Pair of researchers suggest black holes at center of galaxies might instead be wormholes

May 30, 2014 by Bob Yirka report
Credit: X-ray: NASA/UMass/D.Wang et al., IR: NASA/STScI

(Phys.org) —Zilong Li and Cosimo Bambi with Fudan University in Shanghai have come up with a very novel idea—those black holes that are believed to exist at the center of a lot of galaxies, may instead by wormholes. They've written a paper, uploaded to the preprint server arXiv, describing their idea and how what they've imagined could be proved right (or wrong) by a new instrument soon to be added to an observatory in Chile.

Back in 1974, space scientists discovered Sagittarius A* (SgrA ∗)—a bright source of radio waves emanating from what appeared to be near the center of the Milky Way galaxy. Subsequent study of the object led scientists to believe that it was (and is) a black hole—the behavior of stars nearby, for example, suggested it was something massive and extremely dense.

What we're able to see when we look at SgrA∗ are plasma gasses near the event horizon, not the object itself as light cannot escape. That should be true for too, of course, which have also been theorized to exist by the Theory of General Relativity. Einstein even noted the possibility of their existence. Unfortunately, no one has ever come close to proving the existence of wormholes, which are believed to be channels between different parts of the universe, or even between two universes in multi-universe theories. In their paper, Li and Bambi suggest that there is compelling evidence suggesting that many of the objects we believe to be black holes at the center of galaxies, may in fact be wormholes.

Plasma gases orbiting a black hole versus a wormhole should look different to us, the pair suggest, because wormholes should be a lot smaller. Plus, the presence of wormholes would help explain how it is that even new galaxies have what are now believed to be black holes—such large black holes would presumably take a long time to become so large, so how can they exist in a new galaxy? They can't Li and Bambi conclude, instead those objects are actually wormholes, which theory suggests could spring up in an instant, and would have, following the Big Bang.

Making the two's speculation more exciting is the soon to be installed piece of equipment known as GRAVITY—it will be added to the European Space Observatory in Chili, giving researchers there an unprecedented view of SgrA∗ (and other ). In just a couple of years, it should be possible to prove whether Li and Bambi's idea is correct or not—the photon capture sphere of the wormhole should be much smaller than that for a black hole, they note—if that's the case with SgrA ∗, space scientists will have to do some serious rethinking of wormholes and how they might fit in to current theories describing the universe.

Explore further: Physicist suggests some types of wormholes may stay open long enough to send a photon through

More information: Distinguishing black holes and wormholes with orbiting hot spots, arXiv:1405.1883 [gr-qc] arxiv.org/abs/1405.1883

Abstract
The supermassive black hole candidates at the center of every normal galaxy might be wormholes created in the early Universe and connecting either two different regions of our Universe or two different universes in a Multiverse model. Indeed, the origin of these supermassive objects is not well understood, topological non-trivial structures like wormholes are allowed both in general relativity and in alternative theories of gravity, and current observations cannot rule out such a possibility. In a few years, the VLTI instrument GRAVITY will have the capability to image blobs of plasma orbiting near the innermost stable circular orbit of SgrA∗, the supermassive black hole candidate in the Milky Way. The secondary image of a hot spot orbiting around a wormhole is substantially different from the one of a hot spot around a black hole, because the photon capture sphere of the wormhole is much smaller, and its detection could thus test if the center of our Galaxy harbors a wormhole rather then a black hole.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Can light orbit a black hole?

Mar 25, 2014

Since black holes are the most powerful gravitational spots in the entire Universe, can they distort light so much that it actually goes into orbit? And what would it look like if you could survive and follow ...

Recommended for you

Satellite galaxies put astronomers in a spin

18 hours ago

An international team of researchers, led by astronomers at the Observatoire Astronomique de Strasbourg (CNRS/Université de Strasbourg), has studied 380 galaxies and shown that their small satellite galaxies almost always ...

Video: The diversity of habitable zones and the planets

18 hours ago

The field of exoplanets has rapidly expanded from the exclusivity of exoplanet detection to include exoplanet characterization. A key step towards this characterization is the determination of which planets occupy the Habitable ...

Ultra-deep astrophoto of the Antenna Galaxies

18 hours ago

You might think the image above of the famous Antenna Galaxies was taken by a large ground-based or even a space telescope. Think again. Amateur astronomer Rolf Wahl Olsen from New Zealand compiled a total ...

The most precise measurement of an alien world's size

20 hours ago

Thanks to NASA's Kepler and Spitzer Space Telescopes, scientists have made the most precise measurement ever of the radius of a planet outside our solar system. The size of the exoplanet, dubbed Kepler-93b, ...

User comments : 61

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (15) May 30, 2014
It's either a gas, or plasma. May as well claim water is a solid liquids...
d_robison
4.8 / 5 (6) May 30, 2014
It's either a gas, or plasma. May as well claim water is a solid liquids...


What are you even talking about? What is either a gas or a plasma?

Anyways, this is an interesting article. It's refreshing to see the non-typical ideas popping out in research regardless of whether they turn out to be true or not. I guess we'll find out soon enough whether their theory holds water.
mytwocts
not rated yet May 30, 2014
He is referring to the term "Plasma gases" used in the article.
extinct
4.9 / 5 (7) May 30, 2014
You should hire me as a writer or editor (I'm being sarcastic; it wouldn't pay enough). You have numerous ridiculous typos and grammatical errors in this article. For one thing, what's Chili? Definitely not a country. That would be Chile. There are numerous other violations unbecoming of a professional website.
"rather then" ? Wow, your writer Bob Yirka must've been held back in 3rd grade. That's "rather than".
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) May 30, 2014
Trying to read through the paper. Currently a bit stuck on the fact that most of the references are other arxiv papers (and not peer reviewed papers). That doesn't mean that paper is bad or wrong. It's just something that strikes me as unusual.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) May 30, 2014
It's either a gas, or plasma. May as well claim water is a solid liquids...
Correction: that would be ionized gas.

I suppose I could do a little research and find out if they figure mass is disappearing down this hole, and where they figure it is disappearing to, but this is tedious on an iPhone.
eyerjesse
2.7 / 5 (7) May 30, 2014
You should hire me as a writer or editor (I'm being sarcastic; it wouldn't pay enough). You have numerous ridiculous typos and grammatical errors in this article. For one thing, what's Chili? Definitely not a country. That would be Chile. There are numerous other violations unbecoming of a professional website.
"rather then" ? Wow, your writer Bob Yirka must've been held back in 3rd grade. That's "rather than".

For a website that pumps out more articles a day than you can read, you're really concerned about a few typographical erorrs? You should be commenting on the subject of the article, not criticizing the author.

This idea is very neat, it provides and answer to a question we can't currently explain while also confirming that answer should be asked in the first place. Should the results be in favor of Bambi and Li's predictions it will bring us one step closer to determining the actual shape of the universe as well. At least I would like to think so.
GuruShabu
3.7 / 5 (3) May 30, 2014
This article matches its poor English with poor gibberish science.
I don't know who is selecting those articles to publish here but the level is going down remarkably.
Gigel
1 / 5 (1) May 31, 2014
Well, if that be the case, I expect major warfare to be developing at the Galaxy core. Not a good place to go to.
Egleton
not rated yet May 31, 2014
If some galaxies are too young to have a super massive black hole, perhaps the galaxy material spewed out of the wormhole, only to have the wormhole change polarity and become a black hole again.
These thing could be yo-yoing matter between two universes as they change end for end.
Pejico
May 31, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) May 31, 2014
@Pejico didn't Allais consider some anisotropic details were due to an aether? I thought that the experiements of 2010 found no evidence of the Allais effect?? Can't quite get the point of the Solar eclipse example...almost read as though there are WH's in our locale.
Pejico
May 31, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
4 / 5 (6) May 31, 2014
Personally, I'm pretty skeptical of this, and most wormhole ideas other than the fact they exist in math.

What does this make quasars? With sensitive enough measurements over decades couldn't we measure how much energy is being exchanged in quasars over time by observing distortions in gravitational lenses? As the matter is leaving (or entering) the system, it should weaken or strengthen the lens accordingly.

But frankly I don't think the argument for their existence is strong enough to replace it with a theory as novel as wormholes.
"the presence of wormholes would help explain how it is that even new galaxies have what are now believed to be black holes—such large black holes would presumably take a long time to become so large, so how can they exist in a new galaxy?"
This is all an assumption that SMBHs in fact take a long time to form, which has not yet been proven. Plus we know or models of galaxy formation are flawed.

For the sake of coolness, I hope I am wrong though.
Pejico
May 31, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Pejico
May 31, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
not rated yet May 31, 2014
"The speed of black hole formation can be calculated quite exactly from the assumption of the initial matter density: we know, that the first black holes were formed quite early in our universe, which is inconsistent with Big Bang model, in which the matter has been formed in finely divided state."

Yes but the calculations aren't 100% accurate, and we don't fully understand the accretion process of black holes. I recently read an article on this site that more matter gets shot out in the jets than previously believed and so on.
We may have computational equations to deduce how long it took them to form, but those equations still leave a lot to be desired. The new addition to the telescope in chile will help with this data so we'll let it do the talking.
Pejico
Jun 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
yep
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2014
Big bang and gravitational waves have never been valid and there is definitely not a black hole in my dentists x-ray machine, but you can keep on believing in Santa Claus if it makes you happy.
Tuxford
1 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2014
Do the Chinese serve worms in restaurants? Just wondering. Do they believe in Santa Claus? Just wondering. Do they like patchwork quilts? Just wondering. Perhaps they like things that go bang? Like fireworks! That must be it.
katesisco
1 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2014
Well, I am holding out for something besides this miltiverse theory.
Astronomers have indeed discovered that our bh exist in place and time. This is an adhoc piece to explain that oddity. It seems to me it is another prop for the big bang. First the expansion, they the Higgs, and the gravity wave and now wormholes, all supposed to exist to substantiate our Einsteinian concept.
Rufusaurus
1 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2014
There's so much we don't know about black holes. A recent theory suggested they may not be holes at all, but for arguments sake, let's say they are. How deep a hole are we talking about, and what's on the other side? Does a black hole really rip the fabric of spacetime?
no fate
2.7 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2014
Big bang and gravitational waves have never been valid and there is definitely not a black hole in my dentists x-ray machine, but you can keep on believing in Santa Claus if it makes you happy.


The last few months of articles on this site we have seen mathematics produce a DM cocoon around a gas cloud ( not filaments and knots ), a disk of DM that exerts gravitational effects without experiencing any, primordial gravity waves, wormhole teleportation of photons...and now wormholes replacing blackholes. Solving the young galaxy/BH paradox...with wormholes.

At least there was no mention of a compressor, I may have had to call shenanigans. Kate, Einstein figured out how much of his early stuff was wrong later in his life but most of the scientific community wasn't interested. He died working on a unified field theory that he would have nailed today in a heartbeat with what we know now.

Instead we feed our intellect with mathematically concocted garbage...
Uncle Ira
2 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2014
How deep a hole are we talking about, and what's on the other side?


Well Skippy, maybe since they are round like a ball, the other side is like this side. If you got the rubberball and start on one side and go to the other side, when you get there, it will probably be just like the side you started from. If you dig the hole from here to China, what you going to find when you get there? Ol Ira thinks you will find a hole coming right back to this side. But I'm not the real scientist so I might be probably wrong about that.
Uncle Ira
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2014
Instead we feed our intellect with mathematically concocted garbage...


Well no-Skippy why you come to eat the garbage so much? If you don't like it maybe you should try a place where they feed you what you like. These Science-Skippys at the physorg work hard to put this stuff together, and they give it to you for free, nobody is tying you down and forcing the feeding tube in your mouth. Maybe you should try that Thunderball site that the cantdrive-Skippy keeps pushing.
no fate
3 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2014
Instead we feed our intellect with mathematically concocted garbage...


Well no-Skippy why you come to eat the garbage so much?


The materials sciences pages and biology news are still top rate. You only get the garbage buffet when math serves up the meal.

You were mildly entertaining as Zephyrfan...this uncle Ira thing with bad cajun lingo and the every other word "skippy", cheerleader for the smart peoples...well let's just say I am glad for your choice of smart peoples...you fit well together. I am actually surprised you aren't cheerleading the Thunderbolts wingnuts as well. Do you have an eye patch and corn cob pipe beside your mouse for when Ol Ira is about to log on?
Uncle Ira
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2014
Do you have an eye patch and corn cob pipe beside your mouse for when Ol Ira is about to log on?


No Cher, I got good eyesight me. And I do not smoke no. I act different now, because I am trying be nicer and more serious so I can understand stuffs. But if you want to see the old ol Ira all you got to do is start calling me names or stupid. That's your call podna.
Dr_toad
3 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2014
Your posts are sometimes on-topic, but I agree with no_fate on the "skippy" bullshit. You are boring. That's my call, and I know a hell of a lot more Cajuns than you I'll bet.
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2014
Your posts are sometimes on-topic, but I agree with no_fate on the "skippy" bullshit. You are boring. That's my call, and I know a hell of a lot more Cajuns than you I'll bet.


I'll take that bet Skippy. Show me what you got couyon, show me what you got. Laissez les bons temps rouler Toad-Skippy (that means I'm looking forward to this in Cajun talk.) Or it could also mean I'll make you the misere if you want to play with me. So why don't put that silly looking pointy cap on your head before I have to slap you couyon. Embrasse mon tcheue Couillon. See if your Cajun friends can help you that one.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2014
P.S. for you Toad-Skippy, in case you did not this. I LIKE to get the bad karma points. I go out of my way to get the bad karma. The score I've tallied up since I've been back is the embarrassment for me. So there is the another joke on you couyon.
Dr_toad
3 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2014
Besa me culo. How's that?
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2014
Besa me culo. How's that?


Fine if you are the Mexican. What your Cajun friend not home so you ask a Mexican?
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2014
@ Toad-Skippy. See here is what it is, you make all the posts that don't say so much about the articles. Now don't get me wrong, no. That is not the bad thing, I do that myself. But there is the big difference between why you do it and why ol Ira does it. Besides me being much better at it.

The difference is my comments are only for noticing the foolishment of some peoples. But you only pretend that is what your comments are for. You like to say the one line or sentence and PRETEND you one of the smart peoples and understand everything the smart peoples say. You make the comments with the hope you might be mistook for the smart people. Your comments never have any of the really science smart stuff in it.That's how I know you want to seem smart and really aren't smart. You and the Really-Skippy share that in common you.

You should notice, I never pretend to be the man who understands the science better than everybody no. But I understand peoples more than they like me to.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2014
But there is the big difference between why you do it and why ol Ira does it.


The difference is my comments are only for noticing the foolishment of some peoples.


......including your down voting of quotes I've taken directly from Einstein's Thesis on General Relativity. That only glaringly proves how smart you're not & why you should be posting on a social media site, not a site where those of us who can solve differential equations enjoy science based discussions with one another.

But you only pretend that is what your comments are for.


Yep, you sure do, you simply don't like people who are demonstrably smarter than yourself & you post your vitriol here only for the purpose of making that point clear.

You make the comments with the hope you might be mistook for the smart people.

......then why has it never dawned on you that those of us who can follow Einstein's differential equations in his GR are the "smart people" you persistently down vote?

michaelboyd
1 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2014
There is this incorrect theoretical presumption that gravitomagnetism propagates at the speed of light. I assume what is called the large extra dimension for gravitation which allows gravitation at variable speeds. Photons [light] has no inertia and photoelectric effect is only a property of non-bonding electron orbitals in matter, not anything to do with gravitation what ever. The simplest flaw I see is it fails to address the anti-symmetric nature between the mass of electrons (electron...0.00091x10^-27 kg ) and protons (proton...1.6726 x 10^-27 kg ) and how that effects the flow [mobility] of the different types of charge, protons[holes] and electrons. Since the form of energy the light weight electrons produce is light [mass-less photons] and the force of energy protons produce is attractive gravity [massive gravitons] therefore I assume EM and gravitation are not directly related, but only indirectly instead. In order to understand why gravity is different [stronger] close-up you have to understand the theory of gravitation being what's called the large extra-dimension.
michaelboyd
1 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2014
Theoretical physicists Arkani-Hamed, Dimopoulos and Dvali pointed [2], out that prior to now, gravity had not been measured below a distance of about a millimeter. They whose model is known as ADD, suggest that there could be extra dimensions as large as a millimeter in diameter. In particle physics, the ADD model, also known as the model with large extra dimensions [1], offers an alternative scenario to explain the weakness of gravity relative to the other forces. This theory requires that the fields of the standard model are confined to a four-dimensional membrane, while gravity propagates in several additional spatial dimensions that are large compared to the Planck scale.
[1] ANTONIADIS, N., ARKANI-HAMED, N., DIMOPOULOS, S., DVALI, G. New dimensions at a millimeter to a Fermi and superstrings at a TeV. arXiv: hep-ph/9804398, 1998.
[2] ARKANI-HAMED, N., DIMOPOULOS, S., DVALI, G. The Hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter. arXiv: hepph/9803315, 1998.
Uncle Ira
1 / 5 (1) Jun 02, 2014
@ Benni-Skippy, I told you I don't know the different equations you talk about all the time. I never pretended I knew what they are for. I have asked you more than 6 or 5 times to show me them or explain them. But you always have the reason not to be able to. That makes me think after asking you the 6 or 5 times that you don't know so much about them your own self you.

I vote down your comments for the same reason that the smart peoples do, I don't like you Cher. When I tried to be nice with you all you did was to call more names and accuse me of being a moderator. That proves you are as stupid as a rock and deserve to get the bad karma points.

it never dawned on you that those of us who can follow Einstein's differential equations in his GR are the "smart people" you persistently down vote?


Cher you dumber than I thought. How I know you can follow them? How can that "dawn" on anybody unless you show us you working on the different equations, or at least explain them?
Uncle Ira
1 / 5 (1) Jun 02, 2014
@ michael-Skippy. What is that stuff for? You snip and glue some paper with the science words but what it have to do with wormholes. What it have to do with black holes. And I sure hope you can say better in your own words, because that makes no sense all by it's own self.
michaelboyd
1 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2014
Theoretical physics typically treats the Planck scale as the highest energy scale and all dimensional parameters are measured in terms of the Planck scale. In models of large extra dimensions the fundamental scale is much lower than the Planck scale. This occurs because the power law of gravity changes. For example, assuming r is the distance between the gravitational induction sensor and the spinning disk; when there are two extra dimensions of size d, the power law of gravity is 1/r^4 for objects with r << d and 1/r^2 for objects with r >> d. This relationship suggests if we want the Planck scale to be equal to the next accelerator energy (1 TeV) we should take d approximately 1mm.
michaelboyd
1 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2014
As suggested by ADD, gravity could be just as strong as the other forces but only felt strongly at short distances. Scientists funded by the European Space Agency have measured the gravitational equivalent of a magnetic field for the first time in a laboratory. Just as a moving electrical charge creates a magnetic field, so a moving mass generates a gravitomagnetic field. According to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, the effect is virtually negligible. However Tajmar [3] have measured the effect in a laboratory. Their experiment involves a ring of superconducting material rotating up to 6,500 times a minute.

In the event horizon of a black hole gravity is faster than the speed of light. In that domain light is forbidden. Einstein's problem was he only understood the universe from the side of electrons not the holes side that dominates it. If you think of empty space as a high density of holes and matter as regions where electron density is higher then you see Einstein Dirac etc..., where blinded by the light produced by electrons..., that's why they couldn't see the holes in the universe all around them.
[3] TAJMAR, M., MATOS, C.J. Gravitomagnetic Fields in Rotating Superconductors to Solve Tate's Cooper Pair Mass Anomaly. arXiv: gr-qc/060786, 2006.
michaelboyd
1 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2014
Magnetism is a property of electromagnetism produced by electron states in matter; gravity is produced by the mass of the matter which mass comes from the mass of the neutrons and protons of the element of matter as described in the periodic table of the elements of matter.

.....................Particle
.....................Name.............Mass
.....................proton.............1.6726 x 10^-27 kg
.....................neutron...........1.6749 x 10^-27 kg
.....................electron..........0.00091x10^-27 kg

The mass of a neutron is greater than the mass of a proton because the neutron contains a proton, contains an electron with some subatomic particles.

Neutron stars are collapsed matter leaving only neutrons at the atomic scale that makes up the neutron star and black holes are nearly identical but made of protons [holes] instead.
michaelboyd
1 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2014
Black holes are black not because light doesn't escape but because black holes are made of holes [collapsed protons] where light is not present because there are no electrons to absorb the light for re-emission of the light.

Holes are the mechanism for quantum tunneling in the semiconductor; as well as superconductivity. To understand how "holes" work it is useful to examine the Hall effect in semiconductors. The Hall effect is due to the nature of the current in a conductor. Current consists of the movement of many small charge carriers, typically electrons, holes, what are called mobile ions or all three. When a magnetic field is present that is not parallel to the direction of motion of moving charges, these charges experience a force, called the Lorentz force. When such a magnetic field is absent, the charges follow approximately straight, 'line of sight' paths between collisions with impurities, phonons, etc.
Uncle Ira
1 / 5 (1) Jun 02, 2014
Magnetism is a property of electromagnetism


@ michale-Skippy Is there going to be a punch line or moral to this story that you are writing? Skippy, if you are trying tell us something, why you not just spit it out simply and see what people have to say about your idea.

But just between you there and me here Cher, it sounds like you posting up one of those computer generated jibberish papers. Almost as good as Really-Skippy's double talk but without as much real scientifical stuff as Zephir.
michaelboyd
1 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2014
However, when a magnetic field with a perpendicular component is applied, their paths between collisions are curved so that moving charges accumulate on one face of the material. This leaves equal and opposite charges exposed on the other face, where there is a scarcity of mobile charges. The result is an asymmetric distribution of charge density across the Hall element that is perpendicular to both the 'line of sight' path and the applied magnetic field. The separation of charge establishes an electric field that opposes the migration of further charge, so a steady electrical potential is established for as long as the charge is flowing.

In the classical view, there are only electrons moving in the same average direction both in the case of electron or hole conductivity. This cannot explain the opposite sign of the Hall effect observed.
michaelboyd
1 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2014
@Ira, I can only do 1000 characters at a time, that's why....just wait for me to finish and I think you'll like it [continuing on]...
One very important feature of the Hall effect is that it differentiates between positive charges moving in one direction and negative charges moving in the opposite. The Hall effect offered the first real proof that electric currents in metals are carried by moving electrons, not by protons. The Hall effect also showed that in some substances (especially p-type semiconductors), it is more appropriate to think of the current as positive "holes" moving rather than negative electrons.
Uncle Ira
1 / 5 (1) Jun 02, 2014
In the classical view,


In the classical view Skippy if that is your picture on your profile page, you are one ugly homme you. Why the ugliest peoples always the first to put a picture of them grinning like the boy who's daddy is his uncle and his brother all at the same time?
Uncle Ira
1 / 5 (1) Jun 02, 2014
@Ira, I can only do 1000 characters at a time, that's why....just wait for me to finish and I think you'll like it [continuing on]....


Skippy you need to learn to tell a story better. Only the one other person here writes so much without saying anything, that's the Hannes-Skippy. He likes to snip and glue the other peoples's stuff too him.
michaelboyd
1 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2014
The geometry of matter, or lack there of, causes a force field to be produced that I could measure. The reason gravitation is a direct tensor is because it has two components one is the normal gravitational energy produced by the presence of matter's nucleus in the universe and the other what we call repulsive anti-gravity or dark energy is produced by its absence. But the tensor for gravity is much stronger than anti-gravity since the absence of mass produces only about 16% of the magnitude for the same volume (geometry). Some other differences are normal gravity is much stronger below 1 mm from matter than it is above that distance; as is the antigravity force. I found for normal gravity above 1 mm it is consistently linear with distance; while antigravity is ~ 0. That means the force is 1/r^2 above 1mm and 1/r^4 below 1 mm but that means gravity is still linear with distance within both regions of normal gravity space time. Antigravity on the other hand is a third order force repulsive force tensor whose force fields are like that of balloon with their force field's strength being strongest at the membrane of the balloon and weak inside.
michaelboyd
1 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2014
Regarding the gravitational temporal relation both forms of gravitation experience the same amount of frame dragging as described in Einstein's General Relativity theory; so doesn't that means Time must be the substance between gravitational energy and EM energy that makes up our existence?

Time must be a substance. That's because gravitational space time is produced by hole states of matter and electromagnetism spacetime (EM or light) is produced by electron states of matter. QM is built on EM space time; not gravitational space time. However Special Relativity is built on EM space time while General Relativity is built on gravitational space time. The manifold of events in spacetime are a "substance" which exists independently of the matter within it...Special Relativity and General Relativity created a conundrum for Einstein that he tried to resolve unsuccessfully to unit the two theory in to one grand unified field theory. My discovery is that while the speed of light is constant that's not true for gravitation. It can be slower in speed and faster too. Einstein focused to much on the speed of light and not enough on the "holes" all around him.
michaelboyd
1 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2014
That's where the gravitation is. That "electromagnetism is in spacetime A" let's call that space-time "{EM} space-time", and this is what Einstein's "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Korper"[4] ("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies") described which reconciles Maxwell's equations for electricity and magnetism with the laws of mechanics, by introducing major changes to mechanics close. to the speed of light. This later became known as Einstein's special theory of relativity (SR).[5][6]That "gravitation is in spacetime B" let's call that space-time "{G}space-time" and this is what Einstein's General relativity (GR) describes. According to general relativity,[7] the observed gravitational attraction between masses results from the "warping of space and time by those masses". When I write about this "manifold of events in spacetime are a "substance" which exists independently of the matter within it" this "manifold of events in spacetime" is this property that makes Time; as we measure it; the emergent {positive arrow of time}.
michaelboyd
1 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2014
Therefore time is a vector which direction depends on your position in our universe which is created by a change of energy states between gravitation to electromagnetism; and visa versa.
[4]EINSTEIN, A. Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Korper. Annalen der Physik 17: 891-921, 1905.
[5]EINSTEIN, A.; GROSSMANN, M. Entwurf einer verallgemeinerten Relativitatstheorie und einer Theorie der Gravitation. Zeitschrift fur Mathematik und Physik 62: 225-261, 1913.
[6]EINSTEIN, A. Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitatstheorie. Annalen der Physik, 49, 1916.
[7] HILBERT, D., Die Grundlagen der Physik. Mathematische Annalen, 92, 1924.

My point to my extensive musings here is that all matter is quantum entangled together at the sub-atomic level of protons [holes] so no need for wormholes. These are my own text except where i cited a reference. Your thoughts, criticisms, comments are welcomed...
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2014
@ michael-Skippy that is a very interesting story, I'm hanging on every word in it, really I am. Have you ever met Zephir? He's bat-doo-doo crazy, but he sure can write the good science sounding stories. You should team up with him and see what you can come up with. It would probably sell more books than the Reg-Skippy sells. Don't try teaming up with the Really-Skippy though, that would be wasting your time because he only writes the pretend books and theories.

Hooyeei, I'm ready for that next chapter me, bring it on.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2014
My point to my extensive musings here is that all matter is quantum entangled together at the sub-atomic level of protons [holes] so no need for wormholes.


So why you not just say that and be done with it?

These are my own text except where i cited a reference.


I don't know if I would be bragging about that. If it were mine, ol Ira would be trying to blame it on somebody else.

Your thoughts, criticisms, comments are welcomed...


Are you sure about that Skippy. Well okayeei then Cher. I think you wrote too many words to say nothing about nothing and thought you could fool us by throwing out a lot gibberish. If you can't fool somebody as ignorant as ol Ira, how you expect to fool any of the really smart Skippys here?
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Jun 02, 2014
@michaelboyd I think Uncle Ira is being modest& 'nice' to you perhaps because you taken the trouble to write much. But let's get some things sorted out.
You favour SS theory and say of'..membranes..' so you not on the mainstream track. That's ok each to his own but perhaps you might have made that clear to begin with.You say that time '..Time must be the substance between gravitational energy and EM energy that makes up our existence?..' Once you say Time is a substance then you must qualify that further i.e. what are/how many diemnsions etc.I have had theory for about 20 years that Time is multidimensional but I can't write about it yet because I haven't solved some important problems. You appear to give it a single dimension '..arrow of time..' so I think that is contra to a 'substance'. We measure time with clocks but that tells us nothing ABOUT time and is no more than a record of events. Also it isn't clear if you favour grav as a 'force' or geometric. (cont.)

Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Jun 02, 2014
cont.
You also fail to mention quarks when talking of protons & neutrons. You seem to define dark energy as anti grav which is misleading because anti grav might be an effect of DE. Time might be better considered as spinorial.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2014
Should the results be in favor of Bambi and Li's predictions it will bring us one step closer to determining the actual shape of the universe as well. At least I would like to think so.

It's not an exact fixed shape. Just generally mature toroidal (almost spherical), similar to our magnetosphere, with less "solar wind" to oblate it's shape.
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (3) Jun 03, 2014
For example, the physicists so far didn't find any conclusive evidence of dark matter during last twenty years.

Yes they do, they found a whole lot of conclusive mass and current research is there to replace the word "dark" for something more meaningful.

a bit hypocritical to dismiss the evil "mainstream science" because of this while a few posts later you yourself proclaim AWT predicts "dense"dark matter, innit?

The point is, the worm hole enables the superluminal travel
nope it won't, it might allow you to make a shortcut over a distance at most.
and the gravitational effects during solar eclipse manifest itself with superluminal speed too.


Now that is new, where did you read this?
Writela
1 / 5 (1) Jun 03, 2014
it might allow you to make a shortcut over a distance at most
This shortcut would enable you to cross the remote distance with superluminal speed, compare the Tippler cylinder and warp drive concepts for example. Yes, I'm aware that the worm hole of general relativity ipso facto violates the special relativity and light cone causality.
Writela
1 / 5 (2) Jun 03, 2014
This controversy can be understood easily, because if you draw the worm hole with 2D space-time analogy, then it's immediately apparent, it's higher-dimensional artifact, which cannot be described just with 4D space-time. So that every confirmation of worm hole would be a confirmation of extradimensions at the same moment.
..the physicists so far didn't find any conclusive evidence of dark matter during last twenty years. Yes they do..
So what this article for example is all about? Actually it just turns out, that the dark matter is even "darker" (i.e. difficult to detect), than the physicists ever expected - i.e. virtually undetectable in form of particles. So that the word "dark" is even more substantiated than before instead.
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2014
This shortcut would enable you to cross the remote distance with superluminal speed

No. You'd always be going subluminal relative to local space (this is also true for any warp drive concepts on the table. In none of them does matter exceed the speed of light with respect to the local space your craft is in)

Something I have bit of trouble when looking at wormholes: Aren't both ends effectively black holes? So while one could enter one side easily - how does one even exit the other side (assuming one could survive the journey, as the gravitational gradients in the interior still seem to pose a tiiiiny problem for that)
Mimath224
1 / 5 (2) Jun 03, 2014
@antialias_physorg yes if, and a big if, the journey was possible could there be a 'slingshot' position that might add to the '...subluminal relative to local space...' that might be enough to cross the event horizon on the 'other side'?
Writela
1 / 5 (2) Jun 03, 2014
You'd always be going subluminal relative to local space (this is also true for any warp drive concepts on the table.
This is just the point of "wormhole shortcut": you'll going subliminal locally, but superluminal globally. Or we couldn't talk about shortcut at all. After all, the wikipedia source is quite clear about it:
If wormholes are possible, then ordinary subluminal methods of communication could be sent through them to achieve superluminal transmission speeds. Considering the immense energy that current theories suggest would be required to open a wormhole large enough to pass spacecraft through it may be that only atomic-scale wormholes would be practical to build, limiting their use solely to information transmission.
Actually the superluminal information transfer is important observational criterion of worm hole detection.The entanglement gets superluminal because it's mediated with worm hole.
Writela
1 / 5 (1) Jun 03, 2014
By this article the worm hole is created during every entanglement, which renders it as a quite common phenomena. I already explained, that you can create such a worm hole in your kitchen, albeit at the quite tiny distance. The tiny space between your fingers and surface of glass enables the photons tunnel across it and to avoid the total reflection limit in this way. The tunneling of photons proceeds with superluminal speed in this special case. The space between surfaces is shielded from virtual photons and the scalar waves become dominant there in similar way, like inside of dark matter fibers. Therefore the superluminal phenomena can be expected there as well.
Writela
1 / 5 (1) Jun 03, 2014
Aren't both ends effectively black holes
Essentially yes, but all particles of matter can be considered as a tiny black holes. Therefore the tunneling and entanglement between each pair of massive bodies creates a worm holes between them, albeit quite weak ones. The subtle portion of information can propagate between them with superluminal speed.
Does such superluminal transfer violate the special relativity? Yes and no. The special relativity disallows the superluminal information transfer, but only in strictly deterministic way, when the path of information spreading can be followed during whole transfer. But the tunneling of photons across barrier wipes out the information about exact photon source and target: whole the barrier will serve as a source of photons during it. Therefore the superluminal tunneling of photons across barrier doesn't violate the causality of special relativity in its strict sense.
Writela
1 / 5 (1) Jun 03, 2014
The superluminal transfer would manifest itself like the diffuse glow between both ends of worm hole. You could see this glow somewhat earlier than the laser ray, passed from one end of worm hole into another, but you couldn't detect the source of light in this case: whole the crossection of worm hole would glow like the tunnel filled with fog. This is the consequence of the fact, that the superluminal portion of energy is mediated with bulk of quantum fluctuations of vacuum via scattering, not in determinist way.

Such a mechanism of light propagation has been already observed at the cosmic scales inside the large clouds of interstellar gas and dust. Because the scattering of light with dust wipes out the information about light source and position, the scattered portion of light can propagate with phase velocity higher, than the group velocity of light. The similar effects can be observed during propagation of ultrasound through dispersions.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Jun 03, 2014
but superluminal globally.

Which really doesn't mean anything. It would be like saying:
"When I put one foot in front of the other I am going at 'superluminal speed' with respect to a trajectory from my current position, around the sun, and back to the position I will be after the step".
But at no point in my step forward is light speed exceeded.

The thing that might (note: MIGHT) change is that we have to let go of the assumption of smooth space we have been working with in the past. It wouldn't be the weirdest paradigm shift. But I'm by no means prepared to bet money on that yet.
Teper
Jun 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.