Wormholes

[flaninacupboard]

I think wormholes would exist if you believe in the fact that time and space can be bridged or ripped. However, time does not exist. This has been proven, though the whole theory and fascination with it is greatly looked into. If a person travels at the speed of light and looks at a clock face, they'll notice the hands of the clock aren't moving because they are following the reflection of light. That does not mean a moment of passing has halted. The people standing at the clock would continue to age and equally would the person traveling at the speed of light. The person traveling at the speed of light would also feel that the hand has stood still for too long and not moved. If a 20 year old moved at the speed of light out into space and arrived back at the age of 40, the people here on earth would have also aged only 20 years. Just because you move 100mph on a highway, does not mean you're going to age slower than a person walking 1mph. You're just moving faster. To keep a person from aging, you litterally have to stop or slow the natural progression of human development. The closest thought would be cryogenics, which has nothing to do with time or space.

Aside from it being (as far as we know) impossible to travel -at- the speed of light, someone travelling -near- the speed of light -would- see the effects of time dilation. this is what relativity is all about, if the speed of light is -always- constant in our observable universe (which it is) then something has to compensate when object are travelling at great velocities, and that's time. i really don't see how you can ignore time as a dimension...


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html

[Doramius]

Becuase you're following light reflection. Time didn't stop. You're following the reflection. Again, the faster you move an object doesn't slow down it's mortality rate. It's still going to have the same mortality life length. So if someone were to travel at the speed of light for 10 earth years, turn around and travel for 10 earth years, the person will still only be 20 years older along with everyone on the earth. He just happened to be travelling at a high speed. Speed doesn't change time. If you go 100MPH, it will take one hour to get there. If you go 100 million miles per second. You'll have gone 100 million miles in one second. Only 1 second has passed for you and everyone else. I don't see how you can say a second for you is ten years for someone going much slower. They'll both reach a destination at different times.

Let's say you went the 100 million miles in one second. another guy goes the 100 million miles in 10 years. When he meets up with you at the distance, you'll both be 10 years older. You've just been waiting 10 years for him to come.

The examples you give are of gravitational forces. Gravitation when moving around a specific object will only pertain to that specific object. An Earth year is not the same as a Mars year. You'd be using different types of atomic clocks. The way in which you cross over the magnetic fields will cause the clock to change depending on the speed. You can knock out magnetivity from a steel rod by just banging it hard of heating it up. Moving around it will change in magnetivity. If you're talking about how gravity may affect aging, then a person subject to gravity may age faster or slower than someone who is not subject to it, but to say a Second of earth time is not a second of earth time when traveling at high speeds is ridiculous. The time passed the same regardless.

[flaninacupboard]

no, the time does not pass "regardless". say i have a clock on a space ship and you have a clock on earth and i constantly accelerate until i'm close to the speed of light. if i observe my clock a second will look like a second, as i'm used to. however, if i observe ten years then return to earth you will have observed more than ten years on your clock.

think about this, if i stand still and shine a torch at you, you can measure the speed the photons are travelling when they reach you - call this speed C. now, if i am running towards you and shine a torch, the light should travel at speed C+the speed i was running, call it C+V. similarly, if i stand still and you run away from me, they should be travelling at C-V. except this doesn't happen. whatever my speed -relative- to your speed, it is always C.

Even if we were both travelling 0.1mph slower than the speed of light, we would still measure light as travelling at C. something is obviously wrong here, and the solution is time. if the speed of light is Constant the only way to make sense of the universe is to change time for observers at different speeds. this gives rise to the equation E=MC squared, with which you may be familiar.

[yoda313]

Hello,


I agree with the earlier statement made - WE DON'T KNOW HALF of what the universe is REALLY LIKE.

It's true the TRUTH is weirder than SCIENCE FICTION in many cases. Back twenty years ago or more who would have thought microbiotic life would flourish living near underwater volcanoes????

The universe is so vast that our only problem will be living long enough to find out if our theories are correct. Surely knew theories will come out that will be just as fantastic....

Kevin

[Ripper2860]

And I said the Emerald City. Damn, I feel stupid -- I thought we were supposed to provide unique and funny answers.

Somebody help me as something must have hijacked my browser as I have entered the freakin Carl Sagan's Cosmos "Billions and Billions of Stars" website!!

Leave it to "Bore-amius" and the "Cranium Crowd" to ruin it for all of us who enjoy fun with their over-compensating for inferior genetalia and forcing a friggin unwanted Physics lesson on most of us !!!

There. I feel better now. Carry on !!

[Doramius]

So Flan, You're telling me that once you approach the speed of light, the earth will seem to spin around the sun faster than it actually is. I understand the equation E=MC^2, but you're distorting it. Light is energy. Energy is a property of matter. Matter in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an opposing force. Light is not going to travel faster because you're running with a torch. Light will always continue it's speed regardless of how fast you're going. it's a wave. To give a more easily relatable wave, we'll take sound. If you run fst with a omnidirectional sound device (IE: Sound Torch) the waves will compress, but you have not speeded up how fast sound travels. If you keep your speed, the length of time, once you get to the point B, will be less if the sound is turned of immediately when you stop. It's intensity is just strengthened by the speed, unless the speed is surpassed (IE: sound barrier) SO when you stop at point B, you may hear a delayed but quick sound. The time has not changed. The same amount of time has passed. However, you have someone running at less than the speed of sound you will hear him coming, however, it won't be as intense and it'll be heard for much longer. But the same amount of time passed for each person. Person A made it to point B in 1 second. Person B made it to Point B in 10 years. Both have only felt 10 years of time pass along with everyone on the earth. Just because you're moving faster doesn't mean that a clock will tick slower. It's will tick it's interval regardless. If it's not true, then if we went the speed of light in counter directional movement constantly around the earth, either we'd get younger or we'd go back in time. This is not possible. The atomic clocks are based on gravitation. By counter moving or moving faster than the speed rotation of the earth, you will easily, and equally each time in that direction, will cause the atomic clock to change it's time interval. You've basically caused the clock to read the gravitational movements incorrectly and distorted how it can properly read. This is no new science fact.

[ZAPPER]

There are no constants or absolutes. Everything is relative to an applied base. And even that can not be considered a true reference do to the fact that there are no constants or absolutes

[Doramius]

There are no constants or absolutes. Everything is relative to an applied base. And even that can not be considered a true reference do to the fact that there are no constants or absolutes

Your statement sounds like it smashes Newton and Einsteins theories in one fell swoop. You should write a paper on that and make $1 million dollars.

[ZAPPER]

There are no constants or absolutes. Everything is relative to an applied base. And even that can not be considered a true reference do to the fact that there are no constants or absolutes

Your statement sounds like it smashes Newton and Einsteins theories in one fell swoop. You should write a paper on that and make $1 million dollars.

It is a hell of a lot easier to shoot holes in a theory than to explain or come up with one. Even entropy can have a pattern or be reversed at a point. The only current absolute is death. And that is up for grabs too!

[Doramius]

Especially when we have movies like Shaun of the Dead.

[ViRaL1]

Wormhole = mouth of a bottle of tequila. :P

[flaninacupboard]

Doramius,

all i can say is that you're wrong. time -is- a fourth dimension, and personal time -is- slowed when travelling in three dimensions. there's plenty of information out there to back that up. including einsteins' own work. i don't understand why you say you understand his work then flatly deny it's implications.

[BJ_M]

Holy whistling helium! Another quantum trick

In the world of quantum physics, particles leap through impenetrable barriers or exist in two places at once, secret codes can't be broken, electrical currents pass through wires without resistance. Here's another quantum trick: liquid helium that whistles.

Writing last month in the journal Nature, Richard E. Packard, a professor of physics at University of California, Berkeley, and Emile Hoskinson, a graduate student, described the feat.


New York Times

For the latest breaking news, visit NYTimes.com

Sign up to receive top headlines

Get Dealbook, a daily corporate finance email briefing

Search the jobs listings at NYTimes.com

Search NYTimes.com:


They cooled helium--specifically helium 4, which has two protons and two neutrons in its nucleus--to minus 456 degrees Fahrenheit, a few degrees above absolute zero. At ultracold temperatures, helium 4 condenses into a type of liquid known as a superfluid, able to flow utterly without friction.

They then pushed the helium through tiny holes about a thousandth the width of a human hair--and that is when the whistling started.

The reason is that a frictionless liquid does not behave as one might expect. One might expect that pushing a frictionless liquid would accelerate it to ever-increasing speeds--but it doesn't. The speed tops out at a few miles per hour.

What physicists have found instead is that vortexes--mini-tornadoes--spontaneously arise in the superfluid, and as the mini-tornadoes grow longer and longer, they crash into one another and into the sides of the container, and energy is lost.

Pushing helium 4 through a tiny hole sped up the flow, creating a vortex. "It will eventually crash into the walls," Packard said. "Then the energy gets turned into just heat." Dissipating the energy dropped the speed of the superfluid flow. The cycle repeated. "It's accelerating, then dropping," Packard said, "accelerating, then dropping."

That produces pressure waves that can be picked up by a sensitive microphone and turned into sound.

But with a single hole, the mini-tornadoes form and crash at random intervals, and the noise would sound like noise. In the Berkeley experiment, the helium was pushed through a grid containing 4,225 holes. The expectation was that 4,225 random noises would mostly cancel out one another.

Instead, when Hoskinson donned headphones and listened to the helium, he heard a pure, clear tone, like a pennywhistle (online at the university's Web site), with the pitch changing with the pressure applied to the superfluid.

Packard said the vortexes at the different holes appeared to interact with one another, causing them to form and crash all at the same pace. "Maybe it's like crickets synchronizing," he said.

The phenomenon is not just a silly quantum trick; it could be used for gyroscopes to measure wobbles in Earth's spin or by submarines for better navigation.

Entire contents, Copyright © 2005 The New York Times. All rights reserve

[Doramius]

Doramius,

all i can say is that you're wrong. time -is- a fourth dimension, and personal time -is- slowed when travelling in three dimensions. there's plenty of information out there to back that up. including einsteins' own work. i don't understand why you say you understand his work then flatly deny it's implications.

Einstein only said time could be used as a factor. He never said time was a dimension or is in existence. "We can exist in time, But time doesn't exist." Saying time is a dimension is also like saying motion is a dimension, or a memory of an event in the past is a dimension. It's not. Use a block of wood. It will always have dimensions; Height, weight, volume. You can distort it's appearance, but it will always have only 3 dimensions that will always come out in the same mass when put back together. Chop the block in half, the 2 pieces will always equal the amount of the original whole. The only difference in time is 1 piece vs. 2 pieces. No you've probably also heard the term that 2 items cannot exist in the same place at the same time. Let's say, as a hypothetical example, for one second only one half of the block existed in a specific spot, while the other half, just simply doesn't exist. Immediately the next second the other half existed in that spot for only the next second, where the first piece just no longer existed. The 2 pieces still equal a whole, yes. Then we could claim that time is a dimension, because it takes 2 separate moments to cause a mass to equal a whole. Now you will HAVE to use Time in order to figure out the mass. Unfortunately, you cannot make anything simply NOT EXIST. Energy is a property of matter, so if you destroy something, it has to become some other form of energy or physical object somewhere, so it will always exist in it's whole. Therefore, time cannot exist and cannot be a dimension.

However, motion requires time. If you move a mass from one spot to another, the result is motion. At one time it existed in one place, another time it existed somewhere else. Speed is the time the object moved from one place to the other. So Time is a factor, but again, it is not a dimension.

[the bomb]

And I said the Emerald City. Damn, I feel stupid -- I thought we were supposed to provide unique and funny answers.

Somebody help me as something must have hijacked my browser as I have entered the freakin Carl Sagan's Cosmos "Billions and Billions of Stars" website!!

Leave it to "Bore-amius" and the "Cranium Crowd" to ruin it for all of us who enjoy fun with their over-compensating for inferior genetalia and forcing a friggin unwanted Physics lesson on most of us !!!

There. I feel better now. Carry on !!

You were!

[sacajaweeda]

There's a wormhole at the rest stop on the interstate near my house. I dunno about all that technical mumbo jumbo you guys are talking about, but this is what they look like...

[the bomb]

where would you end up if you went into one.?

inside the woman I figured at your age you would have figured that out by now

[ViRaL1]

I thought that was called a 'Glory Hole.'

[Doramius]

I thought that was called a 'Glory Hole.'

No. That's only if you see a waiting taco.

[pyrate83]

OH that pic reminds me of the scary movie where he gets a dick in his ear in the bathroom stall.

[doppletwo]

Anybody seen that Duracell comercial with the little girl singing "Oh Glory Hole, Glory Hole"

What is a "Glory Hole" that is ok for kids to sing about in comercials?

I only have heard about one type of "Glory Hole".

That's all I'm saying.

[Cobra]

Doramius,

An experiment was performed my the Air Force. Two identical atomic clocks were made, one on a jet and one on the ground. The jet took off and flew about quickly until it had to come down. Surprise, surprise - the clock on the jet was slow.

flaninacupboard is correct - the faster an object is moving, the slower time passes for it. Weird, but true.

[ViRaL1]

Doramius,

An experiment was performed my the Air Force. Two identical atomic clocks were made, one on a jet and one on the ground. The jet took off and flew about quickly until it had to come down. Surprise, surprise - the clock on the jet was slow.

flaninacupboard is correct - the faster an object is moving, the slower time passes for it. Weird, but true.

No chance of physical effects of flight on the 'movement' of the clock?

[flaninacupboard]

the structure of atoms are not governed by the same rules as the structure of molecules. on the atomic scale the strong and weak nuclear forces are far more powerful than gravity, so movement in and out of the aeroplane etc should have no effect. the predictions relativity made about the difference was also accurate to the observed change by a very high percentage. it would seem that if something other than relativity was at work the results would not be anything near the predictions.

[BJ_M]

Doramius,

An experiment was performed my the Air Force. Two identical atomic clocks were made, one on a jet and one on the ground. The jet took off and flew about quickly until it had to come down. Surprise, surprise - the clock on the jet was slow.

flaninacupboard is correct - the faster an object is moving, the slower time passes for it. Weird, but true.

No chance of physical effects of flight on the 'movement' of the clock?

these were atomic clocks , no movement in them

[doppletwo]

I know the truth about wormholes I got one in the attic and one in the cellar.

Doppletwo came out of one and has been pos

Don't listen to hin he is just kidding.

Nothing to see here move along. Keep it moving.

Damn Homo Sapiens.

[BJ_M]

[sacajaweeda]

That's what the TV clicker leaned up against your lava lamp looks like when you're on acid.

[BJ_M]

sacajaweeda - I wouldn't know 8)



that avatar looks familiar !

[vitualis]

People who haven't actually studied physics should probably not try to explain the intricasies of general relatively and quantum mechanics...

Time is a dimension as per space-time. It isn't a spacial dimension though.

And yes, the "faster" you go, the "slower" time passes as per time dilation in general relatively.

Argue with it all you want, but the fact of the matter is that Einstein was probably smarter than all of you and a vast body of experimental evidence agrees with him.

If you didn't adjust for general relativistic effects on (for example) GPS satellites, GPS wouldn't function. The fact that they do is a testiment to general relativity which predicts time dilation.

Is general relatively the be all and end all? Possibly not. In fact, probably not. General relatively does not explain a number of things but is is a pretty damn good model.

However, arguing against things that can be clearly demonstrated experimentally is silly.

Regards.