The authors attempt to reproduce the rotation of matter in a spiral galaxy using a modified version of the wormhole geometry, but their evidence takes the form of side-by-side graphs on vastly different axis scales. The Universe is a slippery little weasel: we are often surprised by new discoveries. However, the likelihood of wrongness increases with the grandiosity of the claim.
For large stable wormholes of the type claimed in this paper or the types in Interstellar , Contact , Deep Space Nine , and other science fiction we need to be wrong about a lot of different things that touch on several branches of fundamental science. We would need general relativity to be wrong in its own claims about itself, and we would need to fundamentally revise the way we interpret astronomical data.
Much as I love the idea of wormholes, I love the reliability of general relativity — and reality — more. Wormholes always seemed like an unnecessary complication in SF stories. Things that were science fiction decades and centuries ago are science fact today. One of the examples given in the article is warp drive.
By saying it will never happen diminishes the motivation to study the possibility. Maybe the concepts can be accommodated once general relativity and quantum physics are unified? Just a thought…I love this stuff! I agree with you on the fact that this peer review paper could be wrong, and probably is, however I am at a point where I would not dismiss anything based on previous theories and ideas.
Everyone can and will be wrong at some point. On the contrary, Einstein along with Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen discovered entanglement, but used it as an argument against quantum physics.
He could have been right, but the key was that he discussed testable consequences both of entanglement and its alternative. Admittedly the original test is probably impossible to do in practice, but others figured out a way to generalize it. Sign in. Thanks for reading Scientific American. Create your free account or Sign in to continue.
See Subscription Options. Go Paperless with Digital. What Is a Wormhole? Now the big question—do wormholes really exist? Is Astrology Real? It could be that a new-and-improved understanding of gravity would reveal that you don't need negative-mass matter at all, and that stable, traversable wormholes are A-OK.
A pair of theorists at Tehran University in Iran published a new investigation of wormholes to the preprint database arXiv. They applied some techniques that allowed them to study how quantum mechanics might alter the standard general relativity picture.
They found that traversable wormholes might be allowed without negative-mass matter, but only if the entrances were stretched a little bit from pure spheres.
While the results are interesting, there is one catch. These hypothetical traversable wormholes are tiny. As in, extremely tiny. And that means the traveler can't be any bigger than that. While limited, the new research does open a tiny crack in the feasibility of wormholes that could be opened with further work.
And then maybe TV show writers won't have to gloss over any technicalities anymore. Paul M. Originally published on Live Science. Live Science. View Deal. And there's some more bad news on the space-exploration side: Wormhole travel will probably remain a mere sci-fi dream for a very long time, if not forever, Stojkovic said.
To create a huge wormhole that's stable, you need some magic. Follow him on Twitter michaeldwall.
0コメント