Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tomBitonti" data-source="post: 6639232" data-attributes="member: 13107">Would you put the exotic matter required for wormholes in the same category as tachyonic matter?&nbsp; That is, a kind of matter which, if it existed, would behave in exceptional ways compared to ordinary matter, but for which there is no physical evidence?I'm thinking this gets at the difference between the equations which are used, and the actual underlying physics (which is in the realm of what can be tested).Although, if you look at neutron stars and black holes, those were predicted by looking at particular parts of the domains for equations (what happens when you put a lot of mass together).&nbsp; Not really a hard question, but it's curious that the implied objects (black holes) have been observed, while worm holes have not.&nbsp; I'm thinking that is not a hard question, since black holes do not require a new exotic kind of matter.Thx!TomB</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tomBitonti, post: 6639232, member: 13107"] Would you put the exotic matter required for wormholes in the same category as tachyonic matter? That is, a kind of matter which, if it existed, would behave in exceptional ways compared to ordinary matter, but for which there is no physical evidence? I'm thinking this gets at the difference between the equations which are used, and the actual underlying physics (which is in the realm of what can be tested). Although, if you look at neutron stars and black holes, those were predicted by looking at particular parts of the domains for equations (what happens when you put a lot of mass together). Not really a hard question, but it's curious that the implied objects (black holes) have been observed, while worm holes have not. I'm thinking that is not a hard question, since black holes do not require a new exotic kind of matter. Thx! TomB [/QUOTE]

Verification