This new equation might finally unite the two biggest theories in physics, claims physicist

If they only exist in fiction, then they do not exist in fact.

I think you're just funnin' around here, but still...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not your fault, those who are proposing such absurdities also cannot.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Many aspect of physics is not explained, and they have been explained to you before.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But I don't mind repeating myself.
We don't know why or how the BB banged...we don't know why or how curved spacetime exhibits what we see as gravity.....but you deny those things also and substitute your spaghetti monster of the gaps.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@ paddoboy:

The following excerpt is quoted verbatim from the reference you posted; the red highlight is by me:

Do you see the flaw in the speculation? It effectively makes it impossible to create let alone sustain such a "wormhole"; except in unreal science fiction/fantasy scenarios, and in such pop-sci publish-or-perish publications and musings by such as the author in your above reference----and, of course, such as Susskind's publicized ER=EPR philosophical irrelevancies.

Paddoboy, seeing how enthusiastic and ferocious you have been in this discussion re rationalizations for such an irrelevance as ER=EPR, one might be tempted to think you may be a "publicist" of some kind, pushing such non-science and/or pop-sci 'offerings', much like Bicep2 publicists did with that particular non-science 'offering'.

Anyway, paddoby, I trust that you will now see, from your own referenced content, that the pre-requisite belief in the possibility of "pulling apart" two Black Holes is just a tad delusional unless one recognizes that one is talking science-fantasy from start to finish re the 'possibility' of the string of impossible requirements for the wormhole etc 'scenario' of this thread OP 'idea'.

Anyway, thanks for your kind attention. Best.

 

The following is the paper that Professor Susskind referred to and as part of the equation that he derived.......
http://journals.aps.org/pr/pdf/10.1103/PhysRev.48.73

The Particle Problem in the General Theory of Relativity A. EINsTEIN AND N. RosEN, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton (Received May 8, 1935) The writers investigate the possibility of an atomistic theory of matter and electricity which, while excluding singularities of the field, makes use of no other variables than the g&„of the general relativity theory and the p„of the Maxwell theory. By the consideration of a simple example they are led to modify slightly the gravitational equations which then admit regular solutions for the static spherically symmetric case. These solutions involve the mathematical representation of physical space by a space of two identical sheets, a particle being represented by a "bridge" connecting these sheets. One is able to understand why no neutral particles of negative mass are to be found. The combined system of gravitational and electromagnetic equations are treated similarly and lead to a similar interpretation. The most natural elementary charged particle is found to be one of zero mass. The manyparticle system is expected to be represented by a regular solution of the field equations corresponding to a space of two identical sheets joined by many bridges. In this case, because of the absence of singularities, the field equations determine both the field and the motion of the particles. The many-particle problem, v;hich would decide the value of the theory, has not yet been treated.

 

Oh, so BB banging and why worm hole black holes do not merge...are questions of the same league ? BRainy stuff from Paddoboy.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

People were saying that about the predictions of GR in 1916 and the immediate following years... Perhaps you need to read some reputable material, as whever you are getting your material from is just unsupported hypotheticals.

In essence and again, "No physicist has ever said that wormholes categorically do not exist"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

When you can show me different, then you'll be worth listening to and finally add some credibility to your posts.

 

and why curved/warped spacetime exhibits gravity

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

yet you deny all!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

@ paddoboy:

You appear to be evading the crucial point, paddoboy. Here it is again: "pulling apart" two Black Holes is pop-sci-fantasy talk, not serious science.

Paddoboy, are you seriously suggesting that it will someday be possible to "pull apart" two BHs? Just because some things discussed in prior opinions as impossible have since been found possible, there are still things that have always been and shall remain physically impossible according to the science, irrespective of opinion.

OK? Thanks. Best.

PS: By the way, paddoby, every time you repeat to Schmelzer that mantra of "space tells matter how to move; matter tells space how to curve", you are effectively acknowledging the ether properties of space, and inadvertently therefore supporting his ether approach to the physical theory. You may want to reconsider your catchy mantra when dismissing Schmelzer's ether theory work in progress. Best.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sure I am! Like refusing to supply any link, citation or reference to support what I say.....or to at least give a hint of my qualifications since I'm basically disputing most of accepted mainstream cosmology.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

then funnily enough, claiming I am Atheist!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Do better my old mate! I evade nothing, I don't need to!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm suggesting in general, your posts are getting more nonsensical as you try more to impress.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Two BH's cannot of course be pulled apart, as once they are merged they become one...Why would you even fabricate such nonsense?
Whereas if the two mouths of a wormhole were to collide, my best guess is that after the collision identical mouths would [1] simply merge as per colliding BH's and as per the aLIGO discovery, or [2]Upon merging the wormhole’s shape would be something like the three-dimensional generalization of the surface of an eye screw......A traveler could enter the single mouth of the wormhole, travel the length of its interior region, and exit the mouth only to discover that she is back where she started.
And of course I would see it as logical that gravitational waves would also result.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That makes about as much sense as you previously claiming you were a scientist.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Plus I doubt I have ever quoted that to Schmelzer, as as a professional, he would know that.
And it certainly does not support any ether at least of the kind he is supporting. It simply supports the fact that spacetime is warped/bent/curved,twisted in the presence of mass, and thereby exhibiting gravitational effects.

 

@ paddoboy:

You miss the point, paddoboy. The only references to link to re Hulse-Taylor studies/claims etc are the same ones you have linked to. The point is that those studies/papers are what I observe lack the proper exhaustive treatment of the real effects I explained to you are real. I cannot link to anything other than to the same references you linked to. I could not find any links to anything showing that they considered and quantified the effect I pointed out. That's why I asked if you had any such links that showed where they did properly quantify the real extreme effects I pointed to that seemed to be absent from all the Hulse-Taylor studies/papers I have read. Do you understand?

Paddoboy, I was quoting your own references re "pulling apart two Black Holes"! So that nonsense was no fabrication of mine!

How can you have missed that, paddoboy; to come back and incorrectly accuse me of 'fabricating' it? I despair sometimes at your unreliable reading and comprehension 'methodology', paddoboy.

But you are talking of "wormholes" that cannot exist in reality. Not least for the reason that "pulling two Black Holes apart" (to CREATE your imaginary "wormhole" in the first place) is itself not possible (as you've just acknowledged above). Can't you see that your rationales are circuitous and fantasy driven, all the way round that circuitous fantasy loop?

You've posted that mantra I quoted in many threads, paddoboy. It is your stock reply to those who question the ability of the abstract "spacetime" construct to deliver the final physical theory consistent with the full reality as distinct to the abstractions of theory concepts such as "spacetime". Anyway, Schmelzer already does recognize the aspects involved. I trust he also recognizes that "spacetime" is an abstract analytical and predicting tool, not a physical space related explanation of the actual properties and parameters of the space environment itself. Anyway, any phenomena that involve coupling the energy-mass perturbation features to the space itself must be some sort of ether having properties inherently that create and propagate those perturbation features as observed. The alternative view is that space is truly 'empty' and has no 'inherent properties'. In which case the problem of explaining motional/accelerational effects on energy-mass perturbation features will remain unresolved and effectively inexplicable for as long as we are constrained to the current "spacetime" abstract construct. That is a scientific and logical observation for your consideration paddoboy.

If you don't understand the actual subtleties and concepts distinctions involved in that observation, paddoboy, please don't come back with futile irrelevant incorrect assumptions about me personally or my scientific abilities; better to concentrate on improving your own end. Thanks. Best.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No, the nail has been hit fair square on the head. The point being the audacity of any unqualified Tom, Dick or Harry, that refuse to offer any citations, references, and/or links to support their hypothetical fairy tales.
What you point out is totally unscientific and invalid, and changes nothing in the greater [or lesser] scheme of things.
The H/T system and gravitational waves have been researched for 40 years by expert professionals,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Professor Susskind and all reputable links I have given, are making no claims as to any actual reality of what they are researching, as you and others appear confused about.
They are researching known speculative concepts with regards to future possibilities etc, and that's what science is all about.
They don't "pretend" or put on airs, or in any other way attempt some evangelistic approach as those now arguing against the fact here as follows:
No Physicists/cosmologist, will ever say categorically that worm holes do not exist.....unlikely, maybe, improbable, possibly, categorically impossible, no way yet.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That's where you once again fail.

Just more unsupported nonsense, as per your H/T hypothetical fairy tale.
if worm holes exist, they could have been formed at the first Planck instant post BB.
Again, while amateurs and lay people on a science forum may claim what they like, the fact remains that "no professional cosmologist, will ever say that worm holes categorically do not exist"

I understand far more than your own apparent agenda driven denials of 21st century cosmology seem to indicate.
And I support all I say with reputable papers and articles.
Your's and the god's denials of gravitational waves, gravitational lensing, red shift, DM, curved/warped spacetime, GR, etc etc is all simply unsupported fairy tale like rhetoric and spread across a science forum, of no great interest to the real professionals at aLIGO, NASA, ESA etc.

 

I am not "funnin' around here", DaveC426913.
Unlike some Members, I am very serious.

You are quite right, DaveC426913, Wormholes DO NOT EXIST in Physical Reality - or, as you put it - they DO NOT EXIST IN FACT.
However, wormholes DO EXIST as Plot devices in Science-Fiction ; they DO EXIST as objects of contemplative musings for fun or for curiosity ; they DO EXIST in wild speculative science ; also, they DO EXIST as manifestations in hypothetical constructs ; and of course wormholes can and DO EXIST in Mathematical exercises...as I quoted Dr. Matthew R. Francis explaining in my Post #23.

So, yes, DaveC426913, again, you are quite right when you point out that Wormholes DO NOT EXIST IN FACT...just as I stated so many Post back....wormholes do exist...as fictional entities in the examples given in the paragraph above...it is just that they DO NOT EXIST IN FACT in Reality !!!

Again, I am not "funnin" around here", DaveC426913, and cannot control whether or not you choose to "think" as much.
I freely admit to being constrained by my serious lack of knowledge and abilities with the composition of written language - hence my Posts are never and will never be perfect.

Regardless, I am quite sincere when I state that I joined SciForums ONLY to engage in Open, Earnest and Honest Discussions...not to be "funnin' around here"!

At any rate, DaveC426913, I can only concur with your statement : "If they only exist in fiction, then they do not exist in fact".
Which is why I quoted Dr. Matthew R. Francis expressing essentially those same sentiments way back in Post #23 - immediately preceding your "witty quip" missive towards Seattle...

 

No scientists as yet has been shown to categorically say that wormholes do not exist......unlikely?, maybe, improbable?, possibly, categorically impossible? no way yet.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

How is it germaine to the discussion? Here in the science forum.

I can tell you how many pancakes it takes to cover a doghouse, but this isn't the pets section, or the cooking section. It also isn't the science fiction section.

I think you're just filling space - making walla in an attempt to obfuscate paddoboy.

 

Fine, but this does not change the problem that popular journalism about fundamental physics is extremely low quality, and a shame. Admittedly popular journalism about such questions is an extremely difficult job - but if good popularization is not possible, one would better write nothing, but not such nonsense.

As if I would not distinguish hard experimental science and theories supported by evidence from theoretical speculations beyond established theories.

The difference is that we make different distinctions among the theoretical papers. You distinguish them by mainstream or not, I distinguish them by successful in solving known problems of theoretical physics or not.

You would not even recognize it if the authors would not use the e-word.

The difference between Plasma and you is that Plasma refers to hard science, you sometimes too, but to often to wild speculation. Of course, you are unable to distinguish reputable scientific sources, and it is not your fault, that the amount of pseudoscience in theoretical physics beyond the SM is high. That's why my recommendation to leave this domain uncommented in a science forum, until there is some real acknowledged progress.

 

Least expected is that one must be aware of context, before taking sides or making adverse comments. It is obvious that you are not aware what's going on here. It appears to be walla attempt on your part.

 

Paddoboy,

Its not right to drag semantics beyond certain point.

You don't know, worm hole is a mathematical aspect of GR, so no scientist who agrees with GR or who thinks his career is GR, will ever categorically say that WH cannot exist. Maths can produce absurd results, not necessary all workable. Worm Hole is one such absurdity.

 

Yet your own awareness is batting close to zero. You just fail to recognise that fact.

Again your obvious "walla" and other questionable aspects of your posts, do not detract from the fact now being discussed, ie, "No physicist has ever said that wormholes categorically do not exist"
Couple that with the one over-riding fact that you deny just about all 21st century cosmology, including gravitational waves, gravitational lensing, spacetime curvature, BH's etc, and its rather easy and logical to work out where you are coming from and your usual "god of the gaps" fiasco.

 

@ paddoboy:

The science is what matters, paddoboy, not the person. Why keep deferring to person instead of science methodology, paddoboy? However 'qualified' they may be, that person may be wrong (you've even had occasion to point that out before yourself about Einstein!).

And I can only offer the same relevant Hulse-Taylor studies/papers that you have, paddoboy. Be reasonable.

And they show my observation was correct. You haven't shown where any o=f those relevant Hulse-Taylor studies/papers properly exhaustively considered/quantified the (real not hypothetical) magnetic interaction effects I alluded to that may be a significant mechanism for the observed Hulse-Taylor Binary Orbital Period decay rates.

But that's exactly what my first post and its questions (not claims) addressed, paddoboy; as follows:

So you see that it was you that then came tearing up on your mighty mule attempting to bludgeon the discussion into the "us versus them" issue about any "claims" that they can physically exist. I merely pointed out the known science facts as to why they cannot physically exist. If you want to keep arguing that issue, then argue with the science itself I pointed out, and not keep repeatedly making and quoting irrelevant personal opinion-dependent assertions either way. Stick to the science, not to whatever scientists' personal philosophical stance re the issue of 'existence' in realms other than reality as discovered by the science.

Science is about objective investigation, not fantasy stories for children and adult pop-sci-fantasy buffs. Two totally different fields of endeavor, paddoboy. Learn to recognize when you've crossed the line from one to the other, paddoboy.

Who cares what any physicist's philosophical stance on possibility of existence or not is, paddoboy? Didn't you read where it is the science itself one should consult, regardless of the persons involved or their personal opinions either way? These two things are totally different, paddoboy. In this too, you should learn to defer to the science itself, not to the person or philosophical stances.

That string of "ifs" and "could haves" and BB Hypothesis-dependent "assumptions" are neither here nor there to science, paddoboy. I already pointed out the known science re Quantum theory and other physical and logical flaws in such a string of unscientific beliefs and assertions which deny the science. While you still wallow in personal and status fixations rather than actually acknowledging the science pointed out for your understanding of the difference between reality and fantasy exercises, paddoboy.

How can you claim that with a straight face, paddoboy!

You have been discovered as a pop-sci-fantasy aficionado fixated on 'characters' and 'plot devices' etc rather than the actual science itself. You've also been brought to an admission that more often than not you misunderstand or not understand or ignore what science you do read, even in your own links!----not to mention what James R, others, I and Prof Max Isi has pointed out re 'claims versus confirmation' etc aspects of the scientific methodology.

And will you please stop your arbitrary mischaracterization, paddoboy; and stop unscientifically implying that the act of scientific scrutiny, questioning and challenge is somehow 'automatically' (in your mind anyhow) a 'denial' thing. It isn't, paddoboy; it's what the science methodology dictates must happen as part of the science advancement process. Learn to tell the difference between scientific questioning and denial. Two totally different things which you seem to have conflated in your own biased and hostile approach to science discussion.

Thanks anyway for your kind attention, paddoboy. Best.