Was Science Fiction Right About Wormholes?

by Brian Koberlein | 1 February 2019 | Physics

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://blog.briankoberlein.com/was-science-fiction-right-about-wormholes/
1 Like

Just wandering about how would it be if we know for sure all about the fabric of space itself. I just can’t get rid of it out of my mind, the possibility actually space is the most organized form in nature. What leads me to that conclusion is actual knowledge of entanglement. We can’t call it density but we just need to make it.
I always think on two canned phones with string in between, so you can even hear the whisper talk.
Everything in this universe is so damn calm and fixed that it goes me on nerves amazingly hard, don’t it?

I don’t think science fiction was right about wormholes, Brian. Not only that, but I don’t think science was right about the Kerr black hole either. Black holes tell no tales because of what Einstein said in the second paragraph here:


Would be interested in a deeper interpretation of this paragraph. My two primary takeaways are the speed of light is spatially variable, which I think implies fundamental consequences for the theory of an expanding universe, and that special relativity doesn’t apply to the real world being only valid in the infinitesimal as it relates to general relativity. It doesn’t rule out gravity as force subject to a more formally complex vector equation, and equally it implies the speed of a gravitational force can be variable as the speed of light. Which if true would mean all gravitation could as well be a force acting below C in closer proximities as much as a sole consequence of relative inertial motion. This would fit well with the success of Milgrom in modeling radial stellar velocities as a force consequence…

Yes, the speed of light is spatially variable. Light curves for the same reason other waves curve. Because there’s a gradient in wave speed:

Yes, I think it has conseuqneces for the theory of an expanding universe. I think it means that the speed of light was slower in the past. That’s the opposite of what guys like Moffat and Magueijo proposed.

The special relativity being only valid in the infinitesimal means the principle of equivalence doesn’t really apply the way people usually say. I don’t think it says anything about the speed of gravitational force. Instead I think the wave nature of matter tells you how gravity works. Then I think MOND looks unattractive.


Generally MOND is unattractive that’s true, but not ruled out yet, and thank you for the response. The idea of the wave property of matter having consequence to the function of gravity is a fascinating topic worth a deeper look. I keep coming to the evidentiary implications that gravity is a force that can be represented as inertial motion rather than motion giving the appearance of a force. I would be interested in hearing an expounding on wave nature as a way to understand gravity.

One question that arises is wave propagation like sound is mitigated by the initial energy value of the wave and the properties of the medium of transmission. Once slowed it will never have the same velocity as the medium dominates a constant transaction. Light slows and shifts in a gravity field, then speeds back up again. Are we still using the same physics to describe both and does the rebounding of light have a permanent and possibly cumulative effect of the wave itself?

See Hans Ohanian’s 1984 paper what is spin? He says this: *“the means for filling the gap have been at hand since 1939, when Belinfante established that the spin could be regarded as due to a circulating flow of energy”.Think of the electron as light going round and round. The horizontal component curves downward. So the electron is displaced downwards. It falls down. I’m not clear on your second question.


You answered both, fundamentally the same question once I thought about it. Again thanks for great responses.

1 Like