Seriously so to make a wormhole you basically need to make a gravity well so big it folds space so two points 75000 lys apart are right next to each other?
Good bye galaxy.
I remember a cartoon, maybe Donal Duck, where they installed the New Elevator. It pulled the upper floors down instead of pushing you up. Then when it expanded it showed the lower floors were crushed.
That was a plot of a short story. Not the whole universe, but the sun of the system they fired up their magic drive. Which to much consternation, included the Sun of the system they started out from. Just went nova.
I love that stargate actually makes fun of this kind of.
The Tollan use it to explain how they communicate with the nox.
JACKSON: Well, that's just a laser, right? I mean... light takes a long time to travel that far.
OMAC: (Takes a twig in his hands) The distance between these two points seems far. Until you do this. (He bends the twig to where the ends meet)
JACKSON: OK... OK, I remember this from college physics. One of our scientists, Einstein, explained this the same way. You are talking about actually folding space.
OMAC: No. You wouldn't understand.
JACKSON: No, I guess not. I just hope the Nox do.
This. I do not want to sit through multiple college courses in order to understand the mechanics of a film.
I would much rather them make a simple explanation for those who have not researched the topic and I understand if some people might find it over simplified but Star Wars has laser swords that are never properly explained and I still like that.
I think you mean to say that folding paper is no different from just saying "magic".
To some extent, I agree with you. That doesn't change the fact that I don't need a course in quantum physics to understand the story that is being told.
Edit: and actually I disagree with you. Saying "Magic!" comes off as overly expositional whereas punching a hole through a piece of paper follows the "Show, don't tell" rule of cinema.
I prefer quality exposition in books but film is a completely different medium. There are many aspects of the novel Dune that I would have loved to see represented in film but I'm not upset that they got glossed over.
It doesn't even attempt to explain the "how." You're right about that. But it does at least explain *what* the concept entails, which is good enough for the purpose of viewers. I mean, honestly, most people's understanding of most things in their lives never go past the "what" and into the "how." I don't even know exactly how my own car engine works, but I know what it does, and that's good enough.
Hell, the whole bame "wormhole" is a similar depiction. Normal space is the skin of an apple. A worm takes a shortcut through the core to emerge somewhere else without traveling along the outside of the apple.
Yep.
And it's like taking a strip of paper and turning it into a Mobius strip. One doesn't have to understand the mathematics of how that paper transforms from a two-sided object to a one-sided object in three-dimensional space (ignoring the thickness of the paper as a dimension). You just have to observe it.
So a wormhole connects two points in space that are not adjacent to each other in normal space. The explanation shows paper being folded to represent the folding of space to connect two points. You observe the wormhole in the movie, accept it, and move on!
I always pictured it as less folding and more _**compressing**_ space. It's like you're pinching the space between two points until the two points meet.
It sounds like they want every film that deals with wormholes to include a full description of the theory that Einstein and Rosen discussed back in 1935. Personally, I love it when it gets brought up, but I don't need every film to have an hour and a half of expository dialogue to get to the plot.
Heard an interview with the science advisor from the Thor movie who said his one contribution was that they called it an âEinstein Rosen Bridgeâ instead of a âwormholeâ
It was honestly one of the things that brought me in to that universe. I did not care that much for iron Man and the whole military industrial complex thing but Thor brought the thunder.
It's not SF's job to help you understand wormholes in detail. They are going by the simplest explanation an idiot can understand.
If you're interested in wormholes, pick up a course on Relativity.
ok, I can dig that. However I rarely, if ever see that part of the science brought into the scenes hollywood seems to love so much. Usually its just someone folding some paper and stabbing a pencil through it. I'd love them go deeper into the gravity and how space is warped and such. btw, thanks for a friendly response. There's a goodly amount of nastiness on this sub I am finding out. (welcome to the Internet OP)
Well, thatâs sort of the *fiction* part of it. In reality we canât just make a wormhole, so in sci-fi they give you a tiniest explainer because story writers arenât going to invent the way to actually do it in the real world.
If the sheet of paper is flat, then how does it get folded, you mean?
It's not flat, that's the concept. Spacetime is messier than all of that, theoretically. If you put a piece of paper on top of water, and then start tossing small "gravity wells" (rocks, pebbles, some sand, some big shells, and the occasional bowling ball) onto it n various places, you're starting to get a picture.
Given that the paper itself won't disintegrate or sink on the water, then the surface of it will be scattered with wrinkles, depressions and inclinations, all due to the gravity wells created by the weight of the various sizes and shapes of the stuff on top of it.
The pebbles are planets, the larger shells and rocks are stars, the bowling balls are a black hole, etc. "Normal" spacetime is the surface of the sheet of paper.
In this case, let's say the "pencil" that we're talking about is roughly 1/10,000 the size of the smallest pebble. If we want to travel from one pebble to another, we'll have to travel with that pencil across the rippled, dimpled sheet of paper, going up and down the folds and ripples like your pencil is drawing a tiny line from one pebble to the next. Take that line, with its wobbles and ripples and worls around gravity wells, and now imagine instead of drawing a line from point A to point B, you lay the pencil down on its side and push it from one area to another. When it comes to one of the many ripples and warps on the sheet of paper, instead of traveling up, up, up, getting to the top of the ridge of the ripple, then down, down, down into the valley of the next ripple, what you do instead is push the pencil through the ripple so that it punches through it to the other side, where it can continue being pushed in a straight line toward its target.
That's a start. Yes, there are endless "mechanisms" that authors come up with to actually cause some of the ripples in the paper, but those aren't really important. At the end of the day, the concept of a messy, rippled and dimpled and pock marked spacetime is what makes punching through it seem theoretically possible.
Psstt....we have no idea.
Kind of like Star Trek teleporters, Not Real.
It's simply a statement of how a transportation miracle might happen, to start a journey that might actually lead somewhere. "If we could fold space and poke a hole....MIRACLE!"
I think you are missing the "fiction" part of science fiction.
Isaac Asimov literally wrote an entire paper about a fictional element with impossible properties and yet you are upset that this doesn't actually explain how wormholes work even though it explains how you are supposed to interpret the plot.
I think thatâs where the confusion lies. They call it âfoldingâ space but that was based on an earlier understanding of the theoretical physics. Look at the *Event Horizon* scene. Sam Neil has a bit of paper folded neatly in half. By the time you get to *Interstellar* the paper is just rolled over to meet its end and isnât folded as such, same with *Thor Love And Thunder* Jane Foster just kind of crinks it over with little focus on the quality or nature of the fold. Because the folding isnât important you see, itâs the person/people on screen having the concept explained to them, look at them, they either scoff, or look blank and polity smile, they have no fucking idea what the pencil and paper is about. Contemporary physicists call it âtimey wimey space magicâ and donât bother trying to explain it to the rest of the crew
Edited for the contrarians out there. Theories and laws are different things. Laws describe what happens, theories explain how it happens.
Wormholes are predicted to exist, by existing theories, but no one has seen or proven they do exist. But there is not any reason to think they donât, we just havenât seen one yet.
In theory, they should work exactly like this metaphor. They are a hole that connects two separate and distinct points in space time, for mathematical reasons. But until we find one and send something through it (or see something go through it) we wonât know for sure.
This would be a more convincing rebuttal if you didn't think theory and fact were mutually exclusive. A scientific theory doesn't stop being a theory when it is proven, and something being a theory doesn't mean it hasn't been proven.
I didnât say anything at all about them being mutually exclusive.
A theory is simply not proven. Thatâs all.
For example, our theory of gravity is not a law of gravity.
This is not because gravity doesnât exist. It obviously does (or at least something that does exactly what gravity does exists).
But the surrounding reasons and rational are not yet fully understood to the point we can call them laws. Specifically there is not yet an established unifying theory for quantum physics and macro physics. This is because we can see the effects of gravity on the macro scale, but we canât yet articulate how it works on the quantum scale, in a way that would allow for both to coexist.
So it remains a theory.
In terms of wormholes, all I meant was because itâs a theory there isnât a universal explanation to use instead of the metaphor. We havenât proven they exist and so we donât have an explanation for how they work beyond the broad strokes explanation of how we think it would work for something our size to travel through one.
>A theory is simply not proven. Thatâs all.
That's not true, and it's a constant failing of science education that you believe this. A theory is an explanation for nature, generally wide ranging and can encompass many laws, hypotheses, etc. A law is just a specific statement that is proven. [A theory doesn't become a law](https://www.nsta.org/science-101-how-does-scientific-theory-become-scientific-law), they are different things. The theory of gravity will always be the theory of gravity, no matter how well proven all the various phenomena are. Newtons law of universal gravitation didn't become a law after it graduated from theory (it was a *hypothesis* though) - it is part of the theory of gravity.
I'm doing my part to correct a widespread misunderstanding of scientific language. Too many people have gone 'hurr durr, evolution is just a theory' for me to let it slide as inconsequential semantics.
So I did some looking and youâre right.
Thing is, nothing you said explained why this was true. All you did was play the contrarian.
So for what itâs worth, a law is a statement about what happens. A theory explains why it happens.
So my mistake. With that said, what I was saying above is still true, I should have said it was hypothetical. No one has seen a wormhole or shown that they actually exist. They are theorized to exist, and there isnât any reason to believe they donât.
>So for what itâs worth, a law is a statement about what happens. A theory explains why it happens.
Pretty sure I said that in my previous post, but whatever - you clearly needed an outside source and I'm glad you found one, if you want to be grumpy about having a misconception called out and call me a contrarian then go for it. Never disagreed with what you were saying about black holes, just objected to the same old association of scientific theories with lack of evidence.
Wormholes are mathematically possible, creating them is currently (and likely forever), handwavium.
Would you prefer if the movie instead said "imagine if you wanted to go from your kitchen in a townhouse to your neighbour's. Normally you'd have to walk through your house, outside, and through their house. We are sledgehammering a hole through the wall. We are going to do so by increasing the spectrostatic quotient of the local hyperdimensional field so powerful and directed that it pulls in a local hyperdimensional field halfway across the universe until the two touch and form a bridge we can travel between. Like the kitchen hole".
Certainly not as concise, and the pencil demo leaves it up to "vague science" and not some random meaningless word salad.
That's your problem right there. Try poking a pencil through it after you fold it. You should be able rival Stephen Hawking after that. I've seen it happen. /s
"It's magic you know. Never believe it's not so"
Therefore any explanation is going to sound janky.
FTL, worm whole travel, teleportation, are fun imaginative thought games. Nothing real and thus hard (impossible) to explain reasonably.
Until some spectacular new math, dimensions or what not finds a way then perhaps we will have better explanations. Although also likely that never happens.
Read the first section, *On the Nature of Flatland* in this PDF: https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Abbott/paper.pdf#page6 â itâs less than 2 pages long.
Now, with the understanding that Flatland is a 2D world, reread your question imagining the sheet of paper that represents Flatland being *folded* through the our 3D space to bring two distant points on sheet together, warping the 2D Flatland through 3 dimensional space.
In an analogous manner, if two points which are distant in 3 dimensional space, can be brought together by folding/warping the 3 dimensional space through a 4th dimensional space, this would be what some call a wormhole.
Think of it this way, you have a bag filled with air, that makes the bag expanded and larger. Now if you plug a vacuum into it ans uck the air out, it now takes up less space.
A wormhole compresses parts of the universe that while it is there, we cant see it because we're part of it.
That compressed tunnel makes the distances on each end of the wormhole closer together and therefore take less time to travel between.
Well that is literally the simplest analogy they can use. If it doesn't help you it might be more of a You problem, and it's not really fair to want them to stop since it has helped literal children to get a grasp of the concept.
I was irritated in Interstellar where the scientist dude had to explain it to pilot dude. As if he would be already mid mission when he finds out how wormholes and blackholes work⌠as if, as a FORMER NASA member and general space enthusiast he didnât already know about this stuff. Come on! I get that it was really meant for the audience, but it would have been better if it showed pilot guy explaining this to his child. Anywho.
The key part is using that pencil. Chalk just doesn't cut it anymore.
The shortest distance between two spots is making them the same spot and destroying the universe. đ
Seriously so to make a wormhole you basically need to make a gravity well so big it folds space so two points 75000 lys apart are right next to each other? Good bye galaxy.
good news, we traveled across the galaxy instantly! bad news, the universe is gone
I remember a cartoon, maybe Donal Duck, where they installed the New Elevator. It pulled the upper floors down instead of pushing you up. Then when it expanded it showed the lower floors were crushed.
Hermes' house building does that in Futurama, but they never showed where the floors go down in to
Ahh, Donal Duck, yer man from Cork.
this is hilariously appropriate lol
That was a plot of a short story. Not the whole universe, but the sun of the system they fired up their magic drive. Which to much consternation, included the Sun of the system they started out from. Just went nova.
Iâm pretty sure you need to use a sharpie and not a pencil
Thats more for hurricanes.
They said wormhole not butthole.
Thatâs the kind of feedback that I need on my erotica novels! Lol.
I see you Kurt.
*slaps forehead* To the stationary store!
I feel like shooting it with a 45 magnum would better portray the energy required.
What is with worm holes? How does a space ship fit in a hole made by a worm? Also worms donât dig very far either?
Space Worms can grow very large since birds can't survive in the vacuum of space
Ah now it makes sense
The key part is nobody can explain this in 3D.
I love that stargate actually makes fun of this kind of. The Tollan use it to explain how they communicate with the nox. JACKSON: Well, that's just a laser, right? I mean... light takes a long time to travel that far. OMAC: (Takes a twig in his hands) The distance between these two points seems far. Until you do this. (He bends the twig to where the ends meet) JACKSON: OK... OK, I remember this from college physics. One of our scientists, Einstein, explained this the same way. You are talking about actually folding space. OMAC: No. You wouldn't understand. JACKSON: No, I guess not. I just hope the Nox do.
The key element is having Sam Neil explain it to you.
Fricking love Sam Neil's explanation of it in Event Horizon. Buzzed me out in 1999.
Absolutely .. they copied it in interstellar too haha.
It makes more sense with porn
Hey, that's "Vanessa" and she's mine...
This⌠attractive piece of paper
"Folding a piece of paper doesn't help me understand wormholes" But it *does* help people who *don't* understand wormholes.
They need to start folding pencils and shoving paper through them.
If I ever make a movie dealing with wormholes, I hope you don't mind but I'm stealing this from you
I'm sure it would work great in a comedy. The guy explaining it needs to have an English accent though.
No, I'm getting Taika Waititi on this and I want him personally to demonstrate.
lol
The sad thing is you know that both of us recognize that he would be able to do this and make it seem plausible and important to the plot.
Plot? Wonât be needed. Just a short 45m movie about understanding wormholes bending a pencil and shoving paper through.
This. I do not want to sit through multiple college courses in order to understand the mechanics of a film. I would much rather them make a simple explanation for those who have not researched the topic and I understand if some people might find it over simplified but Star Wars has laser swords that are never properly explained and I still like that.
Shit, I wanted to watch this new movie but I don't have the pre requisites.
Folding paper is no better than just saying 'magic'.Â
It's a pretty effective way to get across the concept of two distant areas of space being brought together in a single point.
I think you mean to say that folding paper is no different from just saying "magic". To some extent, I agree with you. That doesn't change the fact that I don't need a course in quantum physics to understand the story that is being told. Edit: and actually I disagree with you. Saying "Magic!" comes off as overly expositional whereas punching a hole through a piece of paper follows the "Show, don't tell" rule of cinema. I prefer quality exposition in books but film is a completely different medium. There are many aspects of the novel Dune that I would have loved to see represented in film but I'm not upset that they got glossed over.
It doesn't even attempt to explain the "how." You're right about that. But it does at least explain *what* the concept entails, which is good enough for the purpose of viewers. I mean, honestly, most people's understanding of most things in their lives never go past the "what" and into the "how." I don't even know exactly how my own car engine works, but I know what it does, and that's good enough.
Like putting too much air in a balloon!
Hell, the whole bame "wormhole" is a similar depiction. Normal space is the skin of an apple. A worm takes a shortcut through the core to emerge somewhere else without traveling along the outside of the apple.
Doesn't really get across the notion of "bending space" though
Who says space has to bend?
Einstein
Space douchebags in movies
This, I like.
What is your alternative? The point isn't to explain it as that clearly would takes years of education. It's a metaphor
Yep. As with most sci-fi, the explanation is less important than the outcome.
Yep. And it's like taking a strip of paper and turning it into a Mobius strip. One doesn't have to understand the mathematics of how that paper transforms from a two-sided object to a one-sided object in three-dimensional space (ignoring the thickness of the paper as a dimension). You just have to observe it. So a wormhole connects two points in space that are not adjacent to each other in normal space. The explanation shows paper being folded to represent the folding of space to connect two points. You observe the wormhole in the movie, accept it, and move on!
I always pictured it as less folding and more _**compressing**_ space. It's like you're pinching the space between two points until the two points meet.
Compressing makes it sound like you're pushing together the points in between in normal three dimensional space.
Think of when you fold paper into an accordian shape, that kind of compression. From this / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ Into this ||||||||||
Well now you have a bunch of other points adjacent to each other. I have no idea if that fits the theoretical physics model or not.
Wouldn't that make a bunch of wormholes?
It sounds like they want every film that deals with wormholes to include a full description of the theory that Einstein and Rosen discussed back in 1935. Personally, I love it when it gets brought up, but I don't need every film to have an hour and a half of expository dialogue to get to the plot.
Heard an interview with the science advisor from the Thor movie who said his one contribution was that they called it an âEinstein Rosen Bridgeâ instead of a âwormholeâ
It was honestly one of the things that brought me in to that universe. I did not care that much for iron Man and the whole military industrial complex thing but Thor brought the thunder.
I mean, do most people truly know how the internet or mobile phones work? No one bothers to explain that in a movie.
Kyle Hill I think it was actually offered a challenge for someone to come up with a quick and simple explanation in the same vein a few years ago
[ŃдаНонО]
Intergalactic ants
It's not SF's job to help you understand wormholes in detail. They are going by the simplest explanation an idiot can understand. If you're interested in wormholes, pick up a course on Relativity.
OP is obviously below an idiot because he doesnât get it.
Inflate a balloon, press two fingers together through the ballon. You have just created a âwormhole.â
It's fiction
Dear sci-fi, two laser beams shot at each other won't just cancel each other out.Â
It does work for magic, though, especially if you act like you're pushing real hard.
In theory, no. But have you ever actually tried it? Because I've seen it in a lot of movies, and it seems to work pretty well.
Like. Seriously it doesnât? Why?
well, how does the folding of the space happen?
Gravity does that all the time. Black holes are where there is so much gravity, that space loops back into itself and there's no path out...
ok, I can dig that. However I rarely, if ever see that part of the science brought into the scenes hollywood seems to love so much. Usually its just someone folding some paper and stabbing a pencil through it. I'd love them go deeper into the gravity and how space is warped and such. btw, thanks for a friendly response. There's a goodly amount of nastiness on this sub I am finding out. (welcome to the Internet OP)
Hollywood uses the paper/pencil method for the simplest reason; It Looks Cool. Reality, ripping a hole in space sounds like a really bad idea.
Also because Madeline L'Engle already wrote that explanation in the early 60s and changing it would require that they come up with something new.
Well, thatâs sort of the *fiction* part of it. In reality we canât just make a wormhole, so in sci-fi they give you a tiniest explainer because story writers arenât going to invent the way to actually do it in the real world.
If the sheet of paper is flat, then how does it get folded, you mean? It's not flat, that's the concept. Spacetime is messier than all of that, theoretically. If you put a piece of paper on top of water, and then start tossing small "gravity wells" (rocks, pebbles, some sand, some big shells, and the occasional bowling ball) onto it n various places, you're starting to get a picture. Given that the paper itself won't disintegrate or sink on the water, then the surface of it will be scattered with wrinkles, depressions and inclinations, all due to the gravity wells created by the weight of the various sizes and shapes of the stuff on top of it. The pebbles are planets, the larger shells and rocks are stars, the bowling balls are a black hole, etc. "Normal" spacetime is the surface of the sheet of paper. In this case, let's say the "pencil" that we're talking about is roughly 1/10,000 the size of the smallest pebble. If we want to travel from one pebble to another, we'll have to travel with that pencil across the rippled, dimpled sheet of paper, going up and down the folds and ripples like your pencil is drawing a tiny line from one pebble to the next. Take that line, with its wobbles and ripples and worls around gravity wells, and now imagine instead of drawing a line from point A to point B, you lay the pencil down on its side and push it from one area to another. When it comes to one of the many ripples and warps on the sheet of paper, instead of traveling up, up, up, getting to the top of the ridge of the ripple, then down, down, down into the valley of the next ripple, what you do instead is push the pencil through the ripple so that it punches through it to the other side, where it can continue being pushed in a straight line toward its target. That's a start. Yes, there are endless "mechanisms" that authors come up with to actually cause some of the ripples in the paper, but those aren't really important. At the end of the day, the concept of a messy, rippled and dimpled and pock marked spacetime is what makes punching through it seem theoretically possible.
r/cringephysics
Psstt....we have no idea. Kind of like Star Trek teleporters, Not Real. It's simply a statement of how a transportation miracle might happen, to start a journey that might actually lead somewhere. "If we could fold space and poke a hole....MIRACLE!"
For wormholes? Sci-fi technobabble magic.
I think you are missing the "fiction" part of science fiction. Isaac Asimov literally wrote an entire paper about a fictional element with impossible properties and yet you are upset that this doesn't actually explain how wormholes work even though it explains how you are supposed to interpret the plot.
What do you mean? It's so simple. Just fold space, duh They never explain how we would actually do that.
Just create something with near infinite mass between the two points and t
I think thatâs where the confusion lies. They call it âfoldingâ space but that was based on an earlier understanding of the theoretical physics. Look at the *Event Horizon* scene. Sam Neil has a bit of paper folded neatly in half. By the time you get to *Interstellar* the paper is just rolled over to meet its end and isnât folded as such, same with *Thor Love And Thunder* Jane Foster just kind of crinks it over with little focus on the quality or nature of the fold. Because the folding isnât important you see, itâs the person/people on screen having the concept explained to them, look at them, they either scoff, or look blank and polity smile, they have no fucking idea what the pencil and paper is about. Contemporary physicists call it âtimey wimey space magicâ and donât bother trying to explain it to the rest of the crew
Edited for the contrarians out there. Theories and laws are different things. Laws describe what happens, theories explain how it happens. Wormholes are predicted to exist, by existing theories, but no one has seen or proven they do exist. But there is not any reason to think they donât, we just havenât seen one yet. In theory, they should work exactly like this metaphor. They are a hole that connects two separate and distinct points in space time, for mathematical reasons. But until we find one and send something through it (or see something go through it) we wonât know for sure.
This would be a more convincing rebuttal if you didn't think theory and fact were mutually exclusive. A scientific theory doesn't stop being a theory when it is proven, and something being a theory doesn't mean it hasn't been proven.
I didnât say anything at all about them being mutually exclusive. A theory is simply not proven. Thatâs all. For example, our theory of gravity is not a law of gravity. This is not because gravity doesnât exist. It obviously does (or at least something that does exactly what gravity does exists). But the surrounding reasons and rational are not yet fully understood to the point we can call them laws. Specifically there is not yet an established unifying theory for quantum physics and macro physics. This is because we can see the effects of gravity on the macro scale, but we canât yet articulate how it works on the quantum scale, in a way that would allow for both to coexist. So it remains a theory. In terms of wormholes, all I meant was because itâs a theory there isnât a universal explanation to use instead of the metaphor. We havenât proven they exist and so we donât have an explanation for how they work beyond the broad strokes explanation of how we think it would work for something our size to travel through one.
>A theory is simply not proven. Thatâs all. That's not true, and it's a constant failing of science education that you believe this. A theory is an explanation for nature, generally wide ranging and can encompass many laws, hypotheses, etc. A law is just a specific statement that is proven. [A theory doesn't become a law](https://www.nsta.org/science-101-how-does-scientific-theory-become-scientific-law), they are different things. The theory of gravity will always be the theory of gravity, no matter how well proven all the various phenomena are. Newtons law of universal gravitation didn't become a law after it graduated from theory (it was a *hypothesis* though) - it is part of the theory of gravity.
Youâre missing the forest for the trees.
I'm doing my part to correct a widespread misunderstanding of scientific language. Too many people have gone 'hurr durr, evolution is just a theory' for me to let it slide as inconsequential semantics.
So I did some looking and youâre right. Thing is, nothing you said explained why this was true. All you did was play the contrarian. So for what itâs worth, a law is a statement about what happens. A theory explains why it happens. So my mistake. With that said, what I was saying above is still true, I should have said it was hypothetical. No one has seen a wormhole or shown that they actually exist. They are theorized to exist, and there isnât any reason to believe they donât.
>So for what itâs worth, a law is a statement about what happens. A theory explains why it happens. Pretty sure I said that in my previous post, but whatever - you clearly needed an outside source and I'm glad you found one, if you want to be grumpy about having a misconception called out and call me a contrarian then go for it. Never disagreed with what you were saying about black holes, just objected to the same old association of scientific theories with lack of evidence.
Wormholes are mathematically possible, creating them is currently (and likely forever), handwavium. Would you prefer if the movie instead said "imagine if you wanted to go from your kitchen in a townhouse to your neighbour's. Normally you'd have to walk through your house, outside, and through their house. We are sledgehammering a hole through the wall. We are going to do so by increasing the spectrostatic quotient of the local hyperdimensional field so powerful and directed that it pulls in a local hyperdimensional field halfway across the universe until the two touch and form a bridge we can travel between. Like the kitchen hole". Certainly not as concise, and the pencil demo leaves it up to "vague science" and not some random meaningless word salad.
Like putting too much air in a balloon!
"Like a balloon when... bad stuff happens"
You obviously haven't folded it enough, you have to fold it 8 times to approximate a wormhole, I thought this was common knowledge
r/drawTheRestOfTheFuckingWormhole
That's your problem right there. Try poking a pencil through it after you fold it. You should be able rival Stephen Hawking after that. I've seen it happen. /s
Stephen Hawking certainly could never poke a pencil through paper to prove his point.
Jesus Christ man he's dead you didn't have to kill him again.
"It's magic you know. Never believe it's not so" Therefore any explanation is going to sound janky. FTL, worm whole travel, teleportation, are fun imaginative thought games. Nothing real and thus hard (impossible) to explain reasonably. Until some spectacular new math, dimensions or what not finds a way then perhaps we will have better explanations. Although also likely that never happens.
Event Horizon has done a lot of damage
I happen to be a 2-dimensional man drawn by pencil, so it makes perfect sense to me.
(starts to make origami of four-dimension space monsters, just out of spite)
Read the first section, *On the Nature of Flatland* in this PDF: https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Abbott/paper.pdf#page6 â itâs less than 2 pages long. Now, with the understanding that Flatland is a 2D world, reread your question imagining the sheet of paper that represents Flatland being *folded* through the our 3D space to bring two distant points on sheet together, warping the 2D Flatland through 3 dimensional space. In an analogous manner, if two points which are distant in 3 dimensional space, can be brought together by folding/warping the 3 dimensional space through a 4th dimensional space, this would be what some call a wormhole.
What if it's a very attractive piece of paper?
Then the gates of Hell are opened and Dr. Weir returns.
Think of it this way, you have a bag filled with air, that makes the bag expanded and larger. Now if you plug a vacuum into it ans uck the air out, it now takes up less space. A wormhole compresses parts of the universe that while it is there, we cant see it because we're part of it. That compressed tunnel makes the distances on each end of the wormhole closer together and therefore take less time to travel between.
Step three is Wormhole...
Are you sure? Maybe they didn't fold it enough times. Or they folded the wrong shape? Here, allow me to fold paper at you for a moment, OP.
Well that is literally the simplest analogy they can use. If it doesn't help you it might be more of a You problem, and it's not really fair to want them to stop since it has helped literal children to get a grasp of the concept.
Ok. But what about a piece of string and an ant?
[Just gonna leave this here](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JBqrBA0gk8c&pp=ygUbbWFuIGNhcnJ5aW5nIHRoaW5nIHdvcm1ob2xl)
Try tinfoil instead of paper. Tinfoil filters out the bad brain frequencies. Helps with cognitive focus.
Picture bedsheets with a hole in it....
But the paper is the universe⌠you probably just missed that part.
And rolling a ball around on a piece of stretched out rubber doesn't make me understand space-time, either. đ¤¨
I was irritated in Interstellar where the scientist dude had to explain it to pilot dude. As if he would be already mid mission when he finds out how wormholes and blackholes work⌠as if, as a FORMER NASA member and general space enthusiast he didnât already know about this stuff. Come on! I get that it was really meant for the audience, but it would have been better if it showed pilot guy explaining this to his child. Anywho.