Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Could Black Holes Be Portals to Other Universes?

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the oh-sliders-you've-taught-us-so-much dept.

Space 277

David Shiga writes "Astronomers have identified many objects out there that they think are black holes. But could they be portals to other universes called wormholes, instead? According to a new study by a pair of physicists, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference. They have discovered that wormholes with the right shape would look identical to black holes from the outside. But while a trip into a black hole would mean certain death, a wormhole might spit you out into a parallel universe with its own stars and planets. Exotic effects from quantum physics might produce wormholes naturally from collapsing stars, one of the physicist says, and they might even be produced in future particle accelerator experiments."

cancel ×

277 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Twofo GNAA (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18906765)

Black holes are for faggots. Literaly. [twofo.co.uk]

                        GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
                              Version 2, June 1991

  Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
          59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
  Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
  of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

                                Preamble

    The licenses for most software are designed to take away your
freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public
License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free
software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This
General Public License applies to most of the Free Software
Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to
using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by
the GNU Library General Public License instead.) You can apply it to
your programs, too.

    When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

    To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.
These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.

    For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
rights.

    We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and
(2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy,
distribute and/or modify the software.

    Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain
that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free
software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we
want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so
that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original
authors' reputations.

    Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software
patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free
program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the
program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any
patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.

    The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
modification follow.

                        GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
      TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

    0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains
a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below,
refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"
means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:
that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it,
either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another
language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in
the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.

    1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;
and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
along with the Program.

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.

    2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

        a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
        stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

        b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
        whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
        part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
        parties under the terms of this License.

        c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
        when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
        interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
        announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
        notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
        a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
        these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
        License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
        does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
        the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
collective works based on the Program.

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
the scope of this License.

    3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

        a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
        source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
        1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

        b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
        years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
        cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
        machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
        distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
        customarily used for software interchange; or,

        c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
        to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
        allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
        received the program in object code or executable form with such
        an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a
special exception, the source code distributed need not include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable.

If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

    4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
parties remain in full compliance.

    5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it.

    6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.

    7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent
license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to
apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
circumstances.

It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
integrity of the free software distribution system, which is
implemented by public license practices. Many people have made
generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed
through that system in reliance on consistent application of that
system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing
to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot
impose that choice.

This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to
be a consequence of the rest of this License.

    8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in
certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
original copyright holder who places the Program under this License
may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding
those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among
countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates
the limitation as if written in the body of this License.

    9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation.

    10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author
to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the Free
Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes
make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the two goals
of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and
of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.

                                NO WARRANTY

    11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY
FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN
OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES
PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS
TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE
PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING,
REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

    12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING
WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR
REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES,
INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING
OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY
YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER
PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

                          END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS

                How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs

    If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest
possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it
free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms.

    To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest
to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively
convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least
the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.

        Copyright (C)

        This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
        it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
        the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
        (at your option) any later version.

        This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
        but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
        MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
        GNU General Public License for more details.

        You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
        along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
        Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA

Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.

If the program is interactive, make it output a short notice like this
when it starts in an interactive mode:

        Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) year name of author
        Gnomovision comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'.
        This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
        under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.

The hypothetical commands `show w' and `show c' should show the appropriate
parts of the General Public License. Of course, the commands you use may
be called something other than `show w' and `show c'; they could even be
mouse-clicks or menu items--whatever suits your program.

You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or your
school, if any, to sign a "copyright disclaimer" for the program, if
necessary. Here is a sample; alter the names:

    Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the program
    `Gnomovision' (which makes passes at compilers) written by James Hacker.

    , 1 April 1989
    Ty Coon, President of Vice

This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into
proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may
consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the
library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General
Public License instead of this License.

Into the Unknown: The Circle (4, Interesting)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 7 years ago | (#18906777)

In fact, theorists say one variety of wormhole wraps back onto itself, so that it leads not to another universe, but back to its own entrance.
I'm expecting others to beat me to referencing The Black Hole [imdb.com] and Dr. Hans Reinhardt's line, "In, through, and beyond," or even Farscape [scifiquest.com] and Rigel's bored, "Wormhole. Normal space. Wormhole." So instead, and considering slashdot's current technical problems, how about something more obscure.

Wasn't this an episode of the original The Tomorrow People [tv.com] , except that transit time felt like it took much longer than it really did, whereas the reality of time dilation would likely be the reverse?

Re:Into the Unknown: The Circle (4, Interesting)

IthnkImParanoid (410494) | more than 7 years ago | (#18906999)

Wasn't this an episode of the original The Tomorrow People, except that transit time felt like it took much longer than it really did, whereas the reality of time dilation would likely be the reverse?
That also sounds like a Steven King short story called (IIRC) The Jaunt, where teleportation to Mars was nearly instantaneous for outside observers, but if you were awake when you traveled your consciousness perceived the transit time as nearly infinite.

Re:Into the Unknown: The Circle (3, Funny)

Pollardito (781263) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907001)

a wormhole that's a loop and leads back to itself reminds me more of European Vacation: "Hey look kids, there's Big Ben, and there's Parliament."

Re:Into the Unknown: The Circle (0)

aled (228417) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907091)

Farscape rules!

Re:Into the Unknown: The Circle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18907135)

Remember Event Horizon??? Think about that before you go through it!

Logical contradiction (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18907157)

Sorry to split semantic hairs here...but we are geeks after all...

The word "universe" logically means "everything." From Dictionary.reference.com [reference.com] :

1. the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.

An etymological analysis reveals the word to be of Latin origin, the prefix "uni" meaning "one" and "verse" derived from the word for "to turn," implying something to the effect of "all things turned to one." (I also have a beef with the misuse of "uni" in such words as "unisex," but I won't get into that here).

Anyway, if it is possible to get to a "parallel universe" then that means that it exists. If it exists, then that means that it is already part of the universe. Therefore saying that there are many universes is a simple logical contradiction.

So, perhaps these other places exist, and are parallel to the place in which we exist. I am envisioning something like a stack of 4 dimensional space-time continuums all lined up along a fifth dimension, with worm holes propelling objects along the 5d axis between these continuums. That may be possible for all I know, but they aren't parallel universes; they are all part of the universe.

Re:Into the Unknown: The Circle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18907187)

Technical Problems?

Space cowboys (1, Interesting)

biocute (936687) | more than 7 years ago | (#18906781)

I'm pretty sure there are at least a space-shuttleful of people willing to have a go at one of these black holes, but how far is the nearest black hole?

What happens if after-life is a fact, and while all black holes cause death, some of the "faithful" ones are taken to the after-life paradise, and they thought they are in a parallel universe?

Re:Space cowboys (1)

eebra82 (907996) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907205)

I'm pretty sure there are at least a space-shuttleful of people willing to have a go at one of these black holes, but how far is the nearest black hole?

That would be a waste of resources. How about sending a drone with a robotic AI?

Are you nuts? (2, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907471)

Basically he is saying send all the religeos nuts into a ship and blast them to the nearest workhole. That. Plan. Is . BRILLIANT!

Re:Space cowboys (1)

joshier (957448) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907279)

Possible.. maybe it's karma?.. I think it's pretty evident that if you're generally harsh to everyone in your life, you will get it in return, and I don't mean some special forces.. I mean, some people would treat you how you treat them.. and if you treat everyone like a douche, you'll be treated as such.ipp

Event Horizon (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18906783)

We can't travel through wormholes, hasn't everyone seen Event Horizon?

Re:Event Horizon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18906959)

No, you can travel through wormholes, but you risk opening a portal to Hell. Hasn't anyone played DOOM?

Or read the book [amazon.com] ?

Or saw the movie [imdb.com] ?

Could Black Holes Be Portals to Other Universes? (3, Funny)

XnavxeMiyyep (782119) | more than 7 years ago | (#18906791)

A question that was never asked before today!

I can only imagine (5, Funny)

wmwilson01 (912533) | more than 7 years ago | (#18906793)

"Err... Captain, are you *sure* that's a wormhole and not just a blackhole?" "Shush! If there's one thing I learned at Starfleet Academy it's the difference between a wormhole and a

So what you are saying is that (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#18906865)

they do give Riker a command?

Re:I can only imagine (4, Informative)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907107)

"But while a trip into a black hole would mean certain death, a wormhole might spit you out into a parallel universe with its own stars and planets."

Err.. something's gotta be wrong here. First of all, let's face it: you'll be dead never mind if it's a portal or not. The fact that my energy will somehow exit on the other end offers little comfort, knowing that to be alive, I need to also have my structure preserved.

The idea about wormholes was introduced when experimenting (mathematically) what would the opposite of a black hole be, using just the known laws of physics and math.

The thing is, most objects in the universe have their exact opposite version (the most trivial example being matter and antimatter), so scientists thought the same might apply to black holes. Lots of new object classes were prophesied this way.

Thus, the concept of a while hole was born, which is not like a black hole at all: instead of only sucking in matter and energy (ignoring Hawking radiation for a moment), white holes can only emit matter and energy. Naturally, this posed the question, where is this matter coming from? And the obvious answer was: from a blackhole that's elsewhere. So a wormhole is in fact the whole mechanism where a black hole is tied to a white hole, and whatever falls in a black hole, comes out the white hole.

So I don't know what those scientists are talking about, but either is the article written very poorly, or the term "wormhole" is being used totally inappropriately here.

A "wormhole" can't look the same as "blackhole". It's like saying that a computer (the whole thing) may look to a keyboard (the input only). A wormhole isn't some sci-fi generic space warp where you put your ship to go to Degoba.

And you're definitely dead either way, but if you're brave, up on the next shuttle and go try it, in case a wormhole is passing by.

Going into confusion... (5, Funny)

bitRAKE (739786) | more than 7 years ago | (#18906799)

What would a blackhole going through a wormhole look like?

(Or is that when the 503 error happens?)

Just like putting (5, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#18906851)

a portable hole into a bag of holding!

Re:Going into confusion... (1)

Coucho (1039182) | more than 7 years ago | (#18906941)

Pfft, everyone knows thats what happens when the universe divides by 0.

Re:Going into confusion... (0, Offtopic)

njdube (965445) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907073)

Creepy fat lesbian porn?!

Re:Going into confusion... (5, Funny)

rs79 (71822) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907671)

"What would a blackhole going through a wormhole look like?"

Utah.

Life imitates art, doesn't it? (3, Funny)

semifamous (231316) | more than 7 years ago | (#18906803)

I always knew that black holes were portals.
I mean, isn't this basic science? You go in one side and you come out the other.

It's kinda like Pac-Man, right?

Wow, what an original idea! (3, Funny)

caywen (942955) | more than 7 years ago | (#18906811)

I simply never thought of black holes and wormholes that way. Going to another universe/dimension/time/etc - gosh that's something that I don't think even science fiction has considered. I always thought they were just kind of, um, holes or something.

Re:Wow, what an original idea! (2, Funny)

aled (228417) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907021)

I always thought they were just kind of, um, holes or something.


Tubes.

Re:Wow, what an original idea! (3, Funny)

Jarjarthejedi (996957) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907103)

Hmm...seems more like a Truck to me...I mean, you get in and may or may not come out...reminds of hitchhiking and it's even dependant on what kind of effects you have on you!

Re:Wow, what an original idea! (0, Redundant)

ectal (949842) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907421)

It's not a truck. It's a series of tubes.

Re:Wow, what an original idea! (1)

neonmonk (467567) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907141)

They're just harmless black-holey-things

Great, so they both look like (1)

TheAxeMaster (762000) | more than 7 years ago | (#18906815)

So they both look like giant instant-death gravity fields. Which makes them useless until we actually understand how gravity works since no amount of probing is going to reveal anything other than how to efficiently kill a probe.

No (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18906817)

>Could Black Holes Be Portals to Other Universes?

No :-)

Black Holes are not holes, they are black spheres that are super dense. They are not holes in space.

Re:No (1)

Lane.exe (672783) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907675)

My God! It's like you understand science or something!

easy to test... (2, Insightful)

pedantic bore (740196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18906825)

... just send some probes through what seem to be black holes, and then see if any of them come back.

Oh, wait, there's another small problem to address first -- all the known black holes are a bajillion miles away. Maybe we should work on answering the question of how to get there before we start to obsess about what's on the other side. Or perhaps the multiverse is just teasing us, saying "Hey, there's a portal here to another universe -- want to see what's on the other side? Too bad you won't know for a few thousand years! Psych!"

No need to get there (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18906929)

Just look in the universe for places where material appears out of nowhere (if wormholes exist, some wormholes should have traffic from other universes to ours.)

Re:easy to test... (1)

The PS3 Will Fail (998952) | more than 7 years ago | (#18906933)

"and they might even be produced in future particle accelerator experiments."
From the summary on this very page...

Re:easy to test... (1)

pedantic bore (740196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907069)

Hopefully not.

I saw that movie. It didn't end well for the human race.

Re:easy to test... (2, Funny)

mdahl (1092585) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907065)

Getting there is no problem. Just have Ballmer fling a chair its way and wait a few seconds.

Re:easy to test... (2, Insightful)

aled (228417) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907133)

all the known black holes are a bajillion miles away.


No problem, just find a wormhole to go there.

Re:easy to test... (1)

Zantetsuken (935350) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907725)

or collect loads of dense/heavy elements and compact it into an extremely small space and make your own black-hole...

Of Course! (0, Offtopic)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#18906831)

How else could Steve Jobs have gotten here?

off topic? (0, Redundant)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907487)

damn, I was going for funny...perferable soda spraying funny.

Universal gravity (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18906837)

A chemistry teacher of mine in high school (early 90's) of mine had a big, long lecture about the universe and built it all up from subatomic particles and ended with the vastness of space. It was his Xmas gift for his classes every year, and we loved it. Well at least those with half a brain did.

Anyway, his twist at the end resembled this article. He said that everything in the universe has gravity. Well, if everything has gravity, then the universe itself has a gravitational pull. Eventually the mass of the universe would be such that any light trying to escape it would be pulled back inside, which would make the universe appear to be black hole from anyone on the outside looking in...

Re:Universal gravity (5, Interesting)

Ambitwistor (1041236) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907033)

Well, if everything has gravity, then the universe itself has a gravitational pull. Eventually the mass of the universe would be such that any light trying to escape it would be pulled back inside, which would make the universe appear to be black hole from anyone on the outside looking in...
It sounds like your teacher may have had the misconception that the universe is an expanding sphere, with stars and galaxies on the inside, and a void outside into which the matter expands.

That's not how Big Bang cosmology works, however. In that theory, all of space is filled with matter, and space itself expands, carrying the matter with it. There is no "edge".

Consequently, it doesn't make much sense to speak of light trying to "escape" the universe, since the universe has no boundary. That's why it's problematic to speak of the whole universe as a "black hole".

For a related FAQ, see here [ucr.edu] .

Re:Universal gravity (1)

glwtta (532858) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907301)

In that theory, all of space is filled with matter, and space itself expands, carrying the matter with it. There is no "edge".

Hang on, I thought it was matter/energy that carried space(-time) with it, not the other way around?

Re:Universal gravity (1)

Ambitwistor (1041236) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907403)

Hang on, I thought it was matter/energy that carried space(-time) with it, not the other way around?
It's metaphorical: it is difficult to make that statement precise and physically meaningful. I phrased it that way to get away from the incorrect idea of the Big Bang as an explosion of a point of matter inside an otherwise empty space.

Once can say that the expansion of the universe is due to the expansion of space, which means that the distances between spatial points change with time.

As John A. Wheeler said, space tells matter how to move; matter tells space how to curve.

Re:Universal gravity (2, Insightful)

radarsat1 (786772) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907743)

Once can say that the expansion of the universe is due to the expansion of space, which means that the distances between spatial points change with time.


Which is actually something that's been bothering me since I thought of it: I feel like there's a tendency in cosmology to forget that time is also a dimension, and that the big bang is an expansion not of SPACE, but of SPACE-TIME. So if space and time is expanding, how can it be something that is taking time? How can time be expanding along a timeline? It's a recursive definition. Circular logic.

I have yet to hear a good explanation of this. I get the feeling, in all these many multi-dimensional theories of our universe, that it's a mistake to think about "time" as being somehow distinct and "special" as a dimension. But who knows, I've got nothing to base that on, it's just a hunch. All the theories I've seen have been things like, "3 large space, 6 small space, 1 time", or "5 space dimensions, 1 time". I've never seen a theory of physics that unites these two critical concepts of dimensionality. On the other hand, maybe there really is a difference between them, so it's not necessary. But in that case, does time play some special role in the big bang?

Re:Universal gravity (2, Funny)

Brad1138 (590148) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907539)

It sounds like your teacher may have had the misconception that the universe is an expanding sphere, with stars and galaxies on the inside, and a void outside into which the matter expands.

It sounds like you may not be familiar with this [appstate.edu] .

Re:Universal gravity (1)

Capt'n Hector (650760) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907655)

Well, the way the grandparent put it, yes, it doesn't make much sense. But isn't it rather astonishing how similar the edge of our universe and the event horizon of a black hole look? time approaches zero, redshift approaches infinity...

Re:Universal gravity (1)

Ambitwistor (1041236) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907721)

There is a cosmological event horizon beyond which no events will be able to influence us, as they expand away from us so much that light from them will never reach us. This is quite different from the event horizon of a black hole, however. The location of a cosmological event horizon is observer-dependent: different observers can receive information from different places. The location of a black hole is observer independnt, because it is defined as a region from which light cannot escape to infinity: a concept that does not depend where you are observing the black hole from.

This article [arxiv.org] clarifies some of these concepts.

Re:Universal gravity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18907299)

the total mass of the universe may seem "important", but the universe density is really low, considering no dark matter and such stuff, big whole of nothing, with some mass here and there.

hell yeah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18906857)

in all prollibity, they COULD be portals...

I'll just let my grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-children to find out themselves when they are spacefearing. :-)

Boxes? (2, Funny)

eggman9713 (714915) | more than 7 years ago | (#18906859)

But, but, Professor Farnsworth's boxes are the gateways to other universes!

What about the other end? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18906863)

Now the big question is, if the entry of a wormhole looks like black hole, what does the exit look like? And do we have those in our universe?

--JAB

Re:What about the other end? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18906967)

Mike Shorl, a friend of mine and a onetime prof at Standford, has just the answer [shorl.com] for you.

**Warning: Parent is a Goatse redirect** (2, Informative)

eternalnyte (765741) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907685)

For those of you at work, beware the obligatory goatse reference the parent decided to post

Special Wormholes (1)

MSTCrow5429 (642744) | more than 7 years ago | (#18906873)

These must be special wormholes. Typical wormholes, if they existed, would create a shortcut in space-time within the same universe. Or maybe these hypothetical constructs are not wormholes, but something else?

Re:Special Wormholes (1)

glwtta (532858) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907253)

If years of watching sci-fi TV shows has taught me anything, it's a that a wormhole is a convenient plot device able to accomplish absolutely anything. They are rather like the deflector array polarity in that way.

Clearly these guys are drawing on the same source material in their "science".

what would happen on the other side? (4, Interesting)

radarsat1 (786772) | more than 7 years ago | (#18906877)

Well, I'm no physicist, but it seems reasonable to me to assume that if the formation of black holes can rip through to another universe, or perhaps another part of a curved universe, then an event would take place on the other side: the formation of a matching wormhole mouth.

We have to assume that if blackholes can form in our universe, then they can form in the "other" universe. So we would be seeing the spontaneous formation of black holes occurring here that are the result of collapsing stars on the other side.

So my question is, what does this event look like from the perspective of the other side, and have we observed it happening here?

Re:what would happen on the other side? (4, Insightful)

radarsat1 (786772) | more than 7 years ago | (#18906973)

An additional question comes to mind: If black holes have an event horizon beyond which no matter can return, and there is a wormhole with a black hole on each side, then if you went into the black hole and try to get out the other side, you'd find that you're behind the other black hole's event horizon and are unable to escape. So... you'd be in a tunnel from which there is no escape. So... you'd stick in a wormhole... which doesn't seem all that different from a black hole... what was the point of this thought experiment again?

Perhaps wormholes just don't exist then.

I think the thing that differentiates worm holes from black holes is that they DON'T shrink to a singularity, but instead attach to a hole on the other side of the universe through a tunnel that has a finite radius. So they're not the same thing... the difference between having a singularity and NOT having a singularity is pretty staggering. Is the point of the article just trying to say that wormholes have an event horizon?

White hole (1)

ichigo 2.0 (900288) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907105)

There is a white hole on the other side which repels matter.

No, I'm not trying to pull a Red Dwarf joke on you, that's actually what it's called. [wikipedia.org] :)

Re:what would happen on the other side? (1)

Cylix (55374) | more than 7 years ago | (#18906993)

The opposite of a black hole...

A sun!

That's right folks, traveling into the black hole means you will undoubtedly be used a fuel to warm the bodies of some lovely 3 breasted alien hotties.

(Yeah, my theories have no basis in this world...)

Re:what would happen on the other side? (1)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907003)

Well duh ... a WHITE hole! :)

As to whether we have observed it, who knows. Maybe some celestial phenomenon has been mistaken for something it isn't, instead of being seen as a gateway from another universe. :)

Re:what would happen on the other side? (2, Interesting)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907223)

We have to assume that if blackholes can form in our universe, then they can form in the "other" universe.

Let's just be clear that without more details, the claim that wormholes open in some "other" universe appear quite random. The original theory of wormholes doesn't claim any other universes, just different points in the same (and only) mother universe we know.

There are two types of "other" universes currently science theorizes about: parallel universes as found in quantum theory (all possibilities of a super-state), and the universes formed by the additional dimensions suggested by the string theory (where "sliding" along the additional dimensions may create alternative universes where laws of physics change and even Pi might change as a constant).

Again, maybe just the article is written poorly, but it seems they're talking about some kind of Star Trek -style "other" universe, and we should expect lots of aliens with rubber foreheads. It's hard to take any of this seriously when all of the substance and coherence was sucked out (if it ever existed) in the process of turning it into an article.

Re:what would happen on the other side? (1)

RuffRuff (412944) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907257)

So my question is, what does this event look like from the perspective of the other side, and have we observed it happening here?
Well, all things considered, the Big Bang currently looks like a promising candidate for a singularity, don't you think?

Re:what would happen on the other side? (4, Informative)

maraist (68387) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907423)

I can't remember the original source.. But in the book 'The God Delusion', there were references to several official big-bang theories.. One of which was the hypothesis that black-holes represent spontaneous synthesis of isolated sub-universes. Where information doesn't leak-back-in to the source universe.. Each sub-universe could have potentially deviant quantium properties such that the mass, charge, force-strenght, etc of various quantum particles would differ ever so slightly.. That by this process, universes actually evolve - ones that have unstable quantum characteristics quickly devolve (perhaps expanding too quickly, or collapsing back into itself, etc).. By virtue of the fact that our universe survived long enough to spawn life, this would represent a successful set of quantum characteristics - though there may be alternate sister, parental or child universes with more ideal states.

But, it stands to reason that such evolutionary universes don't allow cross-talk, that you wouldn't be able to worm-hole back into your neighboring universe. If nothing else, the difference in quantum properties would cause your physical person to become highly unstable.

Of course it's still conceivable that the sister universes have identical properties (that there is only one set), that perhaps only the differing ratio of particles (such as the over-abundance of matter v.s. antimatter in our universe). To which we may still survive in the alternate universe - just have to watch out for our alter ego.

Though, to me, an identical universe, or even a sister universe is kind of boring to me.. Just seems like infinity times k. whop-ti-doo. The only interesting cases to me, are the evolving universes or the true singularity of our universe.

Re:what would happen on the other side? (1)

Razed By TV (730353) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907415)

If the wormhole is created by a collapsing star on one side, the event that occurs on the other side of the wormhole may be the collapse of another star. Perhaps stars that collapse in pairs have a chance of becoming wormholes, while individual stars that collapse become black holes. Also, the article mentions that the shape of the wormhole may determine the length of time it takes an object to travel through it. It may be that wormholes are not created whole but instead require time to propagate, to create the wormtunnel, which might allow for two stars which do not simultaneously collapse to become connected. The implication of this is that any star that collapses to form a worm hole may actually be on the second side and not on the first.

Please note IANAP and I am largely talking out of my ass : ) (But hey, it sounds good in theory, right?)

Re:what would happen on the other side? (2, Funny)

instagib (879544) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907515)

> I am largely talking out of my ass

Which proves that sound waves come out of black holes ...

Re:what would happen on the other side? (1)

FridayBob (619244) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907493)

One possibility is that you'd get a white hole [wikipedia.org] on the other side -- something that would be spew out the same matter that fell into the black hole on the other side. However, astronomers have never seen anything like this in our universe. It seems unlikely.

Another theory [wikipedia.org] is that the Big Bang itself is an example of a white hole, which would lead to the possibility that the formation of every black hole gives birth to a new universe, separate from its parent universe. In that case, it may be that the increased rate of expansion of our universe is due to more matter falling into the associated black hole in our parent universe. If we imagine that this theory is correct, then I can think some more questions:
  1. What happen to the associated child universes if two black holes merge?
  2. Do child universes inherit the physical characteristics (laws, constants) of their parents?
  3. What are the consequences for the child universe if the black hole that created it begins to lose mass due to hawking radiation? Does it contract?
If the third one is true, then perhaps a Big Crunch is inevitable. But, if our universe collapses before any of its own black holes have a chance to "dry up", what happens to our child universes? Are they destroyed? Do they get orphaned and then never contract/collapse?

This remembers me of something (1)

cmoerz (1093347) | more than 7 years ago | (#18906893)

Anyone seen that movie [imdb.com] ? So, why not just send a ship to check it out and let them come back totally cocoo... procrastinating is for the anonymous cowards! I for my part welcome our new wormhole-journey-returning-overlords!!

Slight problem (1)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 7 years ago | (#18906895)

The problem is how would we test such a theory? Do we throw a probe into a black hole and wait to see if it returns? (Isn't time ment to pretty much stop at some point in a black hole?)

I'm all for theories and such, but how the hell do we test this?

Telepathic aliens say it is so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18906897)

I know this is totally off the edge of most people's reality map of possibility. But several people who claim to channel messages from extra terrestrial entities/aliens/inter-dimensional beings/whatever, have made this claim. I throw this out there FWIW. I'd be intrigued/tickled to discover some of these people having a string of lucky guesses that end up being confirmed by science. I'm too lazy to go find some references and link to them... But in my excursions to the fringe material I've come across the concept. But then again, sci-fi/fantasy/real science/imagination/etc all kind of overlap in different places...

how come... (1)

williamyf (227051) | more than 7 years ago | (#18906909)

We have identified plenty of objects that appear to be black holes, or wormholes, or whatever... and yet no single trace of an object spitting out matter like the end of those wormholes. Until a working wormhole is created, or a matter spitter is located, I'll leave this to Stephen and his ilk

Salud!

Let's throw the hardened convicts in there (4, Funny)

atari2600 (545988) | more than 7 years ago | (#18906943)

You know, the really really bad guys. Give them a ship with food, guns and other building blocks for "civilization". If they make it, well we win. If they don't, well too bad but that relieves the load on prisons. What? It worked for Australia didn't it? Ok laugh now - that was supposed to be funny.

Hmmm, come to think about it; not a bad idea at all.

Re:Let's throw the hardened convicts in there (1)

lpw (1089731) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907469)

You must be Xenu [wikipedia.org] ?

503 Service Request Error (1)

FMota91 (1050752) | more than 7 years ago | (#18906945)

Black holes and Wormholes can also be caused by chaotic traffic on the way to a Slashdot article. After all, the Internet is just a series of tubes.

All ways... (1)

aled (228417) | more than 7 years ago | (#18906965)

But while a trip into a black hole would mean certain death, a wormhole might spit you out into a parallel universe with its own stars and planets.


Yeah, after killing your smashed atoms would travel to another universe.

Falling into black hole? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18907027)

The thing that bothers me is that earth-based observations show the universe "expanding", and at an accelerating rate - but, um, couldn't *we* just be falling into a really large blackhole - everything getting "further away" because, well, we're sliding down into an enormous gravity well. Like, oh, the sodding GALACTIC CORE ?

Re:Falling into black hole? (1)

joshier (957448) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907467)

For me, I used to worry about s*** like this... death, illness, aliens...

I've naturally desensitized myself from all of it... admittedly, I delved into it more than I should have before and scared myself silly, but I went there.. It was interesting and I learnt a lot of things.. One of the main things I learnt was to not take it to the heart, not to take it overly serious that I would break out from my normal life to study more/worry about... I really am not scared of death, this life, whatever it,/she/him created me and I have a good life, and that's that.. sometimes it's bad but hey, I am still fortunate to experience things, help others... Worrying about silly speculative articles on slashdot is nothing short of silly.. so relax buddy! eat some haagen daz ice cream.. peace.

If this were true... (2, Insightful)

AbsoluteXyro (1048620) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907067)

If this were true... Shouldn't we see some black holes spitting out extradimensional spaghetti noodles? [wikipedia.org]

Oh, well, that's different (5, Funny)

Deadstick (535032) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907077)

But while a trip into a black hole would mean certain death, a wormhole might spit you out into a parallel universe

...dead.

rj

Re:Oh, well, that's different (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18907529)

So now all we must do is find this celestial phenomenum that spits out dead bodies and other artififacts from a parrallel universe.

Hmm, I know, Hollywood or whoever it is that comes up with all these slasher flicks and stuff.

The paper (3, Informative)

Ambitwistor (1041236) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907079)

New Scientist has a link to the paper, which is small and off to the side and easily overlooked (and does not make clear that the whole paper can be accessed, not just the abstract). The paper is here [arxiv.org] for anyone who may have missed it.

Re:The paper (1)

onx (956508) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907419)

Additionally, as far as I can tell, the paper has not been published.

Too exotic (2, Interesting)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907109)

Who needs a multi-verse explaination when it suffices to explain a blackhole as vast swaths of time/space condensed to an ultra-hyperfine, darn-near-singular point? That's what I had always thought they were, anyways.

Who knows, maybe a black hole is just an area approaching infinity, shrinking all that comes to the area with it. Why not? And Hawking's Radiation naturally permeates all of the universe but remains unobservable as it's particles are so large that it would fit many solar systems in it's space, but shrinks down at a black hole to a (weakly) observable radiation. It's not as if something that large would be identifiable; it would be discounted to an observation of the basic state of the universe. Our universe is only our observable universe; all this multi-verse and worm-hole stuff isn't any more real science than my silly-sized particle, just imaginative speculation.

is this like saying (2, Funny)

semiotec (948062) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907143)

toilets are in fact, gateways to other people's homes? perhaps someone could make a pretty picture to make this argument more plausible.

Routing... (1)

harry666t (1062422) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907197)

I had problems with setting up squid, I can roughly imagine the hell of setting up routing through these wormholes...

Relevant ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18907201)

- Ads by Google -
The Final Theory
The bestselling book our scientists hope you never read. Find out why!
TheFinalTheory.com
Creation Or Evolution?
Is evolution just a theory? You can prove creation. Order free booklet.
www.gnmagazine.org/evolution
2008 Rolex Awards
Funding Pioneering Initiatives in Science & Medicine. Learn More.
www.RolexAwards.com

watches, creationism and pseudoscience
thank you google, but i think i will just pass on this one.

No event horizon (3, Insightful)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907259)

The article claims, that unlike a black hole, a "wormhole" (in the sense they explain it) has no event horizon. If it has no event horizon, it means light can escape it.

So it wouldn't look like a black hole AT ALL. I call bullshit on the whole article.

Re:No event horizon (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907611)

Yes, a big deal of what defines a black hole is its event horizon, so this is about something completely different, and it's of course speculation at that without a shred of established theories pointing in this direction. :-)

We could (1, Troll)

Associate (317603) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907355)

throw lawyers in and listen for the sucking sound.

one way to tell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18907387)

Just send something is that says "please shove this back in the hole when you get it" and we'll know.

Worm holes in my front yard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18907391)

Jeez, everyone around here knows what comes out of worm holes. I got hundreds of 'em in my front yard, especially after the rain. Mmm, maybe that's it! Glad I found this site using the Google thang.

How do you test the theory? (1)

Dejohn (164452) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907561)

So how might you test this theory? You could find some people willing to take the plunge and go into a suspected wormhole. However, if turned out to be a black hole they would certainly die and not be able to report showing up in another universe (or somewhere else is the same universe). However, if it did indeed work and the were instantly teleported to another place, how long could we wait for them to return with the good news before marking it as a dud, a blackhole???

Probably a slow trial and error process... kind of like the first people in Japan that thought there MUST be some part of the Fugu fish worth eating.

the answer is... (1)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907579)

maybe.

black holes can power super star gates (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907593)

that can take you to far off places. Or slow down time on the other side of the star gate. Some one call the SGC to test them.

oh start trek fan boys (1)

netdur (816698) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907641)

of course black holes is a portal... to heaven (or hell if you don't believe in superman)

The solution is simple. (1)

WK2 (1072560) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907643)

Everyone knows that even a one-way wormhole can transmit energy, such as radio waves, both ways. So, all we have to do is send a MALP through. If the MALP sends back data, it is alive, we can go through. If the MALP gets crushed, it was either a black hole, or the Stargate was buried.

String Theory (2, Informative)

kmac06 (608921) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907677)

This sounds like it's based on string theory. String theory has absolutely no evidence that it is correct--it just sometimes appears to describe some phenomena better than quantum mechanics or general relativity. I think of it more as a interesting mathematical construct rather than anything like a physical theory.

Falling into a black hole is not certain death. (4, Interesting)

JesseL (107722) | more than 7 years ago | (#18907747)

It depends on the size of the black hole. Small ones will have sharper gravitational gradients that will result in tidal forces that could inflict serious entropy on you, but a large enough black hole could have a surface gravity less than earth and much less significant tidal forces.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?