Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Wormhole theory

S

~~SciGirl~~

Jan 1, 1970
0
I have this idea about the wormhole theory - say you were touching your
two fingers together, could there then be a wormhole between them? Or
even down to the level of the protons and neutrons in the nucleus -
could there be tiny wormholes between them, too? And between atoms that
make up everything?

And, if so, could this be how we all travel through time, and why time
slows when an object viewed from another frame of reference approaches
the speed of light? And then could it tie into entropy somehow?
 
K

Ken Smith

Jan 1, 1970
0
I have this idea about the wormhole theory - say you were touching your
two fingers together, could there then be a wormhole between them?


You can't actually touch your two fingers together. The electrons in one
finger repell those of the other finger just before the atoms actually
touch. We get the impression that they are touching because we sense
things at much too large of a scale.
Or
even down to the level of the protons and neutrons in the nucleus -
could there be tiny wormholes between them, too?

When you get down to the size of a proton, the physics of the everyday
world no longer applies. The common view of a worm hole is something that
only applies to large sized object.

[...]
And, if so, could this be how we all travel through time,

To be more accurate, we are dragged kicking a screaming through time.
The universe has 4 dimensions. We can move about in three of them. The
fourth, we have no control over our motion in. Our lack of the control is
the only special status that the forth dimension really has. If you
dropped through an event horizon of a black hole, you would find that you
could move about in what we call "time" and two of the "space" dimensions
but not the third. Along that third dimension, you would be dragged
kicking and screaming to the singularity where you would be crushed out of
existance.

Don't be depressed. You can be crushed to death on any date in history
you choose.

and why time
slows when an object viewed from another frame of reference approaches
the speed of light? And then could it tie into entropy somehow?

Entropy and the "arrow of time" do seem to be linked. The future is when
entropy will be higher and it is the part of time that we can't remember.
 
K

Kevin Aylward

Jan 1, 1970
0
Ken said:
[...]
And, if so, could this be how we all travel through time,

To be more accurate, we are dragged kicking a screaming through time.
The universe has 4 dimensions. We can move about in three of them.
The fourth, we have no control over our motion in. Our lack of the
control is the only special status that the forth dimension really
has.

This is isn't really an accurate description. Under Special Relativity,
we can, essentially, move forward in time at any rate we please. Simply
moving gets us through time at different effective rates. The time
effects in special relativity can be interpreted in a few different
ways, but as far as net effect goes, travelling at fast velocities is
automatically time travel into the future. We don't actually do anything
to build such a time machine. We cant prevent it happening. That is, if
we go very fast relative to say, the motion of the earth, like go away
and come back, it is usually phrased as time travels slower for the
traveller. The actual reality is that earth would have "aged" on, and we
would not have "aged". This *is* time travel into the future. Its going
backwards in time that's the tricky bit.

If you dropped through an event horizon of a black hole, you
would find that you could move about in what we call "time" and two
of the "space" dimensions but not the third. Along that third
dimension, you would be dragged kicking and screaming to the
singularity where you would be crushed out of existance.

Don't be depressed. You can be crushed to death on any date in
history you choose.



Entropy and the "arrow of time" do seem to be linked. The future is
when entropy will be higher and it is the part of time that we can't
remember.

Time is simply a note that the same object can exist in different
places. That is, objects move.

Kevin Aylward
[email protected]
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
 
J

John Woodgate

Jan 1, 1970
0
I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
travelling at fast velocities is automatically time travel into the
future. We don't actually do anything to build such a time machine. We
cant prevent it happening. That is, if we go very fast relative to say,
the motion of the earth, like go away and come back, it is usually
phrased as time travels slower for the traveller. The actual reality is
that earth would have "aged" on, and we would not have "aged". This
*is* time travel into the future. Its going backwards in time that's
the tricky bit.

In order to experience the effect, the 'traveller' has to *accelerate*,
in the general sense of 'change speed'. Go away from Earth at high
speed, slow down, stop, turn round, accelerate up to high speed again,
then slow down and stop at Earth.
 
X

xray

Jan 1, 1970
0
I have this idea about the wormhole theory - say you were touching your
two fingers together, could there then be a wormhole between them?

Then there is the whole missing socks in the dryer issue. I don't know
if there has ever been an adequate study. Seems to me a few of my socks
have been sucked by a warm rotating hole into some other dimension.
 
K

Ken Smith

Jan 1, 1970
0
John Woodgate said:
In order to experience the effect, the 'traveller' has to *accelerate*,
in the general sense of 'change speed'. Go away from Earth at high
speed, slow down, stop, turn round, accelerate up to high speed again,
then slow down and stop at Earth.

Correct to the last bit. The effect can be seen as you zip past.
 
K

Ken Smith

Jan 1, 1970
0
Then there is the whole missing socks in the dryer issue. I don't know
if there has ever been an adequate study. Seems to me a few of my socks
have been sucked by a warm rotating hole into some other dimension.


Modern theory has it that the socks actually go missing in the washer not
the dryer. People don't check for missing socks as they transfer from the
washer to dryer so the mistake is understandable.

60 years ago, people thought that the rings around Saturn were all the
lost luggage.
 
K

keith

Jan 1, 1970
0
Then there is the whole missing socks in the dryer issue. I don't know
if there has ever been an adequate study. Seems to me a few of my socks
have been sucked by a warm rotating hole into some other dimension.

Ah, the socks continuum. Then I buy socks I buy 15 identical (black)
pairs. That way the socks continnum and this universe eventually come to
equilibrium and I always have a pair of socks to wear. Same deal with
pens and pencils.
 
J

Jim Thompson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Modern theory has it that the socks actually go missing in the washer not
the dryer. People don't check for missing socks as they transfer from the
washer to dryer so the mistake is understandable.

60 years ago, people thought that the rings around Saturn were all the
lost luggage.


--

From some Broadway show whose name escapes me at the moment, "Someone
has stolen my socks" ;-)

Socks do sometimes get under the washing machine agitator or get
pumped out in the waste water. I was amazed to discover that Maytag
pumps have "sock traps" to prevent bunging up the impeller.

Every once in awhile I'm thrilled to see some engineering thought
actually go into a consumer product.

Then there's the Cuisinart "Automatic Grind & Brew Thermal" coffee
pot. It grinds the coffee beans, then blows the grounds into the brew
basket, perks the water, and makes a good cup of coffee.

Unfortunately the dust from the grounds goes everywhere in the
mechanism. Then the steam turns the dust into a wondrous cake :-(

My nomination for worst engineering of the year.

...Jim Thompson
 
K

Kevin Aylward

Jan 1, 1970
0
John said:
I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward


In order to experience the effect, the 'traveller' has to
*accelerate*, in the general sense of 'change speed'.

However, this does imply something that isn't really the case. That is,
time contraction effects are not due to accelerations.
Go away from
Earth at high speed, slow down, stop, turn round, accelerate up to
high speed again, then slow down and stop at Earth.

Its a bit more subtle John, and depends on how one defines "accelerate".
One can engage the traveller in "free fall" orbits, such that under GR
definitions there is no "acceleration", yet the time contraction will
still occur.

Kevin Aylward
[email protected]
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
 
J

Jim Thompson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Ah, the socks continuum. Then I buy socks I buy 15 identical (black)
pairs. That way the socks continnum and this universe eventually come to
equilibrium and I always have a pair of socks to wear.

I always buy the same brand and, of course, black ;-)
Same deal with
pens and pencils.

I buy uni-ball GelSticks in bulk.

Pencils are _always_ Pentel 0.5.

...Jim Thompson
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
However, this does imply something that isn't really the case. That is,
time contraction effects are not due to accelerations.


Its a bit more subtle John, and depends on how one defines "accelerate".
One can engage the traveller in "free fall" orbits, such that under GR
definitions there is no "acceleration", yet the time contraction will
still occur.

I don't like the "postulate of equivalence" very much - according to it,
we've been doing the equivalent of being accellerated at 32ft/sec/sec for
eons - we must all be ascending at many times the speed of light by now!

Cheers!
Rich
 
J

John Woodgate

Jan 1, 1970
0
I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
However, this does imply something that isn't really the case. That is,
time contraction effects are not due to accelerations.


Its a bit more subtle John, and depends on how one defines
"accelerate". One can engage the traveller in "free fall" orbits, such
that under GR definitions there is no "acceleration", yet the time
contraction will still occur.

I was simply making the point that the people who go away at high speed
and come back relatively younger than those that stayed at home have had
a different physical or dynamical experience from those that stayed. If
that were not the case, and only relative speed were significant, which
would be younger, the people in the 'stationary space ship' or the
people on Earth that 'receded at high speed' from it?
 
K

Ken Smith

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim Thompson said:
Every once in awhile I'm thrilled to see some engineering thought
actually go into a consumer product.

I sometimes wonder why good ideas don't spread around very much:

My home coffee maker has the "steal a cup" feature where the coffee stops
flowing if you pull the pot out. The much more expensive machine at work
has no such feature.

The lid to the tea pot I bought a few months ago doesn't have a vent hole
in it. As a result if you drop the lid onto a full pot, hot water shoots
out the spout.


[....]
Then there's the Cuisinart "Automatic Grind & Brew Thermal" coffee
pot. It grinds the coffee beans, then blows the grounds into the brew
basket, perks the water, and makes a good cup of coffee.

Unfortunately the dust from the grounds goes everywhere in the
mechanism. Then the steam turns the dust into a wondrous cake :-(

My nomination for worst engineering of the year.

We should watch to see if the idea gets copied. At least I hope bad ideas
don't get distributed.
 
G

Genome

Jan 1, 1970
0
John Woodgate said:
I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward


In order to experience the effect, the 'traveller' has to *accelerate*,
in the general sense of 'change speed'. Go away from Earth at high
speed, slow down, stop, turn round, accelerate up to high speed again,
then slow down and stop at Earth.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

Yes, that's the bit that always fucked me over from the frames of
reference type shit that people give me.

Why didn't the traveller buy a bottle of Frosty Jacks from Spar on the
way out? And why didn't they have a bottle of Frosty Jacks for the
travellers return, also bought from Spar.

And there might have been a couple of chicken curries with egg fried
rice involved but the local sells shit.

Not so clever now, Ay?
 
R

Robert Monsen

Jan 1, 1970
0
Kevin said:
However, this does imply something that isn't really the case. That is,
time contraction effects are not due to accelerations.

Agree. As I understand it, special relativity is concerned with
non-accelerating reference frames. The time dilation effect occurs
without any relative acceleration at all. It's a consequence of the way
we look at things (our reference frame). If we were able to see the
clock in a passing spaceship, it would be going slower than our clocks.
Oddly, if they could also look at our clocks, *our* clocks would be
going slow compared to their clocks.

This seems like a paradox until you see that the rocket frame's t is
being projected onto your own particular time-space trajectory.

Say we have two vectors in the plane, a and b, which are at an angle
theta from each other. If we measure a distance x on both of these
vectors, to us, with our godlike 2d viewpoint, they are of course the
same length. However, think like a flatlander. To a flatlander living on
a, the length along 'a' is just x; however, the length of that same x on
'b' is the projection along 'a', so its length will be x*cos(theta); it
is shorter. (Since he only has one axis, he must measure everything
relative to that axis.) How much difference there is depends on how big
theta is. To a flatlander living on the other vector, 'b', however, the
situation is identical; he measures the length x on the local vector as
x, but measures x along 'a' as x*cos(theta); again, it's shorter.

Asking how the other guys' clocks can run slow for both the earthling
and the spaceship guy simply because of a large relative velocity is the
same as one flatlander asking how the other flatlander's x can be
shorter simply because of a rotation.

Velocity in spacetime is like flatlander rotation (although the
projection formulas are different, and quite a bit stranger).

This particular analogy is described in chapter 17 of the Feynman
lectures on physics, Volume I. In it, he describes the lorentz
transformation as a special kind of rotation in spacetime.

--
Regards,
Robert Monsen

"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.
 
J

John Woodgate

Jan 1, 1970
0
I read in sci.electronics.design that Robert Monsen
Asking how the other guys' clocks can run slow for both the earthling
and the spaceship guy simply because of a large relative velocity is
the same as one flatlander asking how the other flatlander's x can be
shorter simply because of a rotation.

But with you argument, you have talked yourself into the 'second twin
paradox'. If the 'stay-home' and the 'traveller' have symmetrical
experiences, when they come together, each is younger/older than the
other. For a REAL difference between them, which we know occurs, their
experiences cannot be symmetrical. And the obvious difference is that
the traveller *changed* speed (twice) in his own frame of reference,
whereas the stay-home didn't.
 
K

Kevin Aylward

Jan 1, 1970
0
John said:
I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward


In order to experience the effect, the 'traveller' has to
*accelerate*, in the general sense of 'change speed'. Go away from
Earth at high speed, slow down, stop, turn round, accelerate up to
high speed again, then slow down and stop at Earth.


But he doesn't have to change his *speed*. He can go in a circular orbit
with the same speed. Sure, his vector velocity will change because of a
change in direction, and this is where the definition of "acceleration"
matters. In a Newtonian sense there is "acceleration" due to change of
direction, in GR something in free fall is not "accelerating". The
reason is that in GR, things in free fall are not under any forces,
hence cannot be "accelerating" in the Newtonian sense. Gravitational
"forces" are abolished and replaced with curvature of space.


Kevin Aylward
[email protected]
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
 
K

Kevin Aylward

Jan 1, 1970
0
Rich said:
I don't like the "postulate of equivalence" very much - according to
it,

Only due to your misunderstanding of SR/GR.
we've been doing the equivalent of being accellerated at
32ft/sec/sec for eons - we must all be ascending at many times the
speed of light by now!

Nope. You understanding of acceleration is faulty. Go and look at the
sci.physics.relativity FAQ. Even objects in circular orbit "accelerate"
for ever.


Kevin Aylward
[email protected]
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
 
K

Kevin Aylward

Jan 1, 1970
0
John said:
I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward


I was simply making the point that the people who go away at high
speed and come back relatively younger than those that stayed at home
have had a different physical or dynamical experience from those that
stayed.
Yes.

If that were not the case, and only relative speed were
significant,
which would be younger, the people in the 'stationary
space ship' or the people on Earth that 'receded at high speed' from
it?

Its the path in space-time, due to velocity that matters. My point is
that the value of the acceleration at any point is not important, only
the values of the velocity matter. One integrates the velocity profile,
so its the velocity that "causes" the time difference, not the
acceleration.

Kevin Aylward
[email protected]
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
 
Top