>A duo of theoretical physicists from Fudan University, Shanghai, has proposed a very intriguing hypothesis; supermassive black holes at the center of normal galaxies, including our own Milky Way, may not actually be black holes at all. Instead, they could be wormholes.
>Furthermore, wormholes could help to explain the conundrum that even young galaxies are equipped with objects that are believed to be supermassive black holes. These black holes should take a considerable length of time to achieve such size; therefore, theoretically they should not and cannot exist in new galaxies, according to the authors of this paper. Wormholes on the other hand could theoretically appear relatively quickly.
>However, it should also be able to reveal whether the wormhole prediction is correct because the orbiting plasma will look dramatically different dependent on whether the object is a wormhole or a black hole since wormholes would have much smaller photon capture spheres.
What do you think /sci/?
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.
>Wormholes have no supporting objectively observable phenomena.
>help! I cant read paper or follow references!
you dont really understand how physics works, do you?
>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?
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.
heh, im calling them that from now on.
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.
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.
>the excremental evidence for wormholes do not mean wormholes
this is a pretty shitty troll
>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
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."
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?
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.
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.
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.
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"?
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.
>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.
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.
>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.
>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.
>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?
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.
>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.
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