Wormholes

[Thales]

???

[Sayonara]

I mean that you are only replying to me in the respect that you are clicking the "reply" button.

 

I am not disputing any of what you have said other than the fact that I don't believe that conservation of energy can be arbitrarily expanded to incorporate any energy entering/leaving another universe.

[Thales]

Perhaps if you stated your objection more clearly I would be able to respond more articulately...

[Sayonara]

The conservation of energy principle applies to a closed system. If matter or energy is being passed to (or from) another universe, then either the system is not closed, or the principle is broken.

[Thales]

The conservation of energy principle applies to a closed system.

 

Indeed however, on the grandest of scales, the universe/mutliverse is a closed system, that's my point.

 

As for the laws of conservation...sure the matter would not be in the same form as there would most likely be a discontinuity at the boundary between universes but the matter/energy would still exist no less (all be it in a different form). This is all on the erroreous assumption, no less, that there exists 'bridges' between universes.

[Sayonara]

Whether or not {our universe + foreign universe} constitutes a closed system can only be an assumption, so you can't really apply any principles where boolean knowledge of that state is required unless you do so with the appropriate caveats or a suggestion for the opposite case.

[Thales]

My main arguement against the creation/destruction of matter is that, if these wormholes exist then there would presumably be many of them (given the age/size of OUR universe). And if that was the case and matter could simply 'leak' out, then the universe would deflate, rather than expand...

 

That and if it is an open system where does the energy/matter go once it crosses the boundary? (I am aware we are now approaching philosophy but it is a valid point no less). Are you of the opinion it is simply destroyed?

[Sayonara]

That and if it is an open system where does the energy/matter go once it crosses the boundary? (I am aware we are now approaching philosophy but it is a valid point no less). Are you of the opinion it is simply destroyed?

Does it matter what happens to it? The point is that if the system is open, conservation doesn't apply. Unless we can evaluate the nature of the system to either 'open' or 'closed', it would be presumptuous to apply conservation.

 

Although you do raise the interesting point that if matter "leaks" out of a closed universe somehow, do we consider it to be destroyed, or just temporarily AWOL? We might need to move to a different universe just prior to the end of this one and decide which it is retrospectively.

 

 

With regards to your quoted section, I don't see why a leaky universe would deflate.

Also I note that you assume the age of the universe indicates many wormholes, but overlook the fact that two universes might indicate many universes.

[Thales]

Does it matter what happens to it?

Absolutely, it has to go somewhere. My point is that if it goes somewhere, then that place is part of the greater universe/multiverse and thus still inside the system, thus the system remains closed.

 

I will be more than happy to continue this conversation later, but it is unfortunately well past midnight down here in Oz, so I'm off to visit the sandman, maybe he's got some answers.

 

Oh and Sayo, I appreciate the antagonism, I really do. I've gone too long without someone to bounce idea's off (as I'm sure many of this forums visitors have), its good to discuss such things with someone who can see holes in my reasoning, not just blindly accept via a lack of giving a s**t.

[RICHARDBATTY]

If there are white holes in 'another' universe there would have to be ones in ours(conservation of matter/energy/information).

 

Some people theorise that quasars are white holes although it is merely conjecture.

 

As for creating universes out of 'over-expanded' quantum wormholes' date=' where would the energy and matter to create the 'new' universe come from? If the answer is our universe, then it is not so much a 'new' universe as a transformation of an old one.

 

Out of curiosity please define ghost radiation.[/quote']Sorry missed that bit. There is no real definition as yet. The idea is that it creates a dampening field to compensate for the positive energy placed in the hole. This dampening effect has been proved so they say (Japanees scientists) but to open the hole enough to send a person through would take the amount of energy that could be liberated from the mass of jupiter.

[Sayonara]

Absolutely, it has to go somewhere. My point is that if it goes[/i'] somewhere, then that place is part of the greater universe/multiverse and thus still inside the system, thus the system remains closed.

My main problem here is that the system may be infinite.

 

Assuming it is not infinite, there's nothing stopping it changing scope (i.e. becoming different systems, systems changing size etc), seeing as the wormholes between universes could very well open and/or close.

 

Both of those scenarios present problems for conservation.

[RICHARDBATTY]

My main problem here is that the system may be infinite.

 

Assuming it is not infinite' date=' there's nothing stopping it changing scope (i.e. becoming different systems, systems changing size etc), seeing as the wormholes between universes could very well open and/or close.

 

Both of those scenarios present problems for conservation.[/quote']

I am not educated enough to realy have an opinion but within space is more energy that is not normaly accounted for. It apears that photons are popping in and out of existence all the time and that gravity could sometimes pull energy from the ether. Maybe this could be of help in your paradox.

[AtomicMX]

The conservation of energy principle applies to a closed system. If matter or energy is being passed to (or from) another universe, then either the system is not closed, or the principle is broken.

...

Read the system definition.

 

By the way 2 or more systems make another system and so on...

 

OK, I don't see why any of the laws of physics as we know them should apply to another universe.

Perhaps because they are LAWS!

 

well it is possible to create a worm hole - as predicted by general theory of relativity.

But for that we require huge amount of energy that of an exploding star!

 

As far as i remmeber this is an hypothesis made based on the bad interpretation of einsteins theory, but wasnt einstein's.

 

Wormholes do not exist even mathematicately but, you can see some sort of teletransportation in the universe, because the different solar systems and stuff have magnetism and the light is refracted.

[DreamLord]

As far as i remmeber this is an hypothesis made based on the bad interpretation of einsteins theory' date=' but wasnt einstein's.

 

Wormholes do not exist even mathematicately but, you can see some sort of teletransportation in the universe, because the different solar systems and stuff have magnetism and the light is refracted.[/quote']

 

That'd be where you're wrong. Wormholes do exist in the mathematical sense. A scientist has figured out the formula to make one. Actually in Sweden I believe they are planning on making very small wormholes by the year 2006. Not big enough to get anything through it though.

[Sayonara]

Read the system definition.

By the way 2 or more systems make another system and so on...

Perhaps you could play catch-up and read the entire discussion' date=' instead of just stopping on the first thing you don't understand.

 

 

Perhaps because they are LAWS!

What?

 

The laws of physics are a good, consistent description of the way things are in this universe. There is no reason whatsoever to believe they would invariably apply in a different universe. NO REASON. NONE AT ALL.

[Thales]

...in Sweden I believe they are planning on making very small wormholes by the year 2006.

 

Really? Have you got a link or any idea where I can find some info on this?

 

Assuming it is not infinite, there's nothing stopping it changing scope (i.e. becoming different systems, systems changing size etc), seeing as the wormholes between universes could very well open and/or close.

 

Regardless, I see no reason why this provides a problem for the conservation of matter/energy?

 

I repeat on the largest possible scale, the universe is a closed system, IMO.

[Sayonara]

Really? Have you got a link or any idea where I can find some info on this?

Yeah, I'd like to read about that too.

 

 

 

Regardless, I see no reason why this provides a problem for the conservation of matter/energy?

I repeat on the largest possible scale, the universe is a closed system, IMO.

OK, imagine at time 0 we have two distinct universes, A and B. These are both closed systems, each with a specific allocation of energy which we will call x.

 

At time 10 a wormhole opens between A and B, and our closed systems are now open (or closed but larger, if you assume that neither have any other exits. whichever) so that y energy can travel through the wormhole into the B universe.

 

At time 20 the wormhole closes, isolating universes A and B. Universe A now has x-y energy, and universe B has x+y.

 

From the point of view of either universe energy has been lost or gained respectively. The question is, do we consider this to be destruction/creation of energy insofar as it concerns one or the other universe?

[Thales]

Originally you stated that the laws of conservation wouldn't hold accross universes but this is the crux of your previous arguement. You effectively are saying what I have been saying all along;

 

As for the laws of conservation...sure the matter would not be in the same form as there would most likely be a discontinuity at the boundary between universes but the matter/energy would still exist no less (all be it in a different form).

 

Thus on the grandest scale that includes both universes (even if they are closed off from one another they can still be considered to be part of a greater closed system) you have done little more than a reshuffle of existing energy. You can move energy from universe A to universe B and vice-versa but you are not technically creating or destroying anything...

[Sayonara]

Originally you stated that the laws of conservation wouldn't hold accross universes but this is the crux of your previous arguement. You effectively are saying what I have been saying all along;

I did not say "they wouldn't hold", I said that I did not see why they would apply, hence the working through that we have been doing.

 

 

Thus on the grandest scale that includes both universes (even if they are closed off from one another they can still be considered to be part of a greater closed system) you have done little more than a reshuffle of existing energy. You can move energy from universe A to universe B and vice-versa but you are not technically creating or destroying anything...

If we start by considering the energy x in universe A, we can't very well arbitrarily include another distinct universe and its own energy as part of our system because we are effectively creating energy that was not part of our original system.

 

What I am saying is that from the point of view of A, if A is no longer connected to B, energy that ends up in B should be considered destroyed, and energy that arrives in A should be considered created.

If A and B are still connected then obviously they are one system (although they may be part of an open, infinitely repeating system as I mentioned earlier, which is a problem). But if they start and end in isolation, then one has effectively lost energy and one has gained it. An observer in either universe is not going to be able to distinguish destroyed/created energy from energy that has just been "reshuffled".

 

 

"Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another, which includes being mislaid in other universes".

[Thales]

Ok. I agree with your last statement, but the introduction of observers and individual universes, being considered seperately goes against the general grain of the thread. I was talking about the 'multiverse' all along, I think a quick re-read would hopefully reinforce that for you.

 

I must say, a most interesting discussion none the less, at some point though we ended up on the same side of different coins. Lets hope some of the youngens reading this will learn a thing or two about the definition of open and closed systems...

[Sayonara]

I don't have an argument with conservation being upheld in the multiverse (as long as the damned thing is closed overall ), what I have been trying to ask is should we consider energy destroyed or created if it leaves or enters the system? I don't see how you can take the observer out of that really.

[Thales]

Well if the multiverse is closed then I think you know the answer...

[Sayonara]

Well if the multiverse is closed then I think you know the answer...

Even then I'm not 100% convinced. I mean (this is nothing to do with wormholes btw), what happens when a universe ends? In the closed multiverse model all the energy it ever contained has to be preserved somehow.

[Thales]

Cyclical Universe. Then, of course, you have to talk about where it came from and so forth.

 

Such a discussion however I believe is best left for another day/thread.

[DreamLord]

Oops, the article was actually about making blackholes. My mistake, very sorry. Blackholes... It's been a while since I read it. Still, wormholes do exist in theory. Sorry, once again.