Re: SCI: existance -vs- non-existance

Michael Lorrey (
Fri, 05 Dec 1997 07:14:59 -0500

Anders Sandberg wrote:
> Keith Elis <> writes:
> > I was under the impression that such travel would be impossible due
> > to the fact that wormholes tend to collapse as soon as they form.
> "Traditional" (Einstein-Rosen bridges) wormholes do collapse almost
> immediately, before anything can traverse them. But Thorne showed that
> in principle it is possible to stabilize wormholes by threading them
> with negative energy densities (for example from electric fields,
> negative matter or the Casimir effect). Later papers have shown that
> stable wormholes may be possible, but most involve violations of the
> energy conditions (which say there are no negative energy densities;
> they are however somewhat doubted) or dynamic wormholes that change
> "radius" (some do this so slowly they are traversable).
> >However, I was speaking with a friend a while back, and he brought up
> >the subject of Kerr (sp?) black holes. It seems that these are
> >theoretical black holes in which the singularity is larger than a
> >mathematical point, elongated perpendicular to an axis of
> >rotation. Some physicists seem to think that that this singularity
> >may be ring-shaped. If so, this would mean that one could follow the
> >axis of rotation into the very center, supposedly "passing through"
> >the singularity (which if I am not mistaken would have the properties
> >of a wormhole/gravity well).
> Yes, the Kerr-Newman solution to the equations (which is a rotating,
> charged hole) has many interesting properties, including a
> ring-singularity inside the black hole and the possibility of a
> wormhole through it. Unfortunately there seems to be results that
> suggests that natural black holes will not work, the wormhole
> connection is broken when the hole is formed.
> > If it were possible to begin a normal (Schwarzchild) black hole
> > rotating, would one be able to create such a ring-shaped
> > singularity?
> Maybe. Making a Schwartzschild hole rotate is simple, just throw in
> mass with angular momentum. But I'm not sure we can control where the
> "wormhole" leads, and it might be very hard to get out of the wormhole
> opening if that is another black hole. I think I prefer classic
> womholes...

Actually, conservation of momentum dictates that, if you can pass
directly through the center (down through the pole as the hole rotates
round you), you should be able to come out the other end, provided that
the hole on the other end is of equal or less mass than the one you go
into. Due to frictional losses, you would however, come out into a lower
orbit on the other end. If anyone has any relativistic reasons why
conservation of momentum would not hold, please explain...

If you cn get the hole spinning fast enough, the event horizon should
also warp into a toroidal shape at some point....

			Michael Lorrey
------------------------------------------------------------	Inventor of the Lorrey Drive
MikeySoft: Graphic Design/Animation/Publishing/Engineering
How many fnords did you see before breakfast today?