Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 51

Thread: Wormhole shortcuts

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    460

    Wormhole shortcuts

    Imagine a traveller breaking down in the middle of the Australian outback, say 100 miles from Alice Springs. That’s much too far to walk, but being an enterprising guy he decides he can take a shortcut - instead of taking the route “as the crow flies”, he can instead get to Alice Springs direct “as the worm tunnels”. After all, the Earth’s surface is curved, so the direct route is quicker.

    Sadly, of course, 100 miles is pretty much next-door compared to the size of the Earth, so the Earth’s curvature is pretty minimal at such a distance so our intrepid traveller would not actually save a tremendous amount of distance.

    So this is the question I have about wormholes. Assuming that such things exist and are traversable as portrayed that Interstellar movie, would they save that much distance? In books and the like, the idea is always presented with a sheet of paper folded over 180 degrees, so there’s a short distance for the “wormhole” to travel.

    Fine, except space appears to be very flat on a large scale - the paper is not folded. Suppose our Interstellar movie wormhole went only to the Andromeda galaxy - would it really be that much quicker, given that Andromeda is “pretty much next-door” to us compared to the size of the universe? Wouldn’t the universe being pretty flat rule out wormholes as shortcuts?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,940
    Quote Originally Posted by Ufonaut99 View Post
    Imagine a traveller breaking down in the middle of the Australian outback, say 100 miles from Alice Springs. That’s much too far to walk, but being an enterprising guy he decides he can take a shortcut - instead of taking the route “as the crow flies”, he can instead get to Alice Springs direct “as the worm tunnels”. After all, the Earth’s surface is curved, so the direct route is quicker.

    Sadly, of course, 100 miles is pretty much next-door compared to the size of the Earth, so the Earth’s curvature is pretty minimal at such a distance so our intrepid traveller would not actually save a tremendous amount of distance.

    So this is the question I have about wormholes. Assuming that such things exist and are traversable as portrayed that Interstellar movie, would they save that much distance? In books and the like, the idea is always presented with a sheet of paper folded over 180 degrees, so there’s a short distance for the “wormhole” to travel.

    Fine, except space appears to be very flat on a large scale - the paper is not folded. Suppose our Interstellar movie wormhole went only to the Andromeda galaxy - would it really be that much quicker, given that Andromeda is “pretty much next-door” to us compared to the size of the universe? Wouldn’t the universe being pretty flat rule out wormholes as shortcuts?

    There are so many theories about multiple varieties of wormholes, with no consensus on if or how they exist. We just don't have any solid data.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,940
    ine, except space appears to be very flat on a large scale - the paper is not folded. Suppose our Interstellar movie wormhole went only to the Andromeda galaxy - would it really be that much quicker, given that Andromeda is “pretty much next-door” to us compared to the size of the universe? Wouldn’t the universe being pretty flat rule out wormholes as shortcuts?
    It may be flat overall, but there is plenty of local curvatures. It just balances out to flat.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,565
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    It may be flat overall, but there is plenty of local curvatures. It just balances out to flat.
    Can you explain what you mean by “balancing out”? I’m not a physicist so it goes a bit over my head. Do you mean that there is negative curvature to balance the positive curvature around massive objects?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    As above, so below

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,940
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    Can you explain what you mean by “balancing out”? I’m not a physicist so it goes a bit over my head. Do you mean that there is negative curvature to balance the positive curvature around massive objects?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Some parts of space curve one way, some in another (due to gravitation, mainly) and given that it takes place roughly the same amount in all directions, it all adds up to about flat on large scales. It's like a textured wall (hate those things), there may be bumps but it's not a mountain range, it's a planar surface.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,565
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Some parts of space curve one way, some in another (due to gravitation, mainly) and given that it takes place roughly the same amount in all directions, it all adds up to about flat on large scales. It's like a textured wall (hate those things), there may be bumps but it's not a mountain range, it's a planar surface.
    I may be wrong about this, but when we say that the curvature is flat, I don't think we are talking about the curvature in a direction, but rather whether the universe is open (will undergo runaway inflation), or closed (so that it will recollapse), and that what we see seems to be very close to the critical density. Is that wrong?
    As above, so below

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,565
    Quote Originally Posted by Ufonaut99 View Post
    So this is the question I have about wormholes. Assuming that such things exist and are traversable as portrayed that Interstellar movie, would they save that much distance? In books and the like, the idea is always presented with a sheet of paper folded over 180 degrees, so there’s a short distance for the “wormhole” to travel.

    Fine, except space appears to be very flat on a large scale - the paper is not folded. Suppose our Interstellar movie wormhole went only to the Andromeda galaxy - would it really be that much quicker, given that Andromeda is “pretty much next-door” to us compared to the size of the universe? Wouldn’t the universe being pretty flat rule out wormholes as shortcuts?
    I may be wrong, because this is only something I have heard from other people, but although the universe appears to be flat in three dimensions, I think the argument is that, like the piece of paper that is flat in two dimensions but curved in three dimensions like the surface of the earth, there would be other dimensions, and so our universe could well be flat in the three dimensions that we see but curved in a higher dimension, and that the wormhole would allow you to cross that.
    As above, so below

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,940
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I may be wrong about this, but when we say that the curvature is flat, I don't think we are talking about the curvature in a direction, but rather whether the universe is open (will undergo runaway inflation), or closed (so that it will recollapse), and that what we see seems to be very close to the critical density. Is that wrong?
    Maybe. I interpreted "flat" as being like, as the OP said, curvature of space. But then I'm often wrong.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    460
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I may be wrong, because this is only something I have heard from other people, but although the universe appears to be flat in three dimensions, I think the argument is that, like the piece of paper that is flat in two dimensions but curved in three dimensions like the surface of the earth, there would be other dimensions, and so our universe could well be flat in the three dimensions that we see but curved in a higher dimension, and that the wormhole would allow you to cross that.
    Maybe. I interpreted "flat" as being like, as the OP said, curvature of space. But then I'm often wrong.
    And I'm often wrong, too Taking the good old rubber-sheet analogy, locally mass like planets, stars, galaxies, etc make "dimples" in the sheet, so in a way I could see how we could "tunnel" through the dimple that we're in to get to somewhere a bit quicker. However, these dimples aren't that great nor deep, so we wouldn't save much.

    On a larger scale, the rubber sheet extends out to (and presumably beyond) our observable universe. At this scale, the dimples are effectively too small to worry about - the sheet is to all intents and purposes flat, much as the surface of the earth is flat (around Alice Springs) if you ignore the small hollows. So my question is that at THIS scale, how would wormholes save you any appreciable distance?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,940
    Quote Originally Posted by Ufonaut99 View Post
    And I'm often wrong, too Taking the good old rubber-sheet analogy, locally mass like planets, stars, galaxies, etc make "dimples" in the sheet, so in a way I could see how we could "tunnel" through the dimple that we're in to get to somewhere a bit quicker. However, these dimples aren't that great nor deep, so we wouldn't save much.

    On a larger scale, the rubber sheet extends out to (and presumably beyond) our observable universe. At this scale, the dimples are effectively too small to worry about - the sheet is to all intents and purposes flat, much as the surface of the earth is flat (around Alice Springs) if you ignore the small hollows. So my question is that at THIS scale, how would wormholes save you any appreciable distance?
    The rubber sheet analogy does not correlate with the folded-paper analogy. You don't tunnel through a dimple.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,940
    Wormholes are not tunnels across space, but between spaces. They may take time to pass through (or may not, there's some argument about that) However, that transit time has no relation to how far apart the mouths of the tunnel are in normal space.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,940
    https://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...ugh-a-wormhole

    Infinite-Exotic-Region Wormhole (exotic matter distributed throughout space) ~ 1 hour
    Large-Exotic-Region Wormhole (exotic matter confined to large finite radius) >= 7 days
    Medium-Exotic-Region Wormhole (exotic matter loosely restricted to throat) ~ 200 days
    Small-Exotic-Region Wormhole (exotic matter closely restricted to throat) >= 0.7 seconds
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    460
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    The rubber sheet analogy does not correlate with the folded-paper analogy. You don't tunnel through a dimple.
    Ah, that's interesting, so looks like I've misunderstood something. What I thought was, taking the rubber sheet analogy, Earth would cause a dimple, like :

    rubber_sheet.jpg

    This sheet is 20x20 squares, with the planet dead centre. Let's say each square, if the sheet was flat, would be 1 unit of length. So launching a rocket from the bottom of the dimple to the outer edge would have to follow the sheet, so have to cover a distance of, say, 20 units (since the squares near the planet are "stretched").

    I always though wormholes were effectively "tunneling" from one part of the sheet directly to another part - in this case, a straight line from the bottom of the dimple up to the outer edge, so probably in this case being 15 units long.

    So is that a wrong idea?

    (ps, I appreciate that this assumes that space actually IS curved, and not just behaves as if curved. Actually, is this also important for whether wormholes are actually possible?)

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,940
    Quote Originally Posted by Ufonaut99 View Post
    Ah, that's interesting, so looks like I've misunderstood something. What I thought was, taking the rubber sheet analogy, Earth would cause a dimple, like :

    rubber_sheet.jpg

    This sheet is 20x20 squares, with the planet dead centre. Let's say each square, if the sheet was flat, would be 1 unit of length. So launching a rocket from the bottom of the dimple to the outer edge would have to follow the sheet, so have to cover a distance of, say, 20 units (since the squares near the planet are "stretched").

    I always though wormholes were effectively "tunneling" from one part of the sheet directly to another part - in this case, a straight line from the bottom of the dimple up to the outer edge, so probably in this case being 15 units long.

    So is that a wrong idea?

    (ps, I appreciate that this assumes that space actually IS curved, and not just behaves as if curved. Actually, is this also important for whether wormholes are actually possible?)
    It's wrong in that wormholes are not lines. A line crosses space, a wormhole skips it altogether. The mouths of a wormhole are basically touching each other.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    460
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Thanks for the link. I'll have some reading to do ... but drats, will have to happen after work now !

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,940
    Depending on the theory, some other estimates say it may take longer to travel through traversable wormholes than crossing physical light-years.

    If traversable wormholes even exist. If wormholes themselves even exist.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    633
    I'm not a fan of wormholes producing FTL travel but then I'm not a fan of FTL travel in general. Until/unless they can describe/explain the issues with causation I think it's fantasy. I suspect if we ever do find/create a transverseable wormhole then we will pop out the other end no quicker than the light distance between the ends. The trip may be shorter, but the external time will not be FTL.

    Although that's just my opinion it is bad science to ignore the contradictions that a theory creates. FTL produces contradictions that are often conveniently ignored, even by scientists.

    Of course, if I could get to my destination before I left it might solve my lateness issues.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,940
    Quote Originally Posted by Bearded One View Post

    Of course, if I could get to my destination before I left it might solve my lateness issues.
    Unless your trip takes longer than it would to cross the physical space. In which case you'd be even later!!
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,565
    Quote Originally Posted by Bearded One View Post
    I'm not a fan of wormholes producing FTL travel but then I'm not a fan of FTL travel in general. Until/unless they can describe/explain the issues with causation I think it's fantasy.
    Personally, I'm a fan, but I agree with you that they are most likely fantasy. But then again, I'm also a fan of Harry Potter.
    As above, so below

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Unless your trip takes longer than it would to cross the physical space. In which case you'd be even later!!
    That could be an interesting premise for a story - takes longer but can get you from A to B without going through the intervening space. A story about slower hidden travel could be bit different at least.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    8,582
    The wormholes in Orion's Arm are consistent with theory, particularly so since they were revised by a physicist a few years ago; they do have issues with causality, but there is a whole subset of wormholes which do not have such issues, simply because of the geometry of space-time. Here is a diagram that should explain why this is so.
    https://www.orionsarm.com/page/322
    So long as both mouths of a wormhole stay outside each other's future light cone, no causality problems can occur.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,942
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    That could be an interesting premise for a story - takes longer but can get you from A to B without going through the intervening space. A story about slower hidden travel could be bit different at least.
    I recall some science fiction story where the idea was they went into something like "subspace" or a different dimension, where the speed of light was different than our's. Of course the hope was the speed of light was faster in that dimension, but it was in fact slower.

    A little more seriously, yes, I like that idea, at least for a story. Imagine that travel through the wormhole is faster for those in the wormhole, but no faster for those outside of it. So one could travel to another planet quickly, by your perspective, but years would have passed in normal space. Would solve the paradox problem and give us interstellar travel.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,574
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    I recall some science fiction story where the idea was they went into something like "subspace" or a different dimension, where the speed of light was different than our's. Of course the hope was the speed of light was faster in that dimension, but it was in fact slower.

    A little more seriously, yes, I like that idea, at least for a story. Imagine that travel through the wormhole is faster for those in the wormhole, but no faster for those outside of it. So one could travel to another planet quickly, by your perspective, but years would have passed in normal space. Would solve the paradox problem and give us interstellar travel.
    (My Bold) I always assumed this to be the case anyhow?? This was always my understanding of how wormholes, warp-drive or any other FTL travel would work to eliminate causality paradoxes.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,942
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    (My Bold) I always assumed this to be the case anyhow?? This was always my understanding of how wormholes, warp-drive or any other FTL travel would work to eliminate causality paradoxes.
    But that is rarely (never?) how they are depicted in fiction.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,940
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    (My Bold) I always assumed this to be the case anyhow?? This was always my understanding of how wormholes, warp-drive or any other FTL travel would work to eliminate causality paradoxes.
    Most fictional FTL portrays the same time passage in normal space, as inside the wormhole/warp/hyperspace. Most popular SF (Star Trek, etc) is guilty of non-Einsteinian simultaneity. So commonly that most lay people assume it to be the case in theory, as well.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,574
    In my mind FTL is only ever going to be useful to the traveller, in that he/she can get somewhere much faster in their own time frame.

    So for example, a signal is sent at the speed of light from an initial point (A) , the receiver is 5 light years away at point (B). At the same time the signal is sent from point A a traveller goes through a worm-hole instantaneously to point B. At the exact moment the traveller arrives at point B (back to the initial reference frame) the sent signal is received. The traveller never arrives before the signal. For the traveller no time has passed but for the initial reference frame 5 years has gone by.

    Essentially the traveller steps out of the initial time frame then re-enters 5 years in the initial frame of reference's future.
    Last edited by cosmocrazy; 2019-May-29 at 02:41 PM.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,574
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    But that is rarely (never?) how they are depicted in fiction.
    Ah.. yes i see what you mean

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,940
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    In my mind FTL is only ever going to be useful to the traveller, in that he/she can get somewhere much faster in their own time frame but all other relative time frames remain within the laws of physics.

    So for example, a signal is sent from an initial point (A) at the speed of light the receiver is 5 light years away at point (B). At the same time the signal is sent from point A a traveller goes through a worm-hole instantaneously to point B. At the exact moment the traveller arrives at point B the initial signal is received. The traveller never arrives before the signal. For the traveller no time has passed but for the other reference frames 5 years has gone by.

    Essentially the traveller steps out of the initial time frame then re-enters 5 years in his/her future.
    So FTL would really be EAFAL: Exactly As Fast As Light.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,574
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Most fictional FTL portrays the same time passage in normal space, as inside the wormhole/warp/hyperspace. Most popular SF (Star Trek, etc) is guilty of non-Einsteinian simultaneity. So commonly that most lay people assume it to be the case in theory, as well.
    As I said in reply to Swift, I see your point.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,940
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    As I said in reply to Swift, I see your point.
    Yeah, I had posted that before I saw Swift's reply.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •