it sincerely.
frajo
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2011
And sorry about earlier. I mean it sincerely.
Just another non-falsifiable statement.
I prefer the "je ne regrette rien" stance of consistency.
Alex_Reynolds
2.7 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2011
You've got a point there. Time for a lie detector test, although that isn't admissable in court around here. :)
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Mar 02, 2011
Lie detectors are instruments of superstition.
jscroft
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 02, 2011
Remember the big red buttons Dr. Evil could push to send a henchman and his chair tumbling into a fiery inferno? This thread would have been MUCH more satisfying had the flames been real.

@Skeptic_Heretic: You have the patience of a monk.

@frajo: You don't. :)

@Alex_Reynolds (or whatever the hell your name is): Meh. If you spent as much time studying as you do spinning bullshit, you might by now have graduated from precocious youngster to interesting young adult. Too bad, because there's nothing more friggin' annoying than a precocious young adult.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2011
@Skeptic_Heretic: You have the patience of a monk.

@frajo: You don't. :)
Frajo, my friend, it appears you and I have traded places.

jscroft, my patience is terribly short in most instances, however, I don't think Mr. pseudoreynolds is a lost cause unlike many others who post on these pages.
resinoth
3 / 5 (1) Mar 02, 2011
you know, at some troll/realcomment ratio, the comments become NOT WORTH READING.
it is important to know your rhetorical fallacies - there is an awful lot of ad hominem on this site.
we should be talking about what might really be demonstrably true, or about what is really not true - we're not talking about belief, so rhetoric (imo) should not be involved in any way.
JNB
DamienS
5 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2011
there is an awful lot of ad hominem on this site

Not that much really. Sure, it does happen, but it's often due to extreme frustration generated by the anti-intellectual set (or the puerile), so it's not surprising. But even with such provocation, the site is usually quite well behaved.
we should be talking about what might really be demonstrably true, or about what is really not true

That's a great sentiment, but will never be reality. Even in civil, intellectual discourse, the nature of 'truth' is illusive.
we're not talking about belief

Except that is ALL the afore mentioned anti-intellectuals talk about, and as a public service, they need to be replied to with reason, and only as a last resort, ad-homs! :)
jscroft
3 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2011
@S_H: Yah, you seemed to bring something out in him that was very nearly pleasant. Maybe you old guys are good for something after all. :)
Shelgeyr
3 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2011
Yawn... Sigh...,

Alex Reynolds wrote:
Or would you actually pit yourself against a Rhodes Scholar (Brian Greene) and various other highly decorated physicists?


Alex, Alex! You've just committed the classic logical fallacy known as "an appeal to authority", which is a fallacy of defective induction.

Boo! Boo! Bad form, old man!

I hope your Rhodes Scholar (Brian Greene) isn't embarrased by your defense of his work!

Should we ask him? He can be reached at either greene(at)math.columbia.edu or greene(at)phys.columbia.edu ...

Wait... Am I late to this game? Awwww....
Shelgeyr
1.7 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2011
Abzu said:

There is as much evidence of wormholes as there is of deities.


I would argue that there is more evidence of deities. Not something you could experiment with or hold up as scientific... but "evidence"? Yeah, I think so... largely because "evidence" is in the eye of the beholder...

I agree with your point however.

Surprised to find myself often in the "naysayer" camp, I've noticed there is a long list of purely theoretical "things" that astronomical scientists accept as actually existing, absent any proof (and in the face of arguably falsifying evidence). Is it so much to ask for some "real tangible evidence"? I'm not even talking about incontrovertible proof here, just something other than bold conjecture with a bunch of supposedly relevant and/or applicable math obviously duct-taped on?
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2011
@S_H: Yah, you seemed to bring something out in him that was very nearly pleasant.
I agree that his handling of this case was very impressive and highly effective.
OTOH, we cannot be sure how long the effect will persist. People who quickly give in under pressure tend to revert to their ground state when the pressure is abating.
Labia
1 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2011

I'm all for having an open mind, but not so open that my brains spill out.

Hmm soulman do you copy Richard Dawkins much?
soulman
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2011
I'm all for having an open mind, but not so open that my brains spill out.


Hmm soulman do you copy Richard Dawkins much?

No, not much. Why?
jscroft
1 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2011
People who quickly give in under pressure tend to revert to their ground state when the pressure is abating.


"Ground state"? You mean like an alternate Universe?
Labia
not rated yet Mar 03, 2011
Dawkins says something similar to that in his Enemies of Reason documentary. "We should be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brain falls out."
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2011
Dawkins says something similar
The documentary is from 2007. I don't remember when I first used it myself. Long time ago I think. So I looked it up.

ttp://www.faktoider.nu/openmind_eng.html

[Practical gentlemen] have a number of bitterly sarcastical comments on persons whose minds are so open that their brains fall out.

Max Radin (1937)

Here are some even older variants, but without the brain (so to speak): "Their minds are so open that nothing stays in" (1932), "a mind so 'open' that almost anything can blow through it without leaving a trace" (1928) or "a mind so open that it had nothing in it at all" (1908).


Ethelred
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2011
People who quickly give in under pressure tend to revert to their ground state when the pressure is abating.
"Ground state"? You mean like an alternate Universe?


Not really. For aesthetical reasons I prefer the transactional interpretation of QM and dislike Many World world views. It's Gothic, not Baroque. :)

A person's ground state is the condition of an unperturbed individual. Some are peaceful, some not.
jscroft
1 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2011
A person's ground state is the condition of an unperturbed individual. Some are peaceful, some not.


Ok, KIDDING!!! Anyway, I knew it was some kind of dimension thingie.
Alex_Reynolds
1 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2011
heh something we actually agree on frajo, I actually am much more in favor of the Transactional interpretation, although David Deutsch has been trying to change my mind.
Alex_Reynolds
1 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2011
I worded that the Greene statement wrong. I knew it would look like a fallacy before I clicked "submit" lol. I didn't mean that you should agree with him (or even that I do), I just meant that, since there's some mathematical possibilities here (even if it's unlikely to tield any real world results) and if they want to invesitigate, than it's up to them. It's a lot better than investigating unicorns or deities-- which have no basis in any mathematical model. Yeah, it's highly unlikely they'll find anything but if they want to look then let them.
Alex_Reynolds
1 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2011
And there's really no scientific or mathematical reason whatsoever to believe in a magical "god" or whatever. This is something I knew since I was 8 years old. I never believed in one nor did I even want to believe in one. If there is any "evidence" of a deity, I would argue that is evidence for a highly intelligent alien civilization. Why, because at least one can make a logical inference that any hypothetical alien civilization that was thousands of years ahead of us in technology should appear to be "godlike" compared to us hapless humans.
Alex_Reynolds
1 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2011
I mean, just look at what we've been able to do in the last 100 years and imagine the possibilities of a head start of a few millenia! Which is nothing on the biological or geological time scale, but almost an eternity on a societal or technological one. A Kardashev level 3+ civilization compared to us would be like comparing us to ants and whatever they might do might seem "magical" to us because it's so far beyond our science and technology. They might even exist as "quantum beings." I'm not saying I believe such a thing is possible (but I do believe in the probability that inorganic life exists somewhere in our galaxy and others and NASA seems to agree since they've built a toolkit to examine this possibility) BUT what I am saying is I would put more stock in that rather than some dumb humancentric "god" that made us in its image. What makes us so special? We're just bags of water and biochemical interactions....
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2011
@S_H: Yah, you seemed to bring something out in him that was very nearly pleasant.
I agree that his handling of this case was very impressive and highly effective.
Well I can't take any form of credit for this tactic. After all, to paraphrase a poorly marketted anti-drug ad, "I learned it from watching you!"
OTOH, we cannot be sure how long the effect will persist. People who quickly give in under pressure tend to revert to their ground state when the pressure is abating.
Yes, and I can only hope we've found an exception to that rule. His writing is most certainly somewhat learned, however, his subject matter is off the mark.