Talk:Wormhole

Possible vandalism of lead section by Asgard0392 (talk · contribs)

More precisely it is a transcendental bijection of the spacetime continuum, an asymptotic projection of the Calabi–Yau manifold manifesting itself in Anti-de Sitter space.

This passage in the lead section, which appears to be nonsense, was added by Asgard0392 (talk · contribs) in two edits made in 2017 and 2018. After it was removed by TimothyRias (talk · contribs) and by another user, Asgard0392 re-added it to the article.

The same user made a similar edit to the article on quark stars,

A quark star is a hypothetical type of compact exotic star, where extremely high temperature and pressure has forced nuclear particles to form a continuous state of matter that consists primarily of free quarks, which can be modeled using the Calabi–Yau manifold.

which was subsequently removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.70.109 (talk • contribs) 00:27, November 10, 2019 (UTC)

Not my field, so I have not clue on whether this is real, but the named user is an SPA on this issue. There is no mention of Calabi–Yau manifolds or Anti-de Sitter space elsewhere in the article, so why should this unsourced claim be in the lead? It certainly was not a minor addition as the user claimed. I've asked the editor to discuss the material here and provide reliable sources if this is real.

Any physicists out there who can comment on this? Meters (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm a freshman at UCLA, physics major. Calabi-Yau or Anti-de Sitter space is straight up bullshit. Can editors lock this article so Asgard0392 can't do this again? TH3NTLN3MAN (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Pardon me if I'm a bit leery of taking the word of an hours-old account whose every other edit has been reverted as vandalism. Meters (talk) 07:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

How the hell is that relevant? Asgard0392 is writing rubbish. Asgard0392 needs to be stopped or this crap will happen again. I'm not the only one who thinks its crap. TH3NTLN3MAN (talk) 08:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@TH3NTL3MAN: Why is that relevant? Because I don't know if I should believe you. A brand new account that makes three vandalism edits and then shows up here is not someone I'm going to take at his word. If you want your edits to be taken seriously then you are off to a bad start. Claiming to be knowledgeable about this based on being a first year physics major (all of 8 weeks into your first term) doesn't sound to me to be much of a qualification. Giving us broken links in your sig is not a good sign either. Meters (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about this being bullshit. Calabi-Yau manifolds and Anti de-Jitter spaces are both wikipedia articles. just saying.120.138.12.75 (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

While we're at it, can we also remove the mention of a Jacobian and determinant from the lede paragraph? It has been repeatedly inserted by User:StraightFromTheHorsesMouth, for example, here: [1]. I don't think it belong there, and, indeed, these terms are not mentioned in the body of the article.

Asgard0392 (talk · contribs) has once again added the nonsense passage to the introduction of the Wormhole article, while failing to address the concerns raised on the talk page. According to their contributions page, they are doing this persistently. StraightFromTheHorsesMouth (talk · contribs) has done the same. 67.171.70.109 (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Neither edit has been restored since the IP removed the material in question on Dec 3. I've warned Asgard0392 for unsourced content again, but StraightFromTheHorsesMouth was only active for three weeks more than one year ago (a total of 4 article edits, all this page). Meters (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Please update with "Polarized image of equatorial emission in horizonless spacetimes: Traversable wormholes"

I think it would be good if somebody added brief info via/from this study, featured in 2022 in science like so:

A study describes how one may eventually be able to detect (distinguish) wormholes, suggesting they may have never been observed because they appear very similar to black holes.

From the study:

Thus, while it could be difficult to distinguish wormhole spacetimes by their direct polarized images, the strongly lensed images and the polarization of the radiation through the wormhole throat provide characteristic signatures which can serve as probes for horizonless objects.

References

Prototyperspective (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Einstein-Rosen bridge link

I think the link in the introduction should be replaced with text. clicking it leads to the current article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.138.12.75 (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Definition Of An Einstein-Rosen Bridge

In the first paragraph of this article, an Einstein-Rosen bridge is referred to as a synonym of the word "wormhole". However, in the section of the article entitled "development", an Einstein-Rosen bridge is described as a specific type of wormhole which is distinct from traversable wormholes, Lorentzian wormholes and Euclidean wormholes. Given this, would it be appropriate to remove the reference to Einstein-Rosen bridge being a synonym of the word "wormhole"? Nezahaulcoyotl (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The supermassive black holes at the heart of every galaxy quantum tunnel through wormholes into supermassive white holes/BIG Bangs-Bit Bangs - baby universes - Seal #1a of

I added... It's been proposed that the supermassive black holes at the heart of every galaxy are quantum tunneling as wormholes into supermassive white holes/Big Bangs-Bit Bangs - baby universes.<ref]Seal #1a of http://7seals.blogspot.com </ref] 2607:FB91:C6A:DC33:F537:8A0E:387A:CAA5 (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

And it was immediately removed. Blogs are not reliable sources. Meters (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)