Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6641219" data-attributes="member: 177">Kip Thorne came at it this way, yes.&nbsp; But there's history further back that gave him the thought to look.&nbsp; The original concept of wormholes goes back to 1916, I think.&nbsp; Take the basic idea of an eternally-existing black hole.&nbsp; Now, take the idea that, aside from the gravitational singularity, that spacetime does not have any &quot;edges&quot; to run into - you should be able to trace the path of any particle infinitely into the past or future.&nbsp; This leads to weirdness - the &quot;black hole/white hole&quot;, which has a black hole connecting to another universe, falls out of this.&nbsp; It was shown that for this original formulation, the bridge between universes is unstable.&nbsp; This bridge does not exist for black holes made from collapsing stars - it only exists for black holes that have existed since the beginning of time.&nbsp; And they weren't *looking* for bridges - they were doing some of the initial considerations of what black holes were like, and what spacetime in and around them would have to be, and happened to stumble upon it.Then comes Kerr, in 1963, who shows that within a *spinning* black hole (and a couple years later, a spinning black hole with charge) there are even more clear paths that look like you can jump between universes if you enter a black hole.&nbsp; And this is, if I recall correctly, more stable.&nbsp; These are the first &quot;wormholes&quot; - they call for entering a black hole, and coming out in some other universe.Thorne shifted this to, &quot;Well, can we do this without a black hole? What does that look like?&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6641219, member: 177"] Kip Thorne came at it this way, yes. But there's history further back that gave him the thought to look. The original concept of wormholes goes back to 1916, I think. Take the basic idea of an eternally-existing black hole. Now, take the idea that, aside from the gravitational singularity, that spacetime does not have any "edges" to run into - you should be able to trace the path of any particle infinitely into the past or future. This leads to weirdness - the "black hole/white hole", which has a black hole connecting to another universe, falls out of this. It was shown that for this original formulation, the bridge between universes is unstable. This bridge does not exist for black holes made from collapsing stars - it only exists for black holes that have existed since the beginning of time. And they weren't *looking* for bridges - they were doing some of the initial considerations of what black holes were like, and what spacetime in and around them would have to be, and happened to stumble upon it. Then comes Kerr, in 1963, who shows that within a *spinning* black hole (and a couple years later, a spinning black hole with charge) there are even more clear paths that look like you can jump between universes if you enter a black hole. And this is, if I recall correctly, more stable. These are the first "wormholes" - they call for entering a black hole, and coming out in some other universe. Thorne shifted this to, "Well, can we do this without a black hole? What does that look like?" [/QUOTE]

Verification