PDA

View Full Version : question(s) about the stargate



vonbismarck
August 16th, 2005, 03:29 PM
Hello all. I am no master of physics, quantum mechanics or whatever else is needed to understand the working of the stargate (and the fact that is a fiction show). According to some scientists, to get a working wormhole you need two things: a black hole on one side and a white hole on the other side. A white hole is just the opposite of a black hole (i.e. nothing can enter it, it pushes everything away). Although white holes are mathematically possible, no one can think of how it would be created. Lets say that the stargates create the holes needed and the fact that you are destroyed and then recreated when going through (as the comisc radiation would kill you if you travelled normally through it). What I don't understand is, if the end of the wormhole is the white hole and that is why they can't go back through it why are they able to send radio signals back and forth? Nothing should be able to get through.

Three PhDs
August 16th, 2005, 05:22 PM
Hello all. I am no master of physics, quantum mechanics or whatever else is needed to understand the working of the stargate (and the fact that is a fiction show). According to some scientists, to get a working wormhole you need two things: a black hole on one side and a white hole on the other side. A white hole is just the opposite of a black hole (i.e. nothing can enter it, it pushes everything away). Although white holes are mathematically possible, no one can think of how it would be created. Lets say that the stargates create the holes needed and the fact that you are destroyed and then recreated when going through (as the comisc radiation would kill you if you travelled normally through it). What I don't understand is, if the end of the wormhole is the white hole and that is why they can't go back through it why are they able to send radio signals back and forth? Nothing should be able to get through.A white hole is essentially a quasar, and nobody wants to walk out of one of them. The stargate system as seen on SG-1 wouldn't operate any kind of white hole at all. Too deadly for peeps. More likely an artificially stabilised wormhole is what's used.

Myst_Lore
August 16th, 2005, 06:58 PM
When you say that a wormhole is only created with a black and white hole, you are incorrect.

Recently, Stephen Hawk has revised his theory about black holes. He now stated that black holes don't suck in matter and spew it out through a white hole, but rather takes it in and emits it out as radiation or matter particles.

Also, a wormhole can be created without the aid of a black hole. A wormhole is just a rip in the spacetime continuum that connects two points of the universe or two points of two different universes.

What the stargate does is make a sub-atomic link in the quantum scale and connect it via a wormhole. Matter can only enter one way at a time however. But since radio signals are just waves of energy, they can pass because energy isn't binded down to sub-atomic particles.

Esquin
August 16th, 2005, 07:24 PM
The wormhole used by the stargate is essentially and artificial subspace power conduit. The Stargate on one end converst matter into energy and sends it along the conduit for recreation on the other side as solid matter. The other effects such as it only being one way are assumed to be a safty mechanism built into the gate to avoid data collision.

vonbismarck
August 16th, 2005, 07:30 PM
From what I have read, black holes do take things in and then crunch them down until almost nothing. From what I have read, the radiation it is giving off is from its own weight, since it still ways the same as it did before becoming a black hole, although I would guess some of what it sucks in would also be expelled. I don't see what that would have to do with wormholes though as it is not emitting the radiation in some far off place. Just for the record, it is also speculated that quasars are supermassive black holes. Not that would matter anyway as if it is done the way you mention all of this is for naught. Also, I based that on the fact that Carter and others have used the words event horizon, which I am sure can be used for many things but when I hear it, I always think of black holes.

captain keys
August 17th, 2005, 01:55 AM
it creates a tear in supace to help form a wormhole

Three PhDs
August 17th, 2005, 01:59 AM
When you say that a wormhole is only created with a black and white hole, you are incorrect.

Recently, Stephen Hawk has revised his theory about black holes. He now stated that black holes don't suck in matter and spew it out through a white hole, but rather takes it in and emits it out as radiation or matter particles.It's Stephen Hawking for starters, and it wasn't recently either. Hawking Radiation, which is what you're referring to also doesn't work in the manner you state. Hawking radiation is a bit of a misnomer anyway. It refers to the potential for a particle/antiparticle pair to be created at the edge of the event horizon of a black hole, where purely by chance the particle manages to escape before cancelling itself out with it's antiparticle pair. The antiparticle has the misfortune to fall into the black hole meaning we have a net loss in mass on the part of the black hole and a particle apparently emitted from very close to the event horizon corresponding to the mass lost. The black hole itself does not ever emit anything.


Also, a wormhole can be created without the aid of a black hole. A wormhole is just a rip in the spacetime continuum that connects two points of the universe or two points of two different universes.That would just be a tear, not a wormhole.


What the stargate does is make a sub-atomic link in the quantum scale and connect it via a wormhole.What's a subatomic link? Sounds made up on the spot to me.

Matter can only enter one way at a time however. But since radio signals are just waves of energy, they can pass because energy isn't binded down to sub-atomic particles.Binded down to sub-atomic particles? Also made up on the spot?


The wormhole used by the stargate is essentially and artificial subspace power conduit.Subspace? That's just a made up term with no meaning whatsoever for real science.


From what I have read, black holes do take things in and then crunch them down until almost nothing. From what I have read, the radiation it is giving off is from its own weight, since it still ways the same as it did before becoming a black hole, although I would guess some of what it sucks in would also be expelled.You've misread it, see my earlier explanation in this post of Hawking Radiation.

~Thor~
August 17th, 2005, 06:04 AM
I thought quasars are rotating neutron stars? Which turn extremely fast and emit extremely high amounts of EM radiation, due to the extremely high magnetic field.


The Stargate on one end converst matter into energy and sends it along the conduit for recreation on the other side as solid matter. The other effects such as it only being one way are assumed to be a safty mechanism built into the gate to avoid data collision.
Ok, the reason why (IMO) matter can only go one way is the event horizon (the puddle), is because the 'puddle' blocks the matter from enering one end, as to prevent someone from being half in the gate when someone is coming out at the same end. Data can be transmited both ways through the wormhole, and EM radiation (other than visible light) isn't blocked by the 'puddle' as it doesn't interfere that much with matter. THis explains why matter can go one way and energy can go both ways. As for the wormhole, IMO, it is a microscopic wormhole through which all the information is sent (as energy) and then the 'puddle' mearly reforms the matter on the other side.

captain keys
August 17th, 2005, 06:07 AM
i agree wit u thor

captain_kirk999
August 17th, 2005, 06:27 AM
Remember that the wormholes used by the Stargates are completely artificial. If a real black hole was involved then it would suck everything into it, and obviously this doesn't happen in the show.

The Stargate somehow derives energy from subspace (like ZPM's) to create artificial passages through space and time, so none of us would be affected if the wormhole only travelled through supspace.

Real wormhole's would be visible, or the effects they had would be visible by us, wormholes used by the Stargate aren't visible because they exist in a completely different dimension and therefore as teams travel through them, no experience is felt (such as being sucked/pulled through)

Real wormholes would also not break apart our particles, so there would be some kind of experience, though the speed we would be travelling would pull apart our bodies.

captain keys
August 17th, 2005, 06:44 AM
thats what i was trying to say that they create a tear in subspace to help the worm hole form

Three PhDs
August 17th, 2005, 07:37 AM
The Stargate somehow derives energy from subspace (like ZPM's) to create artificial passages through space and time, so none of us would be affected if the wormhole only travelled through supspace.Tech no babble. Wormholes don't travel anywhere. They are connected regions of spacetime.


Real wormhole's would be visible, or the effects they had would be visible by us, wormholes used by the Stargate aren't visible because they exist in a completely different dimension and therefore as teams travel through them, no experience is felt (such as being sucked/pulled through)Wormholes don't have to be visible.


Real wormholes would also not break apart our particles, so there would be some kind of experience, though the speed we would be travelling would pull apart our bodies.More technobabble. Real world wormholes vary so much in their makeup and constitution that your statements are completely... unfounded and absurd.

vonbismarck
August 17th, 2005, 02:35 PM
You are correct Three PhDs, I did read wrong about Stephen Hawkings theory (it was in the 1970's that he theorized this). For anyone who is interested, I will post a link here with some information about black holes and a bit about wormholes/white holes. I found it an interesting read but then again, I am a boring person. http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html.

captain keys
August 17th, 2005, 08:37 PM
i think its a good link veary interesting

vonbismarck
August 18th, 2005, 02:27 AM
Here is one more link that I have that might be of interest as I believe they have talked of some of these things on stargate: http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/index.html

If I find anymore of my bookmarked sites, I will let you all know (my bookmarks are a jumbled mess).

captain keys
August 18th, 2005, 02:45 AM
ive already seen that but thanks anway

_Owen_
August 23rd, 2005, 11:30 AM
Yes, the Stargates do not use white holes and black holes, they use artificially stabilised trasversable wormholes, then the Stargates create event horizons to de and rematerialize matter.

Owen Macri

vonbismarck
August 23rd, 2005, 01:37 PM
So does the stargate create the negative ("exotic") matter to keep the wormhole open? All wormholes have to be artifically stabilized as they would blink out the moment they appeared otherwise as they are too unstable.

cozzerob
August 24th, 2005, 03:40 AM
Real wormholes would also not break apart our particles, so there would be some kind of experience, though the speed we would be travelling would pull apart our bodies.

More technobabble. Real world wormholes vary so much in their makeup and constitution that your statements are completely... unfounded and absurd.

indeed. also, although wormholes might not them selves - if you imagine them to travel through space, then they would. Also, if they do not have an atmosphere, they would. infact, the onle way they wouldn't kill you if they literally, glue one part of space to another, and those two parts are both with atmosphere. So unless it is like a door, de-materialiseation resulting in lack of experience (and probably death, but that's by-the-by...) would occur. if it is door like then you would step into the puddle and immediatly out again, like wallking through a waterfall into a cave. Either way, there would not be and experience. It just looks good on tv, and frankly, I like it even thou it's not accurate.

Three PHDs, you seem to know much on the matter. what is the best explanation for the wormhole - tunneel like, door like, etc? Thanx

nimitz
August 24th, 2005, 04:13 AM
Black holes and wormholes were always mixed up because of the fact that there is a spiral effect when matter enters the event horizan of a blackhole. Which makes it look like einsteins diagrams of wormholes.

vonbismarck
August 24th, 2005, 01:45 PM
Until Three PhDs comes along, I will try and help with the very, very limited knowledge that I have. I would say that wormholes would be tunnel like since the two holes are supposed to connected by a bridge/throat, called the Einstein-Rosen bridge. I would guess there would be some kind of sensation since it would not be instantaneous depending on the distance you are traveling. Also, as for there being real wormholes, I have read nothing about that. All I have read is that wormholes are mathimatical proofs for Einstein's General Relativity. Everything I have read involve a wormhole being made with a black hole, bridge/throat and a white hole. Nothing has been able to prove their existence except on paper.

vonbismarck
August 24th, 2005, 01:46 PM
Until Three PhDs comes along, I will try and help with the very, very limited knowledge that I have. I would say that wormholes would be tunnel like since the two holes are supposed to connected by a bridge/throat, called the Einstein-Rosen bridge. I would guess there would be some kind of sensation since it would not be instantaneous depending on the distance you are traveling. Also, as for there being real wormholes, I have read nothing about that. All I have read is that wormholes are mathematical proofs for Einstein's General Relativity. Everything I have read involve a wormhole being made with a black hole, bridge/throat and a white hole. Nothing has been able to prove their existence except on paper.

EDIT: Sorry for the double post.

_Owen_
August 24th, 2005, 11:02 PM
Yes, well the only way we can prove their existance is if we see one or create one.

Owen Macri

vonbismarck
August 24th, 2005, 11:24 PM
You wouldn't be able to see a wormhole as you wouldn't see anything past the event horizon. Nor do I know how one would be created (although that would be a given). Until I read something that says otherwise (and I know that there is something out there that says otherwise) I can't see a wormhole being formed as everything I read says black hole + bridge + white hole = wormhole but white holes are supposed to break the second law of thermodynamics (and yes I am aware of the fact that some people think quasars are white holes). Till then, they will just be a paper existence and scifi to me.

_Owen_
August 24th, 2005, 11:26 PM
If the event horizon did not destroy you, then you would be able to see things past it.

Owen Macri

vonbismarck
August 24th, 2005, 11:37 PM
I mean looking through it. As long as you pass through the event horizon then I guess you could see what is ahead of you (taking for granted that you aren't ripped about by the tidal forces). Before crossing it though, you would not see anything as the light from the otherside would not be able to pass it.

_Owen_
August 24th, 2005, 11:38 PM
Oh, yes, I did not mean "see" in that sense.

Owen Macri

Three PhDs
August 25th, 2005, 02:25 PM
The Einstein-Rosen bridge is a bit misleading in that it tries to show something multidimensional in terms of a 2-D diagram. There is in truth no neck/tunnel through which you would travel, because (and think about it) a tunnel is a three dimensional construct. The entrance and exit of a wormhole are like... the front and back of a doorway. As soon as you step through the front you're already walking out the back. There's no inbetween.

vonbismarck
August 25th, 2005, 11:14 PM
From what I have read (now that I have read something that talks of the possibility of wormholes existencing), they talk of one needing to use negative energy/exotic matter to keep the "throat" of the wormhole open. Unless they mean the doorway when using throat, it seems that they think there is some kind of tunnel involved.

That's just my two cents though (okay, just one cent at best but that is all I got).

cozzerob
August 26th, 2005, 01:31 AM
I think that that's just a misleading term. It just means the 'entrance' and 'exit' of the doors have to be held open (by this exotic matter). No tunnel. It's like having a door on one of those automatic return springs. You need something to hold the door open or it will shut itself.

The tunnel idea comes, like three phds had said, looking at it from a 2d point of view. The explanation of burrowing through the apple, for example.

So, another question then. A wormhole is basically just sticking two parts of space together? no tunnels, no exciting journeys, just temporarily sticking the two together. If that is so, then how the hell do you -1)create such a construct, and 2)aim it?

Myst_Lore
August 26th, 2005, 06:48 PM
The revision on black holes was as recent as two years ago. I may not understand fully how Hawking Radiation works, but I do know that even if matter went into a black hole and it went out the other side, it would be so condensed that it would barely be matter.

As for when I said a sub-atomic link, I mean for the stargates. They link to each other and send matter via it's most basic state. Energy and particles. Energy can pass either way because energy isn't made up of matter particles but rather just the pureist form of energy.

_Owen_
August 26th, 2005, 09:47 PM
The revision on black holes was as recent as two years ago. I may not understand fully how Hawking Radiation works, but I do know that even if matter went into a black hole and it went out the other side, it would be so condensed that it would barely be matter.

As for when I said a sub-atomic link, I mean for the stargates. They link to each other and send matter via it's most basic state. Energy and particles. Energy can pass either way because energy isn't made up of matter particles but rather just the pureist form of energy.
No, the Stargate transmits only energy through the wormhole. Matter is not reduced to its' most basic state it is converted into energy, through the process reffered to as dematerialization, then converted back into matter at the event horizon of the recieving Stargate based on a scan taken of the matter down to the subatomic level (possibly further) through the process reffered to as rematerialization.

Owen Macri

cozzerob
August 27th, 2005, 02:06 AM
yeh - owen is right. The reason that the stargate can't send matter both ways is - i guess - a safety precaution. The gates were designed for the use of humanoid lifeforms, and life forms cant pass through each other, so putting them in a situation where thay might possible collide either in the wormhole or coming out either end would be bad. However, some electromagnetic radiation can pass through you, ie, radiowaves, microwaves, etc, so it's ok to let them pass both ways. as they won't collide and cause problems. The stuff that won't go through you generally doesn't cause a problem anyway, ie, hitting visible light never hurt anyone (except is weird situations, but in general...).

All matter is is basically condensation of lots of energy. so the most basic form is energy. If the wormhole shut down and the energy was still going through, the energy then reverts bach to its natural form (48 hours). In the case of an element - no one cares, but for ppl it's a bad idea.

Anyway, that's my idea. It's a litttle hard to explain, but i think you get the general idea.

theStormWeaver
August 27th, 2005, 05:04 PM
It's Sci Fi, they have creative liscense. It doesn't have to make complete sense, just like the Yamato Cannon on StarCraft. The description tries to say that the device creates a mangetic field that focuses an atomic explosion into a "cohesive beam of energy." Its a bunch of bull. I've heard of electrons be focused into beam's for satalite killing lasers ("Star Wars" tech, not the movies).

Ollock
August 27th, 2005, 05:21 PM
yeh - owen is right. The reason that the stargate can't send matter both ways is - i guess - a safety precaution. The gates were designed for the use of humanoid lifeforms, and life forms cant pass through each other, so putting them in a situation where thay might possible collide either in the wormhole or coming out either end would be bad. However, some electromagnetic radiation can pass through you, ie, radiowaves, microwaves, etc, so it's ok to let them pass both ways. as they won't collide and cause problems. The stuff that won't go through you generally doesn't cause a problem anyway, ie, hitting visible light never hurt anyone (except is weird situations, but in general...).

That's doubtful. Given that anything passing through the wormhole dematerializes upon crossing the event horizon, collision would be unlikely and would only occur between particles, most likely sending the proper amount of energy to each gate anyway.

One theory I've heard was that there was a 'current' of mass particles from one end to the other that somehow did not affect photons, though I really don't know the actual physics of why this would be the case. there is the black hole entry / white hole exit theory of wormholes, but Ive never seen an example in the show of the exit point 'repelling' anything (plus, that would make radio and other electromagetic waves go one way as well)

_Owen_
August 27th, 2005, 09:45 PM
Actaully the problem would more be if someone where to start exiting after someone had started to enter, they would act like an iris, and the exiter would not be rematerialized.

Also it is possible that the information being sent may be skattered with other information while it is in transit, as well, the energy particles may bounce off of each other in mid transit, causing them to scatter in diffrent dirrections, possibly disallowing dematerialization on both sides due to indufficient energy.

Owen Macri

cozzerob
August 28th, 2005, 09:01 AM
Thank you owen - that is exactly what I was trying to say.