Artist impression of what it could look like when entering a wormhole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FY221c15.png)

Can a Wormhole Generate its Own Magnetic Field?

7 Jun , 2008 by

Wormholes are a strange consequence of Einstein’s theory of general relativity. These “shortcuts” through the fabric of space and time may link two different locations in the universe; they may even connect two different universes together. This also leads to the possibility that wormholes can allow travel between two points in time. These strange entities have provided science fiction stories with material for many years, but there is credible physics behind wormholes. Now it seems that in theory slowly-rotating wormholes may be able to generate their own magnetic field. Could this be used to detect the presence of wormholes in our observable Universe?

In a previous Universe Today article, I found some interesting research about the possibility of observing a wormhole using sensitive radio telescopes. What’s more, an observer may be able to see the light from another part of the Universe that has travelled along the wormhole and then emitted through the wormhole’s mouth. An observer could expect to see a bubble-like sphere floating in space, with emitted light intensifying around the rim.

In a publication last month, Mubasher Jamil and Muneer Ahmad Rashid from the National University of Sciences and Technology in Pakistan investigates the properties of a slowly rotating wormhole and the effect this would have on a surrounding volume of space. Their calculations assume a cloud of charged particles (i.e. electrons) are gravitationally attracted to the entity, and as the wormhole rotates, it drags the cloud of electrons with it. This approach had already been carried out when considering the effects of a slowly rotating compact star on surrounding stellar plasma.

A graphic of the structure of a theorized wormhole (NASA)

This gravitational effect is known as “frame-dragging”. As the wormhole is predicted to have a gravitational influence on the space surrounding it, Einstein’s general relativity predicts that space-time will be warped. The best way to visualize this is to imagine a heavy ball on an elastic sheet; the ball causes the sheet to stretch downward, in a cone-shape. If the ball is spun on the sheet, friction between the ball and elastic will cause the sheet to distort in another way, it will begin to twist out of shape. If you apply this idea to space-time (the elastic sheet), and you have a slowly rotating wormhole (the ball), distortions in space-time will have a dragging effect on the surrounding particles, causing them to spin with the wormhole.

This is where Jamil and Rashid’s paper steps in. If you have a rotating mass of charged particles, a magnetic field may be generated (as a consequence of Maxwell’s equations). Therefore, in theory, a slowly-rotating wormhole could have its own magnetic field as a consequence of the electromagnetic field set up by the motion of charged particles.

So could a wormhole be detected by instrumentation? That depends on the magnitude of the warping of space-time a rotating wormhole has on local space; the smaller the wormhole, the smaller the density of rotating charged particles. As theorized natural wormholes are expected to be microscopic, I doubt there will be a large magnetic field generated. And besides, you’d have to be very close to the mouth of a wormhole to stand the chance of measuring its magnetic field. The possibility of detecting a wormhole may remain in the realms of science-fiction for a while yet…

Source: arXiv preprint server


Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
GreenLantern
Guest
June 7, 2008 9:55 PM

I just happened to catch the movie Contact on TV today, and I had wormholes on my mind. Then I ran across this article. Knowing about the vast distances and times in our universe and then thinking about the possibility of shortcuts is really intriguing to me.

Martijn
Guest
Martijn
June 7, 2008 11:23 PM

In the article is written that it is theoretically possible to see light from another part of the unverse.
I always thought that with a wormhole, you could go to the center of the wormhole but not through the center. So would the light not remain in the center of the wormhole?

Tony Trenton
Member
Tony Trenton
June 7, 2008 11:30 PM

Rotation is a consequence of turbulence & a necessary natural part of any singularity including wormholes.

Singularities crush everything out of existence & are no place to be if you want to survive.

Theoretically entering a wormhole mouth means exiting your event horizon & your local time. The wormhole will have its own time line which is moving relative to all others . So there would be no way to return to your original time line & or event horizon.
It would be a one way trip however you looked at it.

Hunnter
Member
Hunnter
June 8, 2008 4:11 AM

Tony mentions some of what i was going to mention, i always thought that enterting a wormhole would be near impossible.

Just imagine how dangerous it would be going near to the suns surface.
While it would be survivable with the correct equipment, i can’t imagine how it would be done with a blackhole, unless we actually do build a FTL drive of some kind, which then defeats the main reason for the wormholes…
But that could still cause problems too, so perhaps a lovely time machine of some sort on board would be nice too =)

neoguru
Member
neoguru
June 8, 2008 5:08 AM

The ol’ “ball on a rubber sheet” analogy to describe space-time. They’re using gravity to describe a gravitational phenomenum. Then they use invalid assumptions about other dimensions that by definition can never be shown to exist. Can’t we just deal with reality? Ya figure there’s really 11 dimensions, some microscopically thin? It’s all a dream within a dream. Has physics really come to this?

rogueweapon
Member
rogueweapon
June 8, 2008 5:43 AM

yes and no.

Jon Hanford
Member
Jon Hanford
June 8, 2008 8:44 AM

Rotation is a consequence of turbulence & a necessary natural part of any singularity including wormholes.Singularities crush everything out of existence & are no place to be if you want to survive.I think Tony & others are on the right track but I question his ‘singularity’ comments in light of string-brane theory & its abhorrence of singularities. also concur with others that only ‘information’ may be transmitted, possibly at hyperlight speed (via entanglement?) through a rotating Wormhole.

bob
Guest
bob
June 8, 2008 11:26 AM
neoguru, The metaphor being used to describe spacetime curvature is old but not completely unuseful. The solar system model of the atom given to us by Rutherford and modified by Bohr is incorrect but still useful to scientists in chemistry and biology. It just doesn’t work in astrophysics and particle physics. The reality of spacetime curvature can be realized without sheets. Rain drops falling from the roof of an apartment building or a water fall serve a good example. Since they won’t reach terminal speed, you will measure the rate at which any two drops separate and you come up with 9.8 meters/sec^2. Dimensions can be inferred in our particle accelerators if a violation of conservation is realized.… Read more »
bob
Guest
bob
June 8, 2008 11:30 AM

Sorry, my last statement should have illustrated that a conservation violation showing a decrease in energy outputs would suggest leakage from these 3 dimensions to another.

Tissa Perera
Guest
June 8, 2008 12:15 PM

On the physical limitations of gravity.

My web publication at cosmicdarkmatter.com

Gives a hint on the physical limits on the mechanics of gravity.
Einstein reformulated Newton’s gravity in a very elegant geometrical
concept of space time. Others then followed through to find solutions
to his equations taking the arguments to extraordinary extremes and
created objects like black holes, singularities and worm holes etc.

Nobody to date have given any notice to the possibility that nature may
abhors infinities. It makes sense to me that no force of nature is limitless.
I have found the limitations on gravitational force and inertial forces in
a simple concept within the framework of Einstein’s space and matter.

Astrofreak
Guest
Astrofreak
June 8, 2008 3:09 PM

Thanks for your informative article. Tell me again, where have we ever observed a “wormhole.” Oops, I 4got, you know they exist but our instruments aren’t powerful enough yet to actually detect one.

Maxwell
Member
Maxwell
June 8, 2008 4:21 PM

For thousands of years men stared at the sky, thinking of it only in images…. Then, with the discovery of radio waves and some science, we learned that it could be heard as much as it could be seen.

While I’m no fan of “runaway math”, right now its an important tool in visualizing the things we don’t yet have a means to detect.

sboyd
Member
sboyd
June 8, 2008 6:57 PM

I love the way people grab onto a theory and so very quickly start to talk as though it’s a reality. The original theory that was written to explain the possibility of wormholes went to great length to also describe why the same set of calculations prove why they could not exist.
Why do you think they left that part out?

Bridh Hancock
Guest
Bridh Hancock
June 8, 2008 7:38 PM
This thoughtery is the start of something, and perhaps of something BIG. We will sample even less of the matter-energy of the universe to arrive at the possibilities of possibilities. What of those 8 or so other dimensions, all smaller than an electron, and what of these wormholes? Are there similarities? Do they extend vastly through galaxies and into the roaring heart of the BigBang? How do they relate to DarkMatter and D-Energy? One point I wish to make is: a ‘consequence of Einstein’s theory of general relativity’ is a hypothesis based on this theory, and not an actuality. There are no wormholes–not yet. We may now consider what is theorised up until those who have learned declare… Read more »
ed
Guest
ed
June 8, 2008 10:19 PM

Speculative nonsense.

Aodhhan
Member
Aodhhan
June 9, 2008 5:50 AM
To me the worm hole theory fails due to the fact there must be a ‘rip’ in two sides of the fabric. Also, given the distances between the top and bottom layer, there would need to be an immense amount of gravity involved in order to maintain structure. Still the tendency would likely not be to maintain a nice cylindrical column of space between the two layers, but a widening of the lumen space resulting in a very long and deep ‘crater’ in the fabric of space-time itself. Lastly, we have to remember the universe is not stateless. It is constantly changing, objects moving, etc. Space time fabric must be expanding and growing. Another problem in maintaining a… Read more »
Dave S
Guest
Dave S
June 9, 2008 6:51 AM

Worm holes are inventions of science fiction folks who needed a way to move through the universe in some reasonable amount of time. Falling into a black hole effectively puts you into a different universe.

Victor Sheckels
Guest
Victor Sheckels
June 9, 2008 4:52 PM

Jerry//Fool:

Do you realize the ads in question are from the Googlesyndication.com server and are not under the control of Universe Today, and that, indeed, the sponsor of Universe Today would then be Google and not whoever wrote or is marketing that book?

Feel free to take offense if “turning the other cheek” is an article of your faith that you feel doesn’t apply to you, but please point it where it belongs and don’t pollute this site with your ramblings.

My apologies to you folks at UT for my own rather useless addition here.

David S
Guest
David S
June 9, 2008 9:48 PM

“Then they use invalid assumptions about other dimensions that by definition can never be shown to exist. Can’t we just deal with reality?”

Not everything is testable, and it will probably remain that way. That doesn’t make it invalid, just that our tests for it are inadequate. Assuming we even had tests, and we don’t. But that’s our inability and has no reflection on what the state of reality might actually be.

To think that all we know is all there is to reality is quite naive and presumptuous. We learn new things all the time, some unexpected, and that’s what science is all about.

David S
Guest
David S
June 9, 2008 9:56 PM

“While I’m no fan of “runaway math”, right now its an important tool in visualizing the things we don’t yet have a means to detect.”

Exactly my point.

“Oops, I 4got, you know they exist but our instruments aren’t powerful enough yet to actually detect one.”

It’s got nothing to do with being powerful enough. You can’t detect something that you don’t understand well enough to figure out a method of detection!

You can’t “see” radio waves, yet they are all around us. How did we discover radio? By accident. How did we discover X-rays? By accident. Yeah, we know a lot more than we did then, but we don’t know everything.

wpDiscuz