Wormholes - Science topic

Have you been able to implement the attack? I urgently need the implementation, please.

For wormholes, Matt Visser published an excellent survey/exploration in 1996. It's available in book form from AIP:

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Lorentzian_Wormholes/Zo_vAAAAMAAJ

----

For black holes, I think the go-to-book, definitive for the mid-1990s, and recounting much of the history of the subject (by someone who was often there), is Kip Thorne's

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Black_Holes_and_Time_Warps/IcnpswEACAAJ

----

Both books are available in paperback ... the only criticism I've seen being that they were both written about 25 years ago. But frankly, the subjects haven't progressed much since then anyway.

Buenos dias Sergio,

questioning the relationship between "objective" ("real") physical time (as in, e.g., the Einsteinian concept of space-time) versus individually perceived time (i.e., time as perceived by conscious agents such as organisms) is, indeed, intriguing. Let me just raise a few thoughts here in addition to what has already been pointed out:

Whether space-time is, indeed, "real" and fundamental is questioned by scholars such as cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman (University of California at Irvine), arguing that space-time may merely be a "headset" through which we perceive and interact with a more fundamental reality. This line of argument - in my view - essentially constitutes a modern-day incarnation of Plato's classic cave analogy.

Irrespective of whether you buy into such "headset"/"matrix" arguments, physicists are on the constant lookout for structures and processes that may physically, indeed, proove more fundamental than spacetime. Here, you may follow, for instance, the work of physicist Nima Arkani-Hamed (Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton). Whether, at the end of the day, "time" will turn out here as something "objective" and/or absolute, as an emergent property of deeper structures, whether it will relativistically stay deeply intertwined with space or be "torn away" from it on a deeper, yet unknown level of physics/reality, no one knows.

For the time being, though, I do think it is important to carefully distinguish between physical measurements and their interpretations in models and theories, in which we use time as part of four-dimensional space-time very successfully on one hand and the intricacies and complexities of an as yet hardly understood (but surely very limited!) human consciousness and perception of "time".

So, is time simply an illusion or a fundamental trait of some form of "reality"? We just don't know...

PS: You may also take interest in this discussion we had last fall: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Has_time_existed_forever .

Best,

Julius

All the articles mentioned are just essays about how not to do the calculation that has to be done-summing over metrics-and trying to guess the answer. Unfortunately the guesses, as expected, fail at some point.

Sergey Shevchenko

Thank you for your comments, which seem to be based on rather old ideas that have been challenged by new ideas.

While space time is nearly flat and nearly uniform, it is not completely flat or completely uniform in the natural state. Scientific community has generally accepted GR that gravity can curve space regionally and other accelerations can curve space locally. These ideas lead to cases of extreme curving from high energy density in which the concept of a wormhole may become relevant.

Your comments apply to most situations, but are thought to become inaccurate locally very close to light speed and in cases of extreme energy densities. Other old theories like TGD give predictions of folded space time at the highest energy densities. When folding might occur, then wormholes might also occur.

Without development of new ideas, the travel between stars will never be achieved.

Sydney Ernest Grimm thank you for your explanation,

I have been looking at the work of Kaluza and Klein and they did propose a theory where 5th dimensions in the metric gmn ie gm5 represent maxwell field and I have used the similar idea when I gave the answer at 1st to make a remark in a sense in which gravity could not be deco into EM waves your idea of matter concentration and free energy concentration is quite intriguing but as far as I have been able to realize I can combinly put matter and free energy in Tmn and use Einstein’s equation to solve it and then I don’t think that I need to consider matter and free energy concentration seperately and as we know Einstein’s equation is a Tensor equation so it must be true for a vector field and the topological field simultaneously as far I know

In fact I was reading an article were the inconsistency of eintein’s negligence of gravity was treated as one of the major drawback of GR but I think that it is much like treating with virtual particles in QED where we integrate it out by summing or integrating over all momenta of virtual particle that appear in loop diagrams and then work in on shell criteria as virtual particle at the end get annhilated but the problem with gravity is it is always there and is working just like virtual particle fluctuations in GR which we want to remove and have a fine tuning in some sense.

In fact we do that in EFT were some degrees of freedom are integrated out due to their irrelevant scales and gravity feels just like that to me in GR sure there are EM ,vaccum fluctuations but gravity is no less of a devil that is why we do not have global energy conservation in GR and we are able to have predictions regarding geometry in GR or have solutions for linearized gravity but i don’t think any one has solved Einstein’s equation fully generalized and high precision but have rather local solutions (in general)using say birkoff’s theorem to make further predictions.

And bending of EM waves is due to gravity and as EM waves have energy in some Lorentz frame they are massive and hence they can interact via gravitation and

please help and explain how there are 33 dimensions in string theory I used normal ordering and concept of Lorentz invariance and I get 26 and I know there are 10 in super string theory

Thank you for such a wonderful discussion and response and Please do correct me if I m wrong somewhere.

Richard Lewis ,Sir indeed you are right that we have not discovered any wormhole but there is a possibility in fact as much as I have understood the concept of wormhole aka(EPR bridge) started with the idea of quantum entanglement and complexity where 2 regions of space are quantum mechanically entangled one can take an easy analogy from say condesed matter physics here also distance between 2 points A and B and the distant between A and B increases with time increasing the complexity entropy and entanglement as number of states between A and B increase so it might not have been discovered yet but is still worth while to use GR and quantum mechanics to explore it for other current purposes

For simple idea of geometry think of stretched string or QCD interactions of 2 quarks if length increases then bredth of string decreases.(Just for simple idea,not a complete model)

And for geometrf wormhole there are different kinds of but b...

Deceleration, relative to isotropic CMB, is suggested to be the only safe thrusting mode when in a wormhole. In this representation 6D or higher space time becomes folded in parallel layers or sheets in front of a fast vehicle and the 4D worm hole becomes a short passage between layers.

Some researchers have suggested sideways acceleration can be done inside a worm hole with various predictions of time and space events. The math that is used in predicting the wormhole is a special case with acceleration and deceleration always in the direction of velocity. Without this the math is far more complicated and is not in the scope of this question.

In the 6D representation it has been suggested that the two additional dimensions are components of time, and a familiar 4D is encountered inside the wormhole. Then a sideways movement in any direction would be expected to be some sort of displacement in time as in time like coordinates, and beyond the scope of this question, needing other research.

Interesting reply. A coordinate system might be chosen to be moving near light speed with respect to the destination. Then the traveler could claim near light speed with respect to the chosen coordinate system, making a contradiction.

A more reasonable choice of coordinate system speeds would be the isotropic CMB representing space that a starship ship would be interacting with.

Hinnerk Albert Many people do think that black holes contain a singularity and that has been the accepted scientific view for many years. Unfortunately we can't look inside a black hole to find out. The idea of a star collapsing to a black hole is plausible for the smaller black holes of less than say 100 solar masses but this idea does not work for the supermassive black holes at the centre of a galaxy.

I would prefer to avoid singularities if at all possible as these are places where the laws of physics break down. As you mentioned it would mean the end of the validity of the Einstein equations of general relativity at the very small scale.

I would prefer to stay with the validity of GR everywhere and go with the more natural explanation for black holes which is that they contain a dense massive object.

Richard

I have a source code about NS2.35，my email:dulina@emails.bjut.edu.cn

Hi Vishal,

Yes, first FRW, then the christoffel symbols, then the riemann tensor, then the ricci tensor, then the ricci scalar, then the einstein tensor, in the end if you have the stress–energy tensor you will form the einstein equations and solve them,

best wishes

Interesting questions but do wormholes have any travel distance between openings or are they like simple thresholds between starting and ending locations. In other words, is the transit instantaneous? If it is then convergence or divergence of two vehicles may not be possible in the way you have described, although collisions could happen.

thanks Abhishek Tayal

Hi You can view this video, this also has the srouce of detecting and handling the worm hole attack for AODV protocol.

Usage of Directional Antenna

Run this code to implement wormhole attack in wireless sensor networks using ns2

#wormhole-attack.tcl

#=================================== # Simulation parameters setup #=================================== set val(chan) Channel/WirelessChannel ;# channel type set val(prop) Propagation/TwoRayGround ;# radio-propagation model set val(netif) Phy/WirelessPhy ;# network interface type set val(mac) Mac/802_11 ;# MAC type set val(ifq) Queue/DropTail/PriQueue ;# interface queue type set val(ll) LL ;# link layer type set val(ant) Antenna/OmniAntenna ;# antenna model set val(ifqlen) 50 ;# max packet in ifq set val(nn) 7 ;# number of mobilenodes set val(rp) AODV ;# routing protocol set val(x) 800 ;# X dimension of topography set val(y) 541 ;# Y dimension of topography set val(stop) 100.0 ;# time of simulation end #=================================== # Initialization #=================================== #Create a ns simulator set ns [new Simulator] #Setup topography object set topo [new Topography] $topo load_flatgrid $val(x) $val(y) create-god $val(nn) #Open the NS trace file set tracefile [open wormhole-attack.tr w] $ns trace-all $tracefile #Open the NAM trace file set namfile [open wormhole-attack.nam w] $ns namtrace-all $namfile $ns namtrace-all-wireless $namfile $val(x) $val(y) set chan [new $val(chan)];#Create wireless channel #=================================== # Mobile node parameter setup #=================================== $ns node-config -adhocRouting $val(rp) \ -llType $val(ll) \ -macType $val(mac) \ -ifqType $val(ifq) \ -ifqLen $val(ifqlen) \ -antType $val(ant) \ -propType $val(prop) \ -phyType $val(netif) \ -channel $chan \ -topoInstance $topo \ -agentTrace ON \ -routerTrace ON \ -macTrace OFF \ -movementTrace ON #=================================== # Nodes Definition #=================================== #Create 7 nodes set n0 [$ns node] $n0 set X_ 99 $n0 set Y_ 299 $n0 set Z_ 0.0 $ns initial_node_pos $n0 20 set n1 [$ns node] $n1 set X_ 299 $n1 set Y_ 297 $n1 set Z_ 0.0 $ns initial_node_pos $n1 20 set n2 [$ns node] $n2 set X_ 499 $n2 set Y_ 298 $n2 set Z_ 0.0 $ns initial_node_pos $n2 20 set n3 [$ns node] $n3 set X_ 700 $n3 set Y_ 299 $n3 set Z_ 0.0 $ns initial_node_pos $n3 20 set n4 [$ns node] $n4 set X_ 199 $n4 set Y_ 350 $n4 set Z_ 0.0 $ns initial_node_pos $n4 20 set n5 [$ns node] $n5 set X_ 599 $n5 set Y_ 350 $n5 set Z_ 0.0 $ns initial_node_pos $n5 20 set n6 [$ns node] $n6 set X_ 600 $n6 set Y_ 200 $n6 set Z_ 0.0 $ns initial_node_pos $n6 20 # Node 5 is given RED Color and a label- indicating it is a Blackhole Attacker $n5 color red $ns at 0.0 "$n5 color red" $ns at 0.0 "$n5 label Attacker" # Node 0 is given GREEN Color and a label - acts as a Source Node $n0 color green $ns at 0.0 "$n0 color green" $ns at 0.0 "$n0 label Source" # Node 3 is given BLUE Color and a label- acts as a Destination Node $n3 color blue $ns at 0.0 "$n3 color blue" $ns at 0.0 "$n3 label Destination" #=================================== # Set node 5 as attacker #=================================== #$ns at 40.0 "[$n2 set ragent_] wormhole-peer" #$ns at 50.0 "[$n2 set ragent_] normal" [$n2 set ll_(0)] wormhole-peer [$n5 set ll_(0)] #=================================== # Agents Definition #=================================== #Setup a UDP connection set udp0 [new Agent/UDP] $ns attach-agent $n0 $udp0 set null1 [new Agent/Null] $ns attach-agent $n3 $null1 $ns connect $udp0 $null1 $udp0 set packetSize_ 1000 #=================================== # Applications Definition #=================================== #Setup a CBR Application over UDP connection set cbr0 [new Application/Traffic/CBR] $cbr0 attach-agent $udp0 $cbr0 set packetSize_ 1000 $cbr0 set rate_ 0.1Mb $cbr0 set random_ null $ns at 1.0 "$cbr0 start" $ns at 100.0 "$cbr0 stop" #=================================== # Termination #=================================== #Define a 'finish' procedure proc finish {} { global ns tracefile namfile $ns flush-trace close $tracefile close $namfile exec nam wormhole-attack.nam & exit 0 } for {set i 0} {$i < $val(nn) } { incr i } { $ns at $val(stop) "\$n$i reset" } $ns at $val(stop) "$ns nam-end-wireless $val(stop)" $ns at $val(stop) "finish" $ns at $val(stop) "puts \"done\" ; $ns halt" $ns run

Dear Julian, please reformulate your question. I am afraid to not getting it correctly.

Dear Ksh. Newton Singh,

If g_{tt} is finite but inverse of g_{rr} goes to zero at r=2m, then it represents a wormhole.

follow this paper:

Detection and Prevention of Wormhole Attack in Wireless Sensor Network using AOMDV Protocol

#1 is an interesting and intriguing idea, which has existed at least since the beautiful novel by Edwin Abbot, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/201/201-h/201-h.htm. Although this idea has been seriously investigated by theoretical physicists since the 1920's, there is to my knowledge absolutely no experimental support for it's truth.

#2-3 are fairly natural possibilities if one accepts #1, with the same qualifications with respect to possible existence.

I.e., #1-3 are mostly pipe dreams, but as such quite enjoyable ones.

#4-5 are absolutely wrong --- extremely wrong --- horribly wrong!!!

The universe, and any subset of it, is much more complex and interesting and beautiful than anything describable by a single number like a frequency (or even a distribution of frequencies, like music).

The code for sinkhole attack of NetSim is available in http://www.tetcos.com/file-exchange.html, and possible the same can be modified for NS

One version of worm hole seems to be made of frame dragging and negative curvature driven by kinetic energy. If so the worm hole repels external mass and does not collect a disk around it. 

I think that a single quantum system is enough. You need to talk to Eric Verlinde. He is promoting information in primordial Qbits as the thing that got entangled and caused the universe and everything. It is a pity he had to put acceleration in by hand though.

Dear maryam Iman

if u create tcl script of malacious nodeto launch the wormhole attack then please send me in my email. adress neerajsharma3027@gmail.com

Dear Bill Zagoras

Please find the below github link which shows the simulation of worm hole attack in NS3. May be useful for you.

Regards

Sanoop

can you help me that define a wormhole  tunnel between two wormhole nodes in tcl code ?

I think that would be stretching the evidence a bit. Also, blackholes (BHs) don't equal wormholes (WHs), so just detecting the BH is not enough. First of all the BH was inferred by spectroscopic measurements of parts of NGC1600, by turning those light curves into rotation velocities, then using that data to predict the size of the mass needed at the center of the galaxy to produce that rotation. They gave 17 billion solar masses with a 68% confidence level.  Would you jump off a bridge if you knew that the bungee cord only had a 68% chance of holding your weight? So, I would claim this is not rock hard. They did say the had a 99% confidence of the BH being at least 10 billions solar mass...so still a large BH. Most BHs of this mass are in quasars, so even if it was associated with a wormhole you would end up in a very radiation rich environment and would not last very long. The BH (or multiple BHs) in NGC 1600 is remarkable in that is seems to be dormant and has thrown most of the stars away from it. Or perhaps it is actually not a BH but dark matter, or another weird object yet to be observed.

In any case, a "traversable" WH (one where you could go back and forth) is likely not possible as it requires a form of "exotic" matter to create a stable WH. Attached is a good review of WH physics and a bit on why it is probably not possible to create or find a real traversable WH.

Hope this is useful.

Cheers,

Kirk

Akira: okay, i got your message. QM is deeply inconsistent and flawed from the beginning. Schrodinger equation is the mother of all confusions. But to blame others is one thing, to solve the real problem is another thing.

Now the question is: how to cure it? Can you please give the url of paper discussing where and how contemporary Bohmians do not use Schrodinger equation? Because as far as I know one way to solve is problem and to explain periodic table of elements without wave mechanics is by using the classical wave equation, as George Shpenkov does. See http://shpenkov.janmax.com

@Rahual Hada: for example check this paper (WHOP: Wormhole Attack Detection Protocol using Hound Packet) they detection rate is based on number of hops.  (also I attach the related graph) most of papers do based on number of hops and now I want to do based on number of neighbors, when I have a source node and 2 neighbors what is detection rate? then increase the number of neighbors (4,6,8,...., n) until have best detection rate. I want to know is it possible to use above formula (number of nodes-1= number of hops) to do it based on number of neighbors? or need to calculated detection rate in other ways?

I don't know how to distinguish a wormhole from a black hole or a gamma-ray burst.

What people have been looking for is topological defects such as magnetic monopoles and cosmic strings, without finding any.

Thanks Mohammad for explaining the field of your research. James showed that a question may be interpreted in different ways from different fields. In this case I chose a field different from yours, so my answer does not apply. In anycase, best wishes in your research. emilio

please refer to this pdf

Do we have the mathematical tools to perform this calculation?  How are we to 'scale' the measurements of equations?  If we have a measurement that is, say, 10^(-30) cm (with an error term of) +/- 10^(-33) and we want to 'scale up' our measurements to something like 10^0 cm (with an error term of) +/- 10^(-6).  How are we to address the extreme difference in error terms?  Even if we could get the error term at our scale to 10^(-10) - there is still such a tremendous gap in error terms to make any association between the measurements irrelevant.

Are our mathematical tools adequate to the task - or do we need new tools?  Do we have the mathematical tools able to cross vast differences in scale?  I think not - and this is a large problem facing science today.  We are not able to develop equations that cross significant spans of scale because we do not have adequate mathematical tools.

Further - our concept of space as 3-dimensional (physical - less 'time') does not include scale as a continuum.  Any measurement implicitly includes a scale 'measurement' along the continuum of scale (the power of our measurements).  This is an implicit 4th continuum (or dimension) required for any measurement of location we make.  We should be able to measure the distance between any two objects in 3-D space, yet try measuring the distance between your liver and an atom in your vein.  We must limit our measurements to small 'spans' of scale - because our mathematical tools cannot adequately cross spans of scale.

In scale modeling and simulation, crossing 'upward' in scale involves integration across a 3-D space.  This integration 'moves' the model 'up' in scale - again suggesting scale is a continuum of space.  However, this still only works for scales very 'close' to each other. 

I do not think we have the mathematical tools to answer this question.

I thank Victor and I thank Robert. 

And I dare reiterate that any talking about something going on at the horizon or beyond the horizon is as unphysical as talking about any other event that will occur in the universe after more than an infinity of our outside time has passed. There is not a sigle finished black hole in the universe. Right?

It's not obviously a trivial matter.

Even assuming that tiny wormholes exist (!?) and that they can be inflated (!?), and that they're navigable by matter (!?), and that they go somewhere useful (as opposed to a distance comparable to the mouth radius), then it still doesn't follow that they'd be useful.

For instance, it's generally reckoned that a persistent wormhole would be associated with persistently negative energy (for instance, with the idea of using hypothetical "exotic matter" to hold it open).

The trouble with negative energy is that it effectively reduces the gravitational field density of a region, and if you're reducing that field density to below background, the attenuated region of space becomes negatively-gravitating.

It repels.

You might need a hell of a force to push something into it, and the geometrical change also means that the wormhole mouth is "slippery", so any force that isn't precisely centred is liable to be deflected off to one side.

The repulsion might be so strong that you'd be physically "pancaked" by any force strong enough to push you into the mouth, and unless the tidal forces were carefully arranged, you might find yourself being "spaghettified" when the wormhole spits you out of the other side back into normal space.

Worst-case scenario, the gravitational differential might be so high that both mouths ended up shielded by antihorizons, and in that situation, you wouldn't be able to pass through the wormhole unless you had a small warpdrive-equipped ship -- and if you had one of //those//, you might not need the wormhole! :D

ns3 is the best simulation platform for the network related research , i have succesfully done the simulation of wormhole attack on ns3.

Dear Marshall,

I analyzed the work and within the assumptions that exist in the physical and consistent.

However we will do a more fundamental breakdown of theories to have a vision of the real possibilities exist.

Energy and matter are the same entity observed by different angles.

The matter of the clear printout to be condensed energy.

The energy takes multiple forms but interchangeable.

But anergy in the form of electromagnetic waves or photos and the most important point for this analysis.

A photon with different frequency ie having appropriate enegia, eg 1.02 Mev materializes a pair of electron, the positron.

Another photon with energy in the range of 2 Gev proton or neutron can materialize.

Be the proton or neutron are formed of three quarks.

A neutron outside the nucleus has a half life of about 16 minutes and decays into a proton, an electron and a neutrino to electron.

Ie quarks change their identity because who undergoes disintegration and one down quark which becomes up.

Here comes the Inquire who are unanswered:

Because the neutral outside the core disintegrates.

Because there is not free quarks outside a particle?

Because the energy of three quarks and around a hundredth of the energy of the particle.

Because the mass of atomic nuclei demonstrates that protons and neutrons have different mass element as they are added?

And precisely this difference that allows mass energy exists in nuclear fusion!

Because there is the confinement of protons and neutrons in the atomic nucleus?

And we see the philosophical synthesis is any kind of boson or fermion can be created with energy or energy turn this indicates that there is logically a single entity that assumes different identities as the the situation around you.

With these questions without a clear explanation and integrating all the response and coherently and logically impossible to determine what exactly may be the level of WORMHOLE!

And QCD this far to give a coherent explanation for these questions we know the answers but not because of the answers!

The gluons are the magic particle that solves everything, but were never seen in isolation and are a simple derivation of the model ie no one can guarantee that it works well!

The standard model itself and not a theory but a compilation of knowledge and experiments that every new information is added it!

Because it does not make prediction about nothing only describes what is known already!

The simple fact not exist explanation because the elements of numbers 43 and 61 in nature, which are radioactive and because the elements above bismuth also be radioactive, already shows that there is much to understand how the heart of the matter works!

I think I have found the answer to all these questions and more, in a single model of the universe and everything referenced to only 4 numeric values!

A string theory in 5 dimensions.

Which proposes that the universe and massively parallel quantum computer where the element that renders the quantum information and a string!

And the operations of this machine projects a figure of interference ie a hologram we call the universe!

In QM, entanglement is just a mathematical property of the joint wave function of 2 or more particles. It doesn't require a "mechanism" like wormholes to explain it, any more than the relative velocity of two moving particles requires a wormhole to explain it.

Consider the simplest case of 2 entangled but separated qubits; no information can be transmitted to one by manipulating or measuring the other (despite the fact that our formalism can have the wave function "collapsing" in an unexplained way that seems to violate both the Schrodinger equation and the speed of light). In standard QM, there would thus be nothing for the wormhole to do. This can perhaps be most easily seen from the viewpoint that the wave function represents "what we know" about the qubits; in that case, the "collapse" merely means that we updated our own knowledge, which is clearly not limited by the speed-of-light flight time between the particles and doesn't require any kind of "communication" between them. (Disclaimer: I don't favor that viewpoint, but it is compatible with standard QM and occasionally useful for questions like this.)

The issue of tearing of space-time is also known as the question topological change. In string theory based cosmological models as well as in Loop QG, space-time is not just empty space in the sense of mathematics, it behaves like a membrane or a spin network. This “physical space-time” may have topological structures like wormholes. The question is if topology change can occur.