From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics / Relativity  (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by Relativity Taskforce.

Clarify black hole relationship[edit]

The article currently doesn't do much to clarify the relationship between black holes and wormholes. Right now, I see mention of eternal black holes with respect to the E-R bridge, but that's just a passing remark. I feel like this could be improved. (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

That's a valid criticism. Einstein considered the "matter" term T in the field equation G=T to be a temporary stand-in that would not be necessary in a more complete theory. Eddington pointed out that the equation could be taken as 'defining' T in terms of the gravitational field, similarly to Maxwell's theory where we can recognize and measure a charge by observing the divergence of its electric field. The Schwarzschild solution has long been interpreted as describing a simple (non-spinning, uncharged) mass, and all a "black hole" amounts to is a Schwarzschild solution with the generating mass confined to a sufficiently small volume. If we take the Einstein/Eddington point of view, all (non-spinning, uncharged) mass-generated gravitational fields are alike, with non-dense masses (presumably an aggregation of atoms) not being called black holes. The only significant difference would be whether a freely falling test body would ever come in contact with the generating mass. — DAGwyn (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Much of the article is not backed by the mathematics[edit]

The "party line" on black holes has traditionally embedded several mistakes, some of which are repeated in the article. The most onerous is lack of recognition that the usual axis labels (radial and time) inside the supposed "event horizon" need to be swapped to track the signature of the metric. Anyway, the so-called maximal extension of the Schwarzschild solution doesn't need to be artificially spliced on; it occurs naturally if one really understands working with manifolds. The description from the point of view of a remote observer breaks down as the curvature becomes stronger, until it is downright misleading. A working group ought to be formed to straighten out this mess. — DAGwyn (talk) 05:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually there is enough philosophy, but the mathematics was not embedded, probably due to lack of time. Also the (article's) text needs a little clean-up - like breaking long texts into shorter paragraphs, which can be afterwards extended with the mathematical formulation(s). — Mihaibarboi

Explanation as to why the wormhole is not a hypothetical concept, but only needs experimental proof in the domain of macroscopic physical objects[edit]

I have removed the word hypothetical from the text "A wormhole is a 'hypothetical' concept that represents a solution of the Einstein field equations: a non-trivial structure linking separate points in spacetime." since the concept is not hypothetical and it is backed by various theoretical researches and by some unaccepted evidence, like wormholes = entanglement (see ER=EPR[1]) - since Einstein introduced the concept of "bridge" to match the similar concept in quantum mechanics - entanglement. I quote Einstein "Under these circumstances it does not seem superfluous to raise the question as to what extent the method of general relativity provides the possibility of accounting for atomic phenomena. It is to such a possibility that we wish to call attention in the present paper in spite of the fact that we are not yet able to decide whether this thoery can account for quantum phenomena." [...] "On the other hand one does not see a priori whether the theory contains the quantum phenomena. Nevertheless one should not exclude a priori the possibility that the theory may contain them. Thus it might turn out that only such regular many-bridge solutions can exist for which the "charges" of the electrical bridges are numerically equal to one another an only two different "masses" occur for the mass bridges, and for which the stationary "motions" are subject to restrictions like those which we encounter in the quantum theory. In any case here is a possibility for a general relativistic theory of matter which is logically completely satisfying and which contains no new hypothetical elements." [2]]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihaibarboi (talkcontribs) 09:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the speculative word "yet"[edit]

Regarding the speculative word "yet" from the text "Wormholes are consistent with the general theory of relativity, but they have not yet been proven to exist": Kip Thorne mentioned in a conference ([need citation]) that his on to proving experimentally wormholes. Also Leonard Susskind mentioned about several of his ex-students of having experiments under going (see ER=EPR [3]). So since there are experiments under going, it seems fair to mention them (aka the wormholes) at least at speculative.

The argument "wikipedia does not predict future" is not valid, since evidence of wormholes (aka entanglement) exist, but it is not accepted by some members of the scientific community (some accept it, some they don't - this is called a "debate"). While this debate still exist it seems normal to use speculative word yet. Mihaibarboi (talk)

You are trying to imply something by using "yet". It is not WP:NEUTRAL language. If something is not proven simply say so. If there are notable experiments then mention them. Volunteer1234 (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
The mainstream view is that: wormholes as described in this article could exist, insofar as our current knowledge goes; observable wormhole creation in the laboratory is beyond our capabilities for the foreseeable future; some astronomical observations might indicate instances of wormholes but could also be due to something else; and any of the foregoing might change as our knowledge and understanding improves. Thus, despite popular use of the concept as though it were already proven, it is currently too much to ask for proof of wormhole existence, and it is possible that wormhole theory is incorrect, either factually or in interpretation. This is an unresolved situation that may be resolved one way or another in the future. Thus the word "yet" correctly conveys *important* information about our current state of knowledge. Without it, the reader is likely to think that wormholes must exist, because there is an article about them. No matter whether the article were to claim that wormholes do exist or that they do not exist, it would be claiming something that is not known. If the simple use of "yet" doesn't satisfy you, then there really needs to be an outright statement like "Whether wormholes actually exist is not known." However, that has an implicit "currently" or "yet", so it's simpler to retain the wording (with "yet") that is already in place. — DAGwyn (talk) 05:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Used your suggestion, thanks! Volunteer1234 (talk) 03:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your work! — DAGwyn (talk) 04:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)