Could Supermassive Black Holes At The Center Of Galaxies Be Wormholes?

stop reading articles on websites with names like "i fucking love science" which grossly misinterpret experimental conclusions

>>6564877

POSTING IN A POPSCI THRAD!

>>6564890
>hur i cant follow links

http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1883

>>6564912
Shit science is based on more shit science.

Wormholes have no supporting objectively observable phenomena.

But sure, go ahead. Be a faggot touting a paper as evidence. That doesn't sound religious at all, faggot.

>>6564915
>Wormholes have no supporting objectively observable phenomena.
>help! I cant read paper or follow references!

http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.0047
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9409051
http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3306
http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.6084
http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.7170

>>6564920

So the idiot derps and posts more paper supporting his religious beliefs.

UNTIL THERE IS SOME OBSERVABLE PHENOMENA TO EXAMINE, IT -IS- A RELIGION, YOU STUPID TIT.

>>6564922
you dont really understand how physics works, do you?
>have theory
>derive experimentally verifiable/falsifiable observations
>see if experiments fit theory

we have the theory, the papers calculate the observations, and talks about how to get the experimental data.

thats how you prove/disprove is they are wormholes, do you think we are just going to look at the disks around it and go 'my god, i haven't done any math or modeling about this, but that looks like the result of a wormhole!'

are you that retarded excremental physicist that keeps posting in threads about shit that's over his head?

>>6564922
you are a fucking idiot. stop posting and read the article again.

>>6564926
You really don't get this whole"scientific method" thing, do you, you fucking mentally impaired gimp?

THERE IS NOTHING TO EXAMINE. PAPER IS NOT A PHENOMENA.

>you will beeeeeeleave in wurmholes. GALACTIC GOATSE DEMANDS IT!

Get fucked, you prawn.

>>6564937
i dont even understand what you are arguing anymore.

File: cbs.png (490KB, 744x689px) Image search: [Google]

490KB, 744x689px

>>6564926
>excremental physicist
heh, im calling them that from now on.

>>6564932
I read the paper. It could be useful. If we ever have a wormhole phenomena to examine, WOOHOO! Neato!

We could use the math for other things too. Awesome!

Until it happens that we have something to examine, some phenomena to investigate, it's a FUCKING RELIGION, YOU SLIME.

File: 2.jpg (25KB, 417x407px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 417x407px

>>6564915
>>6564922
>>6564948
>RELIGION PPFFFTTTTTFFFF

You keep using that word...

>>6564942
Black holes could only be a fuckhuge dimple in spacetime.

-CLAIMING- that they have wormholes is just mental masturbation.

>>6564955

YOU KEEP WAVING PAPER AND CLAIMING IT IS EVIDENCE!

YOU BELIEVE IT, BUT YE CAN'T -PROVE- IT!

>>6564963
I don't think anyone in this thread ever claimed the papers were de facto evidence, it was just posted for discussion. YOU are flipping out. It's only unprovable because we aren't close enough to a black hole to send a probe through, not because "IT'S UNPOSSIBRE" as you will claim.

>>6564963
so are you saying we cant detect the K? iron line from accretion disks around the black holes/worm holes at the center of galaxies?

>>6564983
Hay cocopuffs.

We are discussing it.

"Assuming wormholes" is shit.

>>6564990
That doesn't mean "wormhole: THAR!".

>>6564999
Then do some of your fancy ass "based" math and disprove them already. After all, the universe bows to math pretty much.

>>6565001
>the excremental evidence for wormholes do not mean wormholes
this is a pretty shitty troll

inb4
>hur get proven wrong and shout troll to think youve won
>hur think pointing out that you shouting troll will have me react in a specific way justifies that you shout troll
>hur implying that listing the possible responses to the sequence of events that can happen due to you posting my response to you shouting troll will mean you have won
>lol look how mad/autistic this faggot is he is listing a bunch of responses to try and cover all the things wrong with his post

>>6565002
>disprove them.

>GOD EXISTS

>PROVE ME WRONG

You have to prove "wormholes" first, idiot.

>>6565001
But that's what the papers are here for, take the first paper, it's talking about how the photon capture sphere is smaller for a wormhole than for a black hole, we can measure these (or some property from these) and thus determine if the black hole is in fact a wormhole. Or are you one of those "I've never seen an atom before, so they must be bullshit."

>>6565004
I will agree that it is an interesting phenomena, worthy of further examination.

>>6565008
That's not what the scientific method is about, idiot. You attempt to disprove what you are studying many many times just to make sure it's actually working/there/etc.

>>6565018
If there is nothing to observe, how the fuck can you have falsifiability? DERP.

>>6564877
wouldn't going through it mangle you to fuck anyway? what's the use?

>>6565026
But that the whole point, the first paper mentions this in it's abstract:
>"In a few years, the VLTI instrument GRAVITY will have the capability to image blobs of plasma orbiting near the innermost stable circular orbit of SgrA?, the supermassive black hole candidate in the Milky Way. The secondary image of a hot spot orbiting around a wormhole is substantially di?erent from the one of a hot spot around a black hole, because the photon capture sphere of the wormhole is much smaller, and its detection could thus test if the center of our Galaxy harbors a wormhole rather then a black hole."

Have you read (or even skimmed) any of the papers referenced so far?

>>6564922

It's ok that you dislike popsci bullshit threads, I dislike them too, but you're coming off as a turbo-asspie

>>6565011
We need to actually observe this "smaller photon capture sphere" at the center of our galaxy.

I have seen atoms with tools that allowed me to see them.

>>6565029
Have you shown ANYTHING that is observable evidence of wormholes? Anything AT ALL?

No.

Sillystrings and shit.

>>6565023
Only because we don't have a fucking black hole right next to the fucking moon you asswipe. If you are going to say every scientific experiment thast can't be conducted in the next 200 years because of tech restrictions are "unfalsifiable" then you can go bugger off.

>>6565034
>Have you shown ANYTHING that is observable evidence of wormholes? Anything AT ALL?

Not yet. still got to wait a couple of years for the results.

>>6565037
See? You're getting all emotional, because you KNOW wormholes are something you only believe in.

I have a good reason to be mad. Objectively observable evidence is paramount to good science, and for keeping out worthless popsci garbage.

>>6565038
I doubt we're going to find a wormhole in that crack, either.

>>6565041
I'm not so convinced either, but it seems reasonable so...

>>6565040
I don't even "believe" in wormholes, I'm just sick of you fuckers saying everything that can't be experimented on RIGHT NOW is unfalsifiable, as if tech has never advanced before.

>>6565052

I'm tired of popsci faggots waving their worthless papers about "space either" and "silly-strings".

>>6565054
String theory is a serious theory that attempts to tackle the form of matter at the planck scale, the "at present" smallest knowable length of things before measurements become negligible. How is understanding, or trying to understand, how reality is constructed at any point "useless"?

>>6564877
Who the fuck would think of something so stupid?
>from Fudan University, Shanghai
Well that explains it.

>>6565063
Even the person that came up with the idea for silly-strings said they're crap.

>>6565068
Citation needed asswipe. Just because the original creator doesn't like his creation doesn't mean the theory of multidimensional objects vibrating to make particles is totally bunk. It's like you can't fathom tweaking theories to see if they'll work in case they don't with your "rough draft" speculative idea.

>>6565068
>Even the person that came up with the idea for silly-strings said they're crap.
no he didnt, he said they are most likely will turn out to not be the correct theory of reality, but provides a good toy model to explore ideas with that will lead to the correct theory.

>>6565080
Ah!

That's right. Thanks, I was going nuts trying to find the article I read that in. My internet history is hueg.

>>6564948
>>6564922
>>6564915
from wormhole to religion, how much fedora you tip in 1 day?

The idea of wormholes never made sense to me.

So you warp an area of space, and then it suddenly connects to another region of space? Is there an actual reason within the context of general relativity that this makes sense?

Or is this just some artifact that arose from people taking the whole "bowling ball on a rubber sheet" analogy too seriously


Just using symmetry considerations it doesn't make sense to me. How can a single location in space be preferred for some "exit point" of a wormhole when a black hole has spherical symmetry (or at least azimuthal symmetry?)

Furthermore, why would anyone assume that such a "wormhole" is like a tunnel of any finite size.
From what I know about singularities it sounds more to me like any connection it makes through the universe would be infinitesimally thin.

>>6565404
>Is there an actual reason within the context of general relativity that this makes sense?
its what the math says.

>How can a single location in space be preferred for some "exit point" of a wormhole
i dont think there is any knowledge of where the wormhole connects to when created in GR, usually its just assumed that it goes 'somewhere', or that you have a wormhole connecting the 2 spaces you are working with already. in quantum mechanics there are ways to answer this but since we dont have a fully working quantum gravity its not certain which way to think about it is correct.

one of the more recent ideas is that a wormhole is the entanglement between 2 black holes, so if you want to make a wormhole between A and B, you make some entangled particles, send half to A and the other half to B, then collapse both groups into 2 black holes and you have a wormhole between the 2 points.

>why would anyone assume that such a "wormhole" is like a tunnel of any finite size.
usually its not, normally a wormhole pinches off sothat not even a photon could pass through it, or the wormhole stretches so fast that you could not travel through it even when going at the speed of light. special types of wormholes which contain enough negative energy to remain open can be constructed though.

>>6565404
>Futhermore, why would anyone assume that such a "wormhole" is like a tunnel of any finite size.

Because that's what the math says.

Wormholes have nothing to do with the rubber-sheet model; they're an actual spacetime metric, mathematically described by relativity.

>>6565435
neat

dumb question but would it be possible for wormholes to explain dark matter (gravity traveling through wormhole increases apparent mass of galaxy)

>>6565267
Depending on belief is the basis for religion.

That is why there are so many autistic faggots posting their opinions as facts.

Just like you just did, you autistic fuck.

>>6565435
>its what the math says.
>i dont think there is any knowledge of where the wormhole connects to when created in GR
But this is what I don't get.

How can the math tell you that a wormhole connects to another region of spacetime, without us having any knowledge whatsoever about where it goes?

Is it possible that the math doesn't literally say it, but people are just taking an educated guess that it hints at that?

>>6565477
>>6565477
The math says nothing whatsoever about how a wormhole actually FORMS; it just says that the arrangement of two regions of space connected by a wormhole is a valid solution of general relativity. It's not actually known if it's possible to convert a region of flat spacetime into one with a wormhole in it.

>>6565435
>its what the math says.


The math says it is possible. The same math says time travel into the past is not impossible too.

I don't see where it says it must happen or that it does happen, only that it -can- happen.

>>6565492
So, the universe might not create or allow wormholes at all.

>>6565463
>belief is the basis for religion
oh my.... how many fedora do you have?is this the result of being enlightened by your own intelligence? btw nice troll

>>6565499
yes

>>6565492
ah ok, now I think I get it, thanks a lot.

sort of the same logic behind the alcubiere drive, simply plugging in the final configuration is a solution to the equations, but the actual formation is a mystery

>>6564926
>theory

What you're describing is a hypothesis, not a theory.

>>6567488
general relativity is a theory, not a hypotheses.

>>6567488
>>6568296
If it's been tested upon, it's a theory. Otherwise, a thought experiment remains a hypothesis.