It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Black Holes and Wormholes for dummies..

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Hey everybody, I've been delving into some research on black holes, the possibility of wormholes mathematically, and the potential benefits of somehow traversing a wormhole safely.

While I'm sure no one in the world fully understands these mathematically complex occurrences, especially myself, I was wondering if someone more familiar with the formulas at hand could "dumb it down" if you will, so myself and the rest of the non-math-savvy ATS viewers would be more apt to understand.

Basically what I've gathered is that when a star collapses upon itself, the matter it was once composed of still exists, because matter cannot be created or destroyed, and a black hole is ripped in space/time so the matter has somewhere to go. When a black hole lines up with another opening in space elsewhere, a wormhole is created. If humans could safely traverse a wormhole, there would be tremendous benefits including possible time travel and shortcuts through space/time which would cut travel time and make intergalactic travel possible.

I realize that I have a simple understanding of the subject, but that's the reason for the post!


Realize that I am not looking for complex mathematical formulas, but more along the lines of a more detailed layman's explanation.




posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Quasars are similar, except the effects of such can usually be seen. one of the few things i know about black holes is that they are really loud.

I cant even pretend to understand the math, I guess i need to go to the library or something



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by mw23224
 


You're assuing that a space-time model of the universe is right. Which it cannot be if you take into account every possible perspective in the universe instead of just two (like einstein did). A model of space-time violates light source integrity in that it says only the light you see can be acceptable as the present while a perspective in another galaxy won't see your "present light" for a couple thousand years. Since our perception of "time" is based on light and where it comes from, this idea doesn't hold up.

Math doesn't necessarily prove anything if it is a backwards engineered equation. If you provide a false answer on the other side of the equal sign, your equation will add up to it but not necessarily the actual context of the universe you tried to describe.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   
From my understanding, blackholes don't rip space/time so matter doesn't actually go anywhere. It's just massively compressed which merely hides the object from sight due to gravity which prevents light from escaping the event horizon.

Wormholes is just science fiction.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by mw23224
 





matter cannot be created or destroyed

That is incorrect. It is energy that cannot be destroyed. It changes frequency to assume the likeness of matter.
When matter is destroyed, it released the energy trapped within.
As far as the creation of energy goes, no one knows exactly where it comes from, so there is no way of knowing how and if it can be created.

As far as a black hole punching a hole in reality, that is plausible if, string and M theory is correct.
There may exist a number of quantum membranes that exist, in multiple dimensions, merely millimeters from out very own dimension, relatively speaking. So the enormous gravitational pull, may indeed rupture fabric of space time. The event horizon acts like a band aide to this effect, keeping the tear from expanding.
A lot of the graphical representations of the black holes, or gravity depressions, are like a marble in a sheet, ever making a deeper impression.
While this is adequate, we need to understand that our reality is not a 2 dimensional representation. The depression occurs in 3 and 4 dimensions, perhaps more. Imagine the 2 dimensional representation, circling around the singularity, occupying all available 3 dimensional space within the event horizon. Kind of like a donut.
Now imagine this donut persisting in time and moving throughout the universe, trailing a path of distortion along the way.




[edit on 11/6/2009 by reticledc]

[edit on 11/6/2009 by reticledc]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Here is what I do not get. Scientists say that a singularity existed before the big bang where all matter and energy was compacted into this super concentrated form.

How is that different from a black hole? Is a black hole not a super compaction of matter/energy? Gravity compacting matter so tightly together that it pulls itself into a singularity?

I just do not get it. If all matter/energy WAS compacted into a singularity before the big bang it would BE a black hole right? So there would BE no matter to expand in a Big Bang at all? How extremely far off and wrong am I on this lol.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by yizzel and mw23224
 


You are correct in the fact that Black Holes are not 'rips' in spacetime, but rather singularities of near infinite mass with a finite density. Worm Holes however are not scifi and have been postulated by many and there are many leading theories that state they MUST exist.


Explanation of Black Holes and Wormholes

A Black Hole is presumably (by current mathematical formulas and observations of astronomy) a near infinite mass singularity in which the curve of spacetime becomes infinite, there is no rip, only and infinite curve. In this sense we can analogize this to say you have a piece of paper, you draw a dot on on edge labeled "A", you draw a dot vertically on the other edge labeled "B", now instead of drawing a straight line from the two points you bend the paper and conjoin the two points, this is DIRECTLY analogous to the points 3 dimensional points that make up the spherical singularity of a Black Hole, except that because of the infinite nature of the mass and thus the gravitational curve on space time the points never meet (this is hard to explain without mathematical formulas because this involves complex multi dimensional models of spacetime).

Now with a Worm Hole we have two conjoined throats of two separate Black Holes, except the matter stream from one forces energy OUT from the other (instead of in), in this analogy let us take the piece of paper again; Now let us assume that point "A" is a Black Hole, and "B" is the White Hole, the curve represented by the folding of the paper is the CONJOINED throats of the two holes. There is no rip in spacetime, simply a extreme gravitational curvature to such an extent that vast distance of space and time (spacetime) are covered in a short disctance (paper analogy). Here are some links for further research on the different types of Worm Holes postulated by Einstein, Hawking, and others:

www.krioma.net...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.orionsarm.com...

physics.suite101.com...

www.orionsarm.com...

www.gracebconline.org...

Now let us also keep in mind that there are also several types of Black Holes....

en.wikipedia.org...
That should get you started...

Here is some more, more complex links..
www.faculty.iu-bremen.de...

www.aei.mpg.de...


Here is an illustration of two conjoined throats of two opposed Black Holes, with the football shaped object being the connection point between the two singularities and thus the 'subspace corridor'....


www.newscientist.com...


This old thread of mine might help as well: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also this article on Quantum Worm Holes...www.newscientist.com...



[edit on 6/12/2009 by jkrog08]

[edit on 6/12/2009 by jkrog08]



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by reticledc
 


Yes but E=MC^2 , states that matter is energy, there are two separate laws, the Law of Conservation of Energy and the Law of Conservation of Matter.......They both are one in the same.



The law of conservation of mass/matter, also known as principle of mass/matter conservation is that the mass of a closed system will remain constant, regardless of the processes acting inside the system. A similar statement is that mass cannot be created/destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space, and changed into different types of particles. This implies that for any chemical process in a closed system, the mass of the reactants must equal the mass of the products. This is also the main idea of the first law of thermodynamics.

en.wikipedia.org...

The law of energy conservation...


The law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant. A consequence of this law is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. The only thing that can happen with energy in an isolated system is that it can change form, for instance kinetic energy can become thermal energy. Because energy is associated with mass in the Einstein's theory of relativity, the conservation of energy also implies the conservation of mass in isolated systems (that is, the mass of a system cannot change, so long as energy is not permitted to enter or leave the system).


en.wikipedia.org...

Both....


The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less.

www.cartage.org.lb...

Helpful link: web.jjay.cuny.edu...


Mass and energy relationship according to Einstein..


In physics, mass–energy equivalence is the concept that mass and energy are the same thing, so that every mass has an energy equivalent and vice versa. This relationship is expressed using the formula


where

E = energy
m = relativistic mass
c = the speed of light in a vacuum (celeritas), (about 3×108 m/s)
Expressed in words: energy equals mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. Because the speed of light is a very large number in everyday units, the formula implies that any small amount of matter contains a very large amount of energy. Some of this energy may be released as heat and light by nuclear transformations.

Mass–energy equivalence was proposed in Albert Einstein's 1905 paper, "Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content?", one of his Annus Mirabilis ("Miraculous Year") Papers.[1] Einstein was not the first to propose a mass–energy relationship, and various similar formulas appeared before Einstein's theory with incorrect numerical coefficients and an incomplete interpretation. Einstein was the first to propose the simple formula and the first to interpret it correctly: as a general principle which follows from the relativistic symmetries of space and time.

In the formula, c2 is the conversion factor required to convert from units of mass to units of energy. The formula does not depend on a specific system of units. Using the International System of Units, joules are used to measure energy, kilograms for mass, meters per second for speed. Note that 1 joule equals 1 kg·m2/s2. In unit-specific terms, E (in joules) = m (in kilograms) multiplied by (299,792,458 m/s)2.


en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 6/12/2009 by jkrog08]



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
Worm Holes however are not scifi and have been postulated by many and there are many leading theories that state they MUST exist.


You are correct. However in practical terms using wormholes to traverse the universe is only feasible in sci-fi shows.

en.wikipedia.org...

Worm Holes General relativity describes the possibility of configurations in which two black holes are connected to each other. Such a configuration is usually called a wormhole. Wormholes have inspired science fiction authors because they offer a means to travel quickly over long distances and even time travel. In practice, such configurations seem completely unfeasible in astrophysics, because no known process seems to allow the formation of such objects.


Imo, figuring out faster than light travel would be a piece of cake compared to manipulating blackholes to configure them to produce stable wormholes.

Never the less, jolly interesting subject. Off to sus-out those links.. and your Superluminal Propulsion thread looks interesting.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Thanks a lot for the replies everybody, they're insanely helpful and I've been reading up. What I'm getting out of this is that theoretically wormhole travel is possible provided that we have the means to sustain the proper quantity of negative energy inside a black hole to hold the wormhole open (which we don't). It is rather hard to fathom alternate dimensions because our perception of the world is three-dimensional, but now I see that black holes curve space-time according to Einstein's explanation and form a singularity of matter with a mass approaching infinity, no volume, and a fixed density.

Anything you think I'm missing?



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Impress your physics teacher and tell him that black holes don't exist.

Tell him Einstein never believed in them and wrote papers showing how such an object would be in direct violation of his principles of relativity. Einstein's paper falsifying black holes is called "On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses"

It can be found here:
www.jstor.org...

Tell him Einstein fully agreed with Shchwarzchild's solution to his mercury orbit problem and that Shchwarzchild's original solution leaves no room for black hole physics. The Shchwarzchild radius was derived from work done by a man named Hilbert.

Shchwarzchild's original paper, in English, that leaves no room for black holes can be found here:
www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com...

Hilberts physics are nothing more than junk psuedoscience.

For a detailed explanation see this site:
www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com...



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Well I would if I had taken physics yet, but I am in high school and I will be taking it next year. Maybe I'll let him/her know!

Why so many explanations of different types of black holes and how they function if it is your claim that they do not exist?



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by mw23224
 


No. A black hole is simply a 3d sphere that is just like a star but cannot shine due to gravity. Wormholes are improbable and greatly unlikely, however large quantum probability waves passing through a black hole can create a quantum tunnel, which can be a wormhole per say, but cannot allow large amounts of mass to pass. In the future, manipulation of gravity and quantum probability will enable the construction of teleporters.

A black hole, however, is nothing more than a very very deep valley in space time. Time itself is paused, to our relativity. If you were within a device that could enter a black hole and it was possible to see the rest of the universe, it would be going by faster. A second to you would be billions of years to the universe.

But no, black holes do not teleport mass. They evaporate over time and dissolve into gamma rays, x rays, and other rays. Black holes do not trap mass, they simply keep it close until the matter gets to the poles of the black hole and is spit out. A black hole has an equator where mass is sucked in, and poles where it is spit out. All they are is mass to energy converters. Mass entered is spit out in equal amounts of energy




[edit on 16-6-2009 by Gorman91]

reply to post by jkrog08
 


Bare in mind that that model has been becoming outdated. That is gravity on a 2d imaginary plane. In reality gravity is a 3d sucking item. The more research done, the more we see how, although possible, it is not likely they could exist. It's odd, because we are prone to imagining space in 2d from school books. But it's 3d. The energy required to bend the entire universe over itself so that the wormhole could be made would require more energy than exists in the universe itself. The universe is just a blob, not a 2d plane. Wormholes simply are not possible because they require that the poles of a black hole teleport, but as we have found, they do not. All matter entering a black hole exits at its pole. This is why no evidence for them exists, because in all the universe there are no white holes. They would be so bright that they could easily be seen. But nope, they do not.

[edit on 16-6-2009 by Gorman91]



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


I respectfully disagree with that postulate. I do not think that it would require infinite energy to create an infinite curvature of spacetime. I think that right now the curvature and shape of the Universe is VERY much in doubt. I disagree with the latest findings and agree with physicist like Dr. Kaku that the Universe is so slightly curved and is actually a VERY large bubble, or sphere. I think that a black holes gravitational effects are limited to a certain region, yes. Although the curve can still be considered infinite because it is constantly extending itself onto more spacetime manifolds. But the difference b/w worm holes are that (IMHO) in certain cosmological conditions the curvature of spacetime encounters conditions that cause the curvature to reciprocate outward and thus shoot the matter stream through it. I believe this is directly related to ambient gravity present at the black holes reciprocal site (the site where its curvature of spacetime is maximum). Why haven't worm holes been observed? Well some think they have been, but mainly the reason is (again IMHO) that they only exist for seconds or less before the created corridor collapses on itself because the excess mass intake and gravitational effects. So IMHO the only way to maintain a stable worm hole is with negative energy by an artificial or very rare and as of yet unobserved natural construct.


I would best relate the collapse of the spacetime corridor and thus worm hole to the sudden entropic equilibrium caused by extreme gravitational forces(caused by excess mass exerted on this corridor) within a temporary supersymmetric spacetime corridor. It is best represented by the following illustration...



The throat is the corridor I am talking about...


The sudden influx of matter, combined with the exposure to the opposite vacuum environment on the outside causes the near instantaneous collapse of the throat. This was postulated by Einstein and Nathan Rosenberg, his apprentice.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 02:12 AM
link   
My own rather simplistic belief is anything with enough gravity to to trap light is a black hole I personally don't believe humans will ever discover what is below the event horizon should we ever get that close to one I just can't see how we would get that data although I'm sure we will have lots of equations and they will likely be good enough.

My thinking is it's just a very very dense compressed clump of matter I'm sure it warps space in all kinds of interesting ways but as for wormholes and similar I doubt it and if they did lead anywhere it would probably be right to another black hole (or the same one more than likely).



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Teknikal
 


I just think it's insane (in a good way) that theoretical physics in modern science have the capability to postulate completely unknown things about space. While there is no current way to prove or test these theories, and there probably will not be a way for thousands of years, I find it fascinating that scientists can so accurately predict such phenomenon as black holes purely through mathematical formulas.

I don't think I would ever be able to be a theoretical physicist, as the math is much too complex for my liking, but I love the idea of it.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


I once took the time to really seriously contemplate how negative matter/energy could exist. The only problem is that such a thing in and of itself wouldn't be stable. Think about it. The only reason matter stickies to itself now is either gravity or electromagnetic forces. negatives of this would just cause the matter to explode on itself. What holds normal matter together would be repelling forces (and those repulsing forces being what would keep a wormhole's throat open). The thing is, it would just collapse the instant it would exist.

Now that said, a lot of characteristics of matter, at its core, are from its spin. if we do discover the "graviton" one day, it will probably be defined by its spin, so reversing this might cause the opposite of gravity. This is what would be useful in such a situation. The reverse of gravity would be your negatives of what you look for. There's no way to make negative energy or mass because reversing the spin, the primary means of characterizing matter, would result in anti matter, not negative matter.

Negative matter I just can't imagine existing because it can't sustain itself. But reverse spinning gravitons might be what you seek.

In which case, now that my 3d software finally works again, I can animate the results for you. Expect that soon.



reply to post by Teknikal
 


We could. You just need something to protect from the forces of gravity, and you could go right ahead into the black hole. The problem is that the rest of the universe would zoom by at faster relativity. By the time you got to the inside of a black hole, the universe would be dead, or the black hole would have evaporated.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers
Here is what I do not get. Scientists say that a singularity existed before the big bang where all matter and energy was compacted into this super concentrated form.

How is that different from a black hole? Is a black hole not a super compaction of matter/energy? Gravity compacting matter so tightly together that it pulls itself into a singularity?

I just do not get it. If all matter/energy WAS compacted into a singularity before the big bang it would BE a black hole right? So there would BE no matter to expand in a Big Bang at all? How extremely far off and wrong am I on this lol.



no it would not be a black hole. . . . it has already been explained that a black hole is a star of certain size collapsed below a certain radius making it incredibly dense with incredible gravity not allowing light to escape. . . a better name for balck hole would be "dark star" which i believe is what they originaly were called

the singularity before the big bang exsisted out side of space-time. . . . space and time are a result of the singularities exspansion. . . so if theres no space time and no light and nothing but an infinitely hot dense whatever it cannot be a black hole as there is nothing to warp or tear or gravitationaly influence

or if you prefer a more proper answer




The Big Bang singularity is a point of zero volume, but very high mass, which makes the density infinite. This singularity contained all of the matter and energy in the Universe. The initial moment of the cyclopean explosion very well remains a mystery — however, astronomers and physicists believe that after the tiniest fraction of a second, the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force separated, which probably caused the Universe to begin inflating. The Big Bang itself created space, time, and all of the matter and energy we know today.
Black hole singularities are created after the core of a very massive star collapses beyond an imaginary sphere called the event horizon. Since these singularities are infinitesimally small, they possess infinite density.

The differences are that black hole singularities, of course, do not contain all of the matter and energy in the Universe because there are so many of them. There was only one Big Bang singularity, and it contained the whole Universe. Another difference is that space and time were born from the Big Bang singularity, and black holes actually stretches out space to the point where it probably rips the fabric of space-time, and ends time altogether.

According to Stephen W. Hawking, singularities either occur entirely in the future or entirely in the past. In this case, black hole singularities always lie in the future (if you were to go near one, your time will come to an end), and the Big Bang singularity always lie in the past (if you were able to rewind time, galaxies will become closer together, eventually coming together at a point).


www.physlink.com...



[edit on 18-6-2009 by constantwonder]



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 


How can you have density (measured by dividing by zero noless) yet no effect on "space-time"? The special provision of making space-time only applicable after it makes sense in the beginning of the universe is a farse.

Something of no volume can't expand. It has NO VOLUME to expand. You can't have mass without volume and then project a density. No equation can make sense of that especially if you put it in the context of space-time which didn't "exist" at that point.

So a hot dense bunch of mass exploded to create matter, time and the volume of which the two aforementioned items would reign. If there was no volume for it to explode from, where was all this mass prior to the big bang, in another dimension (que string theory speculation)?

Things don't just randomly explode out of nothing. The universe isn't a season 4 episode of aqua-teen hunger force.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eitimzevinten
reply to post by constantwonder
 


How can you have density (measured by dividing by zero noless) yet no effect on "space-time"? The special provision of making space-time only applicable after it makes sense in the beginning of the universe is a farse.

Something of no volume can't expand. It has NO VOLUME to expand. You can't have mass without volume and then project a density. No equation can make sense of that especially if you put it in the context of space-time which didn't "exist" at that point.

So a hot dense bunch of mass exploded to create matter, time and the volume of which the two aforementioned items would reign. If there was no volume for it to explode from, where was all this mass prior to the big bang, in another dimension (que string theory speculation)?

Things don't just randomly explode out of nothing. The universe isn't a season 4 episode of aqua-teen hunger force.


thats the best part of the whole thing . . . . since we really have no idea about what a singularity actually is . . . none of it matters

we have no way to observe the "beginning of the universe" so we cant even really say it was a big-bang from a singularity

nor can we say it wasn't sneezed into exsistance by the great green arcleseizure

but we can speculate


anyway the point of my post was to try and shed some light onto the two different concepts of a singularity not to argue for or against the big bang theory

[edit on 18-6-2009 by constantwonder]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join