Something I don't get about Wormholes

  • Thread starter Silverbackman
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Wormholes
In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of wormholes and how they could potentially create a shortcut for traveling through space. However, it is mentioned that space is not a simple void and has multiple dimensions, including time, making the idea of a shortcut more complex. The topic of extra dimensions and string theory is also brought up, with some participants expressing skepticism and others believing in their existence. Overall, the conversation highlights the ongoing speculation and lack of concrete evidence surrounding these concepts.
  • #36
DaveC426913 said:
The ant's world is also 2D, length and circumference, but circumference is curled up, so that he only has a macroscopic experience of 1D. (Analagous to our universe maybe actually having 4 or more dimensions, but we only have a macroscopic experience of 3 because the others are curled up like the garden hose.)
Thanks for Pics
So How much big we have to be actually to feel 4 dimensions.?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #37
Dimensions that can be described topologically do not verify wormholes though. Wormholes are open ended and would provide "bridges" to transfer forces through topology. Using the layered 3 dimensonal cube analogy will not explain force exchange when the forces themselves regulate how the topology is constructed or exchanges forces between the black hole and white hole.
It may visualize extra dimensions, yet the topology to describe how the surfaces are connected is trivial using this, and surfaces are locally non-trivial. What is trivial is 'how' surfaces are connected in these extra dimensions.

Hermann Weyl proposed the wormhole theory, with mass analysis of the electromagnetic field energy with the charge and current densities. For an atom to move through space, and travel through time, it must exchange forces with other atoms electromagnetically.
The electric field is produced by stationary charges, and the magnetic field by moving charges or currents.
The static charge is a positively charged nucleus, and the electric field is produced by attracting electrons; the electrons generate the magnetic field. Weyl focused on the masses of electrons being exchanged, and the magnetic 'currents' created by the general domains of the electron orbits relative to each other.

When the dimension of space or an object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within it, we think of a stationary or 'static' point; Wormholes connect two points in spacetime.
Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force law describe how static charges are connected.

In a sense topology is illusory to us. What we 'see' as topology is refracted light, an electromagnetic wave; and the forces that are exchanged through varying charge and current densities producing the electromagnetic wave are not necessarily interpreted(without non-linear mathematics)by us.
 
  • #38
Hyperspace2 said:
Thanks for Pics
So How much big we have to be actually to feel 4 dimensions.?

This is just guesswork but manifestation would be on a continuum. If very small, it would manifest as nothing more than discrepancies in measurements of energy levels or subatomic distances or angles or what-have-you. If it were larger, those discrepancies would be noticeable at larger and larger scales. Can't really say more than this.

In a fanciful example, Heinlein had a character in Stranger in a Strange Land that sent an object (a pistol) away in the 4th dimension. It was described as suddenly shrinking, as if getting farther away, yet staying right where it was.
 
  • #39
nickthrop101 said:
all of them.
Scientists have an idea that their are 3 enlarged dimensions, forward and back, up and down, and left and right. Their is also time.
But the over dimensions are rapped up in tiny shapes called calibi-yau shapes.
About the plank size.
So we only feel the 3 enlarged ones. But we are in eccense in all of them
Is that ok?

Wow, that is amazing! Please recommend a resource where i can get more information on this topic?
 
  • #40
FantasyQueen said:
Wow, that is amazing! Please recommend a resource where i can get more information on this topic?

Not meaning this in at all a rude way (this is my level of physics reading as well) but the fact that you didn't know about calabi-yau shapes means you aren't very familiar with string theory/probably are not a physics student or anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elegant_Universe This is a great book if that is the case, if you have little experience it can take a few re-readings in a few parts as it is a lot to take it but it is completely accessible to a layman at the same time and talks a lot about the tiny wrapped up 6-dimensional CY shapes (I believe these shapes are called manifolds?).

You may already know everything covered in the first two sections though, but if not you will also get an introduction to special & general relativity as well as quantum mechanics. :)
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
22
Views
11K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Back
Top