3
$\begingroup$

Of course, this is all purely hypothetical since no one’s ever seen a wormhole before, but in my story, I have tech that “contains” the entrance to a small wormhole. Wherever the tech goes, the entrance moves with it, kind of like a sort of Marvel—Tesseract thingy. What I want to know is if the math that actually does predict wormholes tells us anything about the frame of reference they might use for positioning the entrance.

For example, if person X opens and stabilizes a wormhole, will the wormhole’s entrance remain motionless from the person’s point of view, the sun’s point of view, or the galactic center, etc? e.g. if it remains motionless from the person’s point of view, it will remain in the room it was created in, but if it remains motionless from the point of view of, say, the sun, it would instantly whiz away from the room it was created in due to the motion of the Earth in its orbit.

I hope that wasn’t too unclear, if you still need clarification, just let me know. Also, I totally get that no one actually knows this for sure, so I’m just asking for speculations here.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ As far as I know, there's not an actual answer to this question in real life, but every flavor of wormhole about which I know anything require either specific spacetime topological conditions or specific quantum-level conditions, which means the wormhole will most likely remain in place relative to its original gravitational or quantum reference frame. Basically, it would stay where it was opened, like a stargate does, and wouldn't just seemingly wander around all on its own. I think. $\endgroup$ – MozerShmozer Jul 7 '17 at 21:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You can think of what happens at the Large Hadron Collider when new particles are made. They will have initial velocity but their reference is always with the initial creation because they are created on Earth and in an environment that moves with the earth. $\endgroup$ – A. C. A. C. Jul 7 '17 at 21:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Attach your wormhole to a ring made of unobtainium. $\endgroup$ – Nick T Jul 7 '17 at 22:40
4
$\begingroup$

Most research papers on wormholes consider the wormhole mouth will be at rest relative to the system responsible for its creation. In fact, both mouths of the wormhole will be there. One suggestion is that the wormhole mouths are given an electrostatic charge to enable them to be fixed to a carrier system. The wormhole mouths can be moved apart and then used for quick transportation through the wormhole itself.

For travel to a distant planetary system one wormhole mouth would have to be transported there in a spaceship and installed at a suitable destination. Once this is accomplished, anyone can travel there via the wormhole.

If the spaceship travels at a relativistic velocity the moving wormhole mouth will be time dilated. For example, if the spaceship has an average velocity of 0.99 c, the time dilation will be a factor of seven. Let's assume its travel time, relative to Earth, is seventy years and the spaceship departs today in the year 2017. It will arrive at its destination planetary system in 2087, but for anyone here on Earth looking through the wormhole it appear to arrive there in 2027.

This will enable people on Earth in 2027 to pass through the wormhole to the distant planetary system in 2087. This saves having to wait until 2087 before travelling there. This all due to special relativity and how it affects moving a wormhole mouth relative to its other stationary mouth.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ @KaiChristensen You're welcome. This is well established, assuming wormholes could exist, following Kip Thorne's work on wormholes. I guess finding what you need can be tricky. $\endgroup$ – a4android Jul 10 '17 at 4:42
  • $\begingroup$ And then if the ship comes back, bearing a second wormhole, you get time travel. $\endgroup$ – Draco18s Jul 10 '17 at 13:33
  • $\begingroup$ @Draco18s. Yes I know, but if either the chronology protection conjecture or Novikov self-consistency is valid, you don't. Even if it did, it is sufficiently limited time travel that could be easily regulated to prevent causality violation. Time travel seems a small price to pay for FTL travel. $\endgroup$ – a4android Jul 11 '17 at 6:25

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.