Many modern scientists believe that there are wormholes on a microscopic level that appear and disappear, taking particles through time and space. My question is: do these actually exist?
The idea of a wormhole was first conceived by Albert Einstein and Nathan Rosen. Hence, the Einstein-Rosen bridge was born. The only reason these were created was because they had to exist according to Einstein's equations. Couldn't his equations in some cases not work? I think many of Einstein's ideas are very correct, but does anybody remember what happened with the cosmological constant? He used that to make his equations "correct" even though it did not exist! He called it the biggest mistake of his life, and rightly so. Are wormholes the second biggest mistakes?
Einstein-Rosen bridges were abandoned by most scientists, but the newer theories of wormholes do not sound very possible. The modern type of wormhole is called the traversable wormhole. To function, the wormhole requires a negative energy density and a negative mass. Wait a minute. How can anything have negative mass? I don't understand how this is possible. According to Newton's law that F=MA, if an object has a negative mass, it would also have a negative acceleration. If you pushed a ball with negative mass (the push is a positive force), it would go in the opposite direction that you pushed it! That could really hurt if you pushed a ball with negative mass too hard.
Scientists believe that wormholes do exist on nanoscopic scales and occur all the time. If that is true, then wouldn't there be infinitely many particles in the universe? Couldn't the universe fill up with particles in all times? If wormholes can go through time, particles would move in and out of time until they eventually have gone through just about every time that ever existed, and keep on going through time. That would violate the law of conservation of mass in so many ways, because you would have particles appearing and disappearing, and the universe would gain and lose mass all the time! Then again, wormholes already break pretty much all of the other rules that have been established, so why not ruin that one too?
I do not think wormholes can exist. I do not see how it would make sense in accordance with the current laws of our universe. Perhaps somebody can enlighten me on how they exist. Why should they?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
First, I love your remodeling.
ReplyDeleteI agree that wormholes would violate the law of conservation of mass. Also, it just feels impossible: a spot that transports you instantly to somewhere and somewhen else? Really?
However, the cosmological constant is actually viable and would explain quite a few things. If you Google "einstein cosmological constant" and click on the third link down, the one from Colorado university, and then click on "why bother with the cosmological constant" read that. Basically, the cosmological constant would remedy some problems with the age and flatness of the universe that don't balance out otherwise.
Negative mass isn't that inconceivable. If you manipulate the equation F=ma using basic pre-algebra, you get that m=f/a, so the mass is negative if either the force or the acceleration is negative. Although counterintuitive, it's possible to have a negative acceleration. However, I think you could also have a negative force. Force is defined as a push or pull that causes an object to change its velocity. Notice the "push or pull" part. Most forces are pushes- pushing on a ball or car or something.But a pull is really just a negative push, right? Depending on how you look at it, a force could be either a push or pull: positive or negative.
Finally, what would create a wormhole?
Dorothea, a pull and a push are still positive forces because the object that the force acts on goes in direction of the force. If I pull a door handle, the force is coming towards me, and so is the door. It is a positive force going a different direction. Positive forces can go in any direction, being a pull or a push.
ReplyDeleteA negative force would be such that if I pushed a ball, it would come towards me! Or, if I pull a door handle, it would go away from me!
Here's the deal on the cosmological constant. It was created because Einstein thought the universe was static, but it was discovered that the universe was moving, so the constant had to be removed. He created the constant to make his equations work, even though it was not necessarily true.
This hole idea about worm holes is great. It definately violates LoCo-M and you could have 2 of the same particle at different places at the same time. Totally wierd.
ReplyDeleteHowever, It seems to me that if these worm holes had enough energy to change times, it would also have enough energy to evaporate or possibly expolode or implode whatever was trying to pass through it, so therefore nothing would be capable of changing times.
Alright, it might be able to, but it would have to change state of matter(probably a chemical change) and so wouldn't be the same substance anymore. That would still violate LoCo-M.
I also agree that there is nothing that would create worm holes, except if possibly, though I'm not sure how probable, A black hole collapsed in on itself. That doesn't seem practicle because black holes are already supposed to have zero mass.
You know that doesn't make much sense either. If they have zero mass, they would have 0 matter, because matter is anything that takes up space and has mass. I just confused myself, so I'll stop typing now.
No, Shannon. Black holes must have mass because they have gravity. They just don't have much volume because it's all compacted.
ReplyDeleteShannon, black holes have a HUGE amount of mass. That is why their gravitational pulls are so strong! The reason people think there might be wormholes inside black holes is because we don't know what's in there! A Black hole is said to eventually become a singularity, or point where gravity is infinite along with mass.
ReplyDeleteScientists believe that there are white holes that spew out material, hence not violating LoCoM, but I am not sure...
Oh, well I got half of it right. I just got mass and volume mixed up.
ReplyDeletehow was the first part about the chemical change and time travel of an object remaining as that object through a wormhole being impossible?
The chemical change does not make sense because most stuff that scientists hypothesize go through wormholes are individual particles. An individual particle is not a substance, and does not have a state of matter. Therefore, it would not need to undergo a chemical change, nor could it.
ReplyDeleteBesides, isn't changing the state of matter a physical change? Chemical change is when the makeup of an object changes, like wood becoming ash when burned. Water solidifying to become ice is a physical change because it is still water, just in solid form.
If the wormhole was at the center of a black hole, then even if the object affected was a substance, like the poor astronaut Dr. Hawking uses for all of his black hole examples, it would be ripped apart into particles anyway, therefore not having a state of matter. In that way, it is a chemical change, I guess. Just not by your definition.
What I really meant was the particles like H2O would be split into H H and O. that would be a chemicle change. or possibly the H's and O be split further into subatomic particles. With that in mind A person would not be able to travel through a wormhole and make it out living.
ReplyDeleteToo, The percise amount of energy to create a wormhole would be so finite that by adding any matter that wasn't at absolute 0 would make something terrible happen like putting alchohol in the fuel tank of your car(use your imagination,or I guess you could try it).
hypothetically, If wormholes do exist and are as percise as I think, nothing would be able to come within a certain area around it let alone through it. And it should all vary with sizes. The greater the volume of the wormhole the more energy it has, the more mass that can go through, If it was big enough, A person could time travel.
An issue with that is that the matter would have to have no energy, so it would be at absolute 0 (the person would be dead) the atomic bonds would have to be broken since there is energy there too(it would only be subatomic particles, with Fractal geometry considered, possibly never), and Gravity, the major problem spot with all scientists, would have to be eliminated. It is a pull force (energy).
Oh and did I mention, if Wormholes are nothing but energy adding mass would kill them too as well as if they are made of matter and have mass adding more mass would deplete the energy(like hooking up too many lights on the christmas tree) so enstead of getting rid of energy as said earlier, you would have to add a whole heck of alot, which would be like turning yourself into a wormhole. Nobody has that kind of energy!
With the emmence amount of matter and energy in our solar system wormholes could exist but won't exist because if they formed other energy and matter would destroy them instantaneously.
So Wormholes--Busted--
I am not liable for anything experienced throughout or post reading this including the expiraments. DO NOT TRY THEM AT HOME!!
I agree with the chemical change statement now that I understand what you mean. I absolutely believe no human could make it through a wormhole alive!
ReplyDeleteI also think that nothing could travel through a wormhole because any mass would instantaneously collapse it. I am probably not going to put alcohol in the engine of my parents' car. I wonder if that would actually do anything though...
My question is, do wormholes exist even if particles can't travel through them?
I say they don't because of the reasons listed above such as requiring negative energy! I don't see how it can work!
Firstly, some cars run on corn alcohol- ethanol.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I get what you mean now. Yes! Something proved conclusively for once!
Actually Shannon you cannot prove what items do in a black hole or a worm hole. An element might break into its smallest partials and then they could very well disappear.
ReplyDeleteHere is a another thing to think about,
Q: Are quarks negative or positive?
Ok that was random
So because of the quantum properties of picometric particles, it is possible that matter can disappear in a thin vacuum.
DON'T WORRY
just because we have successfully destroyed these particles do to whatever I said before they are constantly getting replaced be other due to a another quantum property (this one dealing with a vacuum)
Overall we can conclude that the black hole itself follows more of the relative sciences (the theory of the very large) which leads to an extreme quantum world inside.(the theory on the very small)
darn spellcheck
ReplyDeleteit messed up my sentences in the 4th paragraph 4th line. it added "be other" to my sentence
who cares about spellcheck. I do much better without. Anyway, as I concuded at the end of my last, Wormholes do not exist. they could only in cirtain conditions, and since those are always changing it wouldnt have enough time to form.
ReplyDeleteTo keep the particles ballanced Quarks would have to be positive for Protons (atleast 2 of them) and neutral for Neutrons (or 1 negative, 1 positive and the last neutral). But since AA says they are always positive, I guess there are other negative particles in neutrons to ballane them out.
Also AA, this is theoretical ohisics, notactual. we work only to disprove, and revise.
I don't know where negative energy would come from, but if you had a negative weight, you would either have to have a negative mass,(anti-matter), or a negative force(whatever that is). Having a negitive weight which would probably mean you also had negative gravity, would probably be equivelent to a negative energy and could possibly produce a wormhole. But seeing as I am pretty sure we agreed that anti-matter was an improbable substance and was all destroyed soon after the big bang that theory is annialated.
Aaron, you of all people should know that quarks can either be positive or negative, depending on their flavor.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you enlighten us on how particles "disappear" in a thin vacuum. I don't see why they should!
Quarks with a positive charge have a 2/3 positive charge. Negative Quarks have a 1/3 negative charge. Every subatomic particle has 3 quarks. Protons have two positive and one negative. That means 2/3 + 2/3 - 1/3 which equals positive 1 charge. Neutrons have one positive and two negative. 2/3 -1/3 - 1/3 = 0 or a neutral charge! Electrons have three negative quarks. You can do the math there.
ReplyDeleteIn matter, positive quarks are called up quarks and negative quarks are called down quarks. There are other types of quarks, but they are not used in the subatomic particles of matter.
ok, there are negitive and positively charged particles. these particals can in a since cancel each other out. of course you would think that they would make two neutral particals. but since this charge is like a constant polarity it may not by changed in that mannar. you can think of this like anti-matter but there is not a giant explosion of inplosion depentding on if the matter is the same temp as the anti-matter and it is at the proper temp for fusion(darn I have been waching too much star trek).
ReplyDeleteenough with that
so of couse particals cannot combign to form one partical they can only stick to each other. so in this theroretical vast gravity of a black hole crushes them they will combign and dissapear like anti-matter.
so now we learn how matter is created.
(you should know this dan)
in quantam phisics positive and negitive particals pop out of no where and then join back together and dissapear.this is plausible because of the high energy to mass ratio.
when these particals are by a black hole the negitive particals get sucked into the black hole but the positive particals repel away
YEY WE HAVE CREATED MATTER AND DISTROYED IT
(the last paraghaph has been made a firm theory due to highly sensetive equipment that was bought by scientists with there own money.
oboma is trying to make citizens pay for fat peoples tweenkies, hoohoos, and other addictive desserts that is only making interesting test subjects for petroleum plants which is not helping man kind move forward in the nano and pico sciences.)
um I see a probmlem.
Aaron, particles that appear and disappear ARE NOT CLASSIFIED AS MATTER! Matter is not being created or destroyed because it isn't matter! Yes matter had to be created at the beginning of the universe or else there wouldn't be any matter, but even then it technically isn't being created, it was just there to start with in our universe.
ReplyDeleteWith the particles getting sucked into the black hole, if a negative particle enters a black hole, it is not being destroyed. It is just inside a black hole. I do not believe particles are destroyed inside of there, just kept in the black hole to increase the energy therefore increasing the mass. If I fly a spaceship into a black hole, I do not disappear, I simply am ripped apart into small particles to become part of the black hole's singularity and make it stronger.
In the end, we are not creating or destroying matter, but creating other particles. Besides, when a particle and antiparticle annihilate, they form gamma rays, which is a form of energy. The matter and antimatter particles therefore must be ENERGY particles!
I think the particles that appear and disappear are matter, but when they disappear they are just seperating into even smaller particles that we are incapable of detecting.
ReplyDeleteNothing being created or Distroyed except larger and smaller materials. Like cotton turning into a shirt.
Shannon, when the particles annihilate they form gamma rays. At least that's what Stephen Hawking said in his book "The Universe In a Nutshell". I think that is a credible source.
ReplyDeleteThat's why the particles cannot be matter, because matter does not become energy (as far as I know...).
Dan, just because someone else has a theory doesn't mean it's true! That's the definition of a theory! I agree with Shannon, nothing can ever truly disappear. How unnatural that seems: particles randomly coming in and winking out of existence. It just doesn't make sense.
ReplyDeleteThat's true, it is a theory. However, if when two particles, a particle and it's antiparticle, collide to produce gamma rays, then doesn't it make sense that the two particles had to be energy particles?
ReplyDeleteThe splitting into smaller particles could make sense, but I guess we need a bigger microscope.
So if the particle and antiparticle cease to exist when they meet and, in the process, turn into gamma rays, you're claiming that the particles were never matter at all, just energy? Then what is matter? Is the universe made up of only energy formed into particles?
ReplyDeleteNot all antiparticles and particles are energy. Some are matter. According to the standard model of fundamental particles and interactions (I have a poster of it in my room which I got from Mr. Lindberg. If you didn't think I was a nerd before, you better believe it now.), an electron and a positron collide to produce two B-zero mesons which have no electric charge but do have a mass. Both the starting and ending products are made of matter. However, this great poster says that this process is transferred by a virtual photon. Virtual particles have no mass, but somehow have effects on "normal" particles.
ReplyDeleteYet these still follow the laws of conservation of mass and energy because they have neither of those. Weird stuff, if you ask me. These virtual particles can carry energy, but still do not violate conservation of energy because it is gaining this energy from another particle.
Strange, but could indeed make sense. Anyways, that is why when matter particles and antiparticles collide, they still do not violate conservation of mass. They just disappear for a small amount of time while this virtual particle takes its place. Maybe that is why in the infamous ball in the vacuum tube experiment, particles would still manage to appear. They got there via virtual particles, not violating conservation of energy or mass. Please note that the above mentioned process was for matter, not energy (as far as I know).