SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
One Theory Beyond the Standard Model Could Allow Wormholes that You Could Actually Fly Through
Wormholes are a popular feature in science fiction, the means through which spacecraft can achieve faster-than-light (FTL) travel and instantaneously move from one point in spacetime to another.
And while the General Theory of Relativity forbids the existence of "traversable wormholes", recent research has shown that they are actually possible within the domain of quantum physics.
The only downsides are that they would actually take longer to traverse than normal space and/or likely be microscopic.
In a new study performed by a pair of Ivy League scientists, the existence of physics beyond the Standard Model could mean that there are wormholes out there that are not only large enough to be traversable, but entirely safe for human travelers looking to get from point A to point B.
The study, titled "Humanly traversable wormholes," was conducted by Juan Maldacena (the Carl P. Feinberg Professor of theoretical physics from the Institute of Advanced Study) and Alexey Milekhin, a graduate of astrophysics student at Princeton University. The pair have written extensively on the subject of wormholes in the past and how they could be a means for traveling safely through space.
[...] However, Maldacena and Milekhin emphasize that their study was conducted for the purpose of showing that traversable wormholes can exist as a result of the "subtle interplay between general relativity and quantum physics."
In short, wormholes are not likely to become a practical way to travel through space – at least, not in any way that's foreseeable. Perhaps they would not be beyond a Kardashev[*] Type II or Type III civilization, but that's just speculation. Even so, knowing that a major element in science fiction is not beyond the realm of possibility is certainly encouraging!
Preprint Reference:
Juan Maldacena and Alexey Milekhin, Humanly traversable wormholes, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2008.06618.pdf
[*] Kardashev Scale
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday August 31 2020, @05:37PM (4 children)
Columbus brought back slaves because he wanted to justify his mission to the king, if you want something evil from him, he imposed taxation. Slavery is widespread nowadays, only because you do it by proxy, using money, laws, peer pressure it does not mean it is not there. So being up in arms about "slavers" of the past ends up being a way to whitewash the current ones, and boy is people falling for this.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday August 31 2020, @08:16PM
I concur, "modern slavery" exists, and is widespread, but it's quite a bit improved from the days of literal slaver ships with property clapped in irons for the crossing.
May we continue to improve: with UBI sufficient to provide food and shelter we would remove the fear of hunger and exposure from the owner/worker class relationship, and I believe the lives of both classes would improve similarly as they did with the removal of literal slave ownership. We no longer have a "wild continent" to tame to Western ideas of civilization - nature lost, game over - if we don't stop playing we're going to destroy the playing field.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday September 01 2020, @12:52AM (2 children)
Or if you want something really evil, he began the extinction of the entire Taíno culture.
There were 60,000 people living on this island [when I arrived in 1508], including the Indians; so that from 1494 to 1508, over three million people had perished from war, slavery and the mines. Who in future generations will believe this? [wikipedia.org]
He wasn't terribly nice to Spainish colonists, either: [wikipedia.org]
But taxation was the nasty bit?
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday September 01 2020, @10:43AM (1 child)
Between the two, yes.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday September 01 2020, @10:24PM
Wow, you're claiming taxation is worse than genocide.
I'm not sure how to respond to that. I'm not allowed to mod, so I can't make it +1 Funny, which I assume is what you're going for?