PDA

View Full Version : Supermassive black holes may be wormholes?



MVAgusta1078RR
2014-Jun-16, 04:49 AM
Just saw this in the news. The GRAVITY telescope will try to see if Sagittarius A is a wormhole.
I thought the difference between a wormhole and a black hole is that you can pass freely back and forth through a wormhole while it's open whereas a black hole nothing escapes. So if Sagittarius A was a wormhole why would it be observed to have immense gravity?

http://www.engadget.com/2014/05/20/new-telescopes-could-uncover-a-wormhole-in-our-own-galaxy/

http://www.engineering.com/DesignerEdge/DesignerEdgeArticles/ArticleID/7633/New-Telescope-Could-Confirm-the-Existence-of-Wormholes.aspx

http://news.discovery.com/space/galaxies/is-our-galaxys-monster-black-hole-a-wormhole-140527.htm

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/05/the-supermassive-black-hole-candidates-at-the-center-of-every-normal-galaxy-might-be-wormholes-created-in-the-early-univers.html

Thanatos
2014-Jun-16, 07:02 AM
Where do you get the exotic matter necessary to keep a worm hole stable?

WayneFrancis
2014-Jun-16, 07:09 AM
worm holes don't "freely" let you pass back and forth. Worm holes are highly speculative and never been observed. Our understanding of them comes from the maths of GR and for one to remain open there would need to be highly specific conditions. One of the articles you provided and I glanced at even mentions this. I fear this is just pop-sci publications just being pop-sci publications.

Cougar
2014-Jun-16, 12:40 PM
I thought the difference between a wormhole and a black hole is that you can pass freely back and forth through a wormhole while it's open whereas a black hole nothing escapes.

Here is the paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1883) those articles are talking about. Basically, the paper says the size of the wormhole photon capture radius projected on the observer sky should be about half the BH one, according to calculations. Therefore, with careful observations, you can tell if our supermassive BH is one or the other. Those careful observations have not yet been made.

MVAgusta1078RR
2014-Jun-17, 09:25 AM
Here is the paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1883) those articles are talking about. Basically, the paper says the size of the wormhole photon capture radius projected on the observer sky should be about half the BH one, according to calculations. Therefore, with careful observations, you can tell if our supermassive BH is one or the other. Those careful observations have not yet been made.

That's how they will be able to differentiate whether it is a supermassive black hole or a wormhole but I'm wondering would a wormhole still act like a supermassive black hole. Sagittarius A still has 4 million solar masses, so wormholes have gravity characteristics of black holes? I mean hypothetically speaking if it was discovered from the GRAVITY and Event Horizon telescopes that it was a wormhole, yet we thought all this time it was a giant black hole so I'm saying wormholes have gravity where light can't escape like a black hole? And also huge amounts of mass in a very small area?

Whenever I hear about wormholes or even using them to travel one day from physicists like Stephen Hawking or Michio Kaku etc. The wormholes never sound like they'd have the characteristics of a black hole. That the wormhole would crush you to smaller than an atom.

MVAgusta1078RR
2014-Jun-17, 09:28 AM
Where do you get the exotic matter necessary to keep a worm hole stable?
We'd have to ask nature that if it is discovered that Sagittarius A is really a wormhole and not a black hole.

MVAgusta1078RR
2014-Jun-17, 10:02 AM
worm holes don't "freely" let you pass back and forth. Worm holes are highly speculative and never been observed. Our understanding of them comes from the maths of GR and for one to remain open there would need to be highly specific conditions. One of the articles you provided and I glanced at even mentions this. I fear this is just pop-sci publications just being pop-sci publications.

This isn't pop-sci, here is an article from the ESO, they have built a telescope to find out whether SMBH are wormholes:

http://pttu.hq.eso.org/blogs/posts/view/324958/

"In particular, astronomers are building an infrared interferometer called GRAVITY at the Very Large Telescope Interferometer in the Atacama desert of northern Chile. This device will be capable of resolving clouds of plasma around Sagittarius A*and spotting the unique signature of a wormhole, if one is there."

WayneFrancis
2014-Jun-18, 02:08 AM
Don't get me wrong. Scientists will investigate these issues but the pop-sci periodicals often blow the science up to imply more then it really does. We can test the Mar's atmosphere for oxygen that doesn't mean the head line of "Scientists think plants might be alive today on Mars" is an accurate description of the science being done. Again I just glanced at 2 of the articles.
What we have happening here is a tool that can give us a much finer measurement. These measurements can rule out certain things based on certain models. Since this tool's purpose is to make measurements on SMBH's then pointing it ours first makes sense. Even if it gets measurements that a theoretical worm hole could fall in the range of that doesn't mean our SMBH is now a SMWH. It means more science needs to be done. But that doesn't sound as sensational as "Possible giant wormhole at the centre of our galaxy might allow time travel!"

Even the first article's title "New telescopes could uncover a wormhole in our own galaxy" isn't accurate. It should read "New telescope may lend evidence to wormhole in our galaxy". We had lots of "evidence" to the object at the centre of our galaxy being a SMBH before it was really accepted and I'm personally not sure how that evidence also works with it being a worm hole.

WayneFrancis
2014-Jun-18, 05:38 AM
Don't get me wrong. Scientists will investigate these issues but the pop-sci periodicals often blow the science up to imply more then it really does. We can test the Mar's atmosphere for oxygen that doesn't mean the head line of "Scientists think plants might be alive today on Mars" is an accurate description of the science being done. Again I just glanced at 2 of the articles.
What we have happening here is a tool that can give us a much finer measurement. These measurements can rule out certain things based on certain models. Since this tool's purpose is to make measurements on SMBH's then pointing it ours first makes sense. Even if it gets measurements that a theoretical worm hole could fall in the range of that doesn't mean our SMBH is now a SMWH. It means more science needs to be done. But that doesn't sound as sensational as "Possible giant wormhole at the centre of our galaxy might allow time travel!"

Even the first article's title "New telescopes could uncover a wormhole in our own galaxy" isn't accurate. It should read "New telescope may lend evidence to wormhole in our galaxy". We had lots of "evidence" to the object at the centre of our galaxy being a SMBH before it was really accepted and I'm personally not sure how that evidence also works with it being a worm hole.