A wormhole that connects two points in space where the strength of gravity is different would let you violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Submitted by chancellortobyiii t3_10ac7fq in Futurology

If for example you were able to create a wormhole that connects a point in Earth at sea level to a point above Earth let's say 1 kilometer --- you'd be able to drop an object on the wormhole at sea level, have it appear 1 kilometer above earth, have it drop 1 kilometer and by the time it reaches the ground it'll have gained kinetic energy more than the energy you used to push it through the wormhole.

This just leads me to believe that the energy needed to create a wormhole and sustain it would be greater than the energy you can glean from the difference in gravitational potential between the places the wormhole connects. So the energy you would need to create a wormhole that connects a place at Earth to near a blackhole would be greater than what would be needed to create a wormhole that connects Earth to let's say near Jupiter.

87

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

strvgglecity t1_j43gcrz wrote

If the wormhole was "open", there would be a pressure gradient and stuff would get sucked through to equalize, destroying both ends.

72

strvgglecity t1_j43fvaw wrote

Creating a wormhole would require multiple stars worth of energy. You're definitely not gaining anything.

27

chancellortobyiii OP t1_j43g7kj wrote

Then pass multiple stars worth of mass through the wormhole that connects places with different gravitational potential.

0

2old4acoolname t1_j444mld wrote

I’m going off my college physics and astronomy classes here. And I’m old. So things may have changed, and I may have forgotten things. But if I remember correctly, quantum foam, or the basic level of quanta is roiling with “wormholes” that appear and disappear like bubbles in a soda. My professor said it would be cheaper (from an energy consumption perspective) to catch one and manipulate it than it would be to create one fresh. Even then, the targeting, tracking, then trapping 1 end (Nevermind both ends), holding on to it, expanding the orifice to a useable size and then stabilizing it. Well, it isn’t just a matter of available energy. You would also need energy to produce the needed exotic particles and anti matter on an ongoing basis needed to feed and control this one end of the wormhole. I think we, as a class, calculated a guesstimation that you would need millions’s of Dyson spheres (around a red dwarf, meaning 100% of a star’s output) worth of energy just to produce exotic particles (that we haven’t discovered yet) to use to manipulate and stabilize the entry. Nevermind feeding it enough exotic particles and antimatter to make it large enough to use, or build a tunnel of safe passage for travelers. And you would still have the other end whipping around the quanta trying to evaporate. But it can’t because your dumping all this energy into it. so it’s constantly shedding all the energy, exotic particles, and antimatter that you are pouring into it, out the other end. This would require more energy at an ever increasing pace. There would be no way to recover all that energy as we understand physics today. I also remember that the interior of a wormhole would be lethal to human life as well? Again, I’m old and so is my information. A good book about this, even though it may be a bit dated now, is “Blackholes and Timewarps” by Kip Thorne. It was a great read.

13

SagginDragon t1_j4577nh wrote

Ok but to be clear, how would you know how much energy you need to produce exotic particles when you haven’t discovered them yet?

I feel like any calculation done with that assumption is pointless. For all we know it might be an easily mass-producible polymer that we haven’t discovered yet.

4

Xelephis t1_j481frz wrote

Depends on the definition of exotic particle, we have discovered some in recent particle accelerators experiments (I think they called them tetraquarks or pentaquarks). I don't know if it's as easy as simply discovering a way to mass produce them because of their properties, the standard model predicts they are only formed in the most extreme circumstances and for an extremely short duration.

I'm no expert but I do read about physics for entertainment

1

SagginDragon t1_j481o0m wrote

I understand what you are saying

But how are you supposed to know how much energy you need to make something without knowing what you are making?

1

Xelephis t1_j4820gn wrote

I think the standard model can predict they exist and we just smash particles together til we find out the energy when they are formed. It's not elegant but it's science lol.

1

SagginDragon t1_j482786 wrote

Yes we know they exist, but again, how do you know those particles sustain a wormhole? There’s nothing suggesting that.

1

Xelephis t1_j483p1b wrote

I mean I don't even believe in worm holes as a real object in our universe I was just advocating for exotic particles. I have not read the latest theoretical worm holes that "could" exist.

Sorry if I was misleading in that manner, you are correct nothing suggests that

1

AcidUrine t1_j448jg8 wrote

Pretty sure Hawkins is the expert on workholes and said something down the lines of they can exist but would collapse as soon as any amount of matter (or energy?) attempted to pass through them?

1

DM_me_ur_tacos t1_j43hwrb wrote

Are they supposed to be uni- or bi-directional?

If bi-directional, it could still comport with the second law because massive things could travel both directions. It would start out of equilibrium, but mass would accumulate/deplete from both ends so that the strength of gravity equalized

18

QristopherQuixote t1_j46526j wrote

checks notes flip, flip, flip… oh ya, first you need to show how you could create a wormhole in earth’s atmosphere, then we’ll worry about the second law of thermodynamics.

16

[deleted] t1_j4424n8 wrote

[removed]

8

[deleted] t1_j44e9n5 wrote

[removed]

1

[deleted] t1_j44fwo1 wrote

[removed]

4

[deleted] t1_j44i6jy wrote

[removed]

−3

[deleted] t1_j44j5pu wrote

[removed]

7

[deleted] t1_j44k9xt wrote

[removed]

0

[deleted] t1_j44kw4e wrote

[removed]

3

[deleted] t1_j44ll7q wrote

[removed]

0

[deleted] t1_j44lpk8 wrote

[removed]

1

[deleted] t1_j44mnj2 wrote

[removed]

1

[deleted] t1_j44muow wrote

[removed]

3

[deleted] t1_j44nze0 wrote

[removed]

0

[deleted] t1_j44o1mn wrote

[removed]

3

[deleted] t1_j44oeto wrote

[removed]

0

[deleted] t1_j44orfw wrote

[removed]

2

[deleted] t1_j44piwq wrote

[removed]

0

[deleted] t1_j44pl0p wrote

[removed]

3

[deleted] t1_j44qbfe wrote

[removed]

0

[deleted] t1_j44qgmw wrote

[removed]

2

[deleted] t1_j44rc3j wrote

[removed]

0

[deleted] t1_j44ree9 wrote

[removed]

3

[deleted] t1_j457uh6 wrote

[removed]

1

[deleted] t1_j458kq0 wrote

[removed]

1

[deleted] t1_j459eza wrote

[removed]

2

[deleted] t1_j459mtt wrote

[removed]

1

[deleted] t1_j45a5db wrote

[removed]

2

[deleted] t1_j45aakl wrote

[removed]

0

[deleted] t1_j45ajxh wrote

[removed]

2

[deleted] t1_j45amxw wrote

[removed]

0

sumknowbuddy t1_j43hd7b wrote

Assuming this wormhole as an object needs to exist in equilibrium, it would have to consume matter at a rate equal to the energy released.

Your example is somewhat flawed, even with a basic example of centrifugal and centripetal motion. You're basically saying that the centrpetal motion we understand as gravity is bypassed, allowing the object to "gain" energy from falling. It would've actually been under more energy/force closer to the Earth, and has lost energy by rising. The falling is just the re-equalizing of the potential energy to the point where that object in its surroundings exist most stably.

Also you go from saying "objects will gain more energy" to saying "it'll take more energy to open a wormhole than any potential use of it would be worth". Did you have a point, or were you trying to contradict yourself?

You're also assuming things pass through undistorted. Say you drop something extremely dense through, like lead, does it face any compression? The release of energy on exiting such a wormhole would be where that equalizes; the systems would maintain that energy as the object moves through each stage.

Assuming that a "wormhole" acts as a portal is silly, if such a thing were to exist and you assume it has either extremely high or extremely low gravity, it would need to be adjusted approximately to travel through this wormhole. Just because gravity differs doesn't mean everything else doesn't apply. If gravity is so high, the amount of energy required to move something across it would be insane. If it were extremely low, the shear forces would reach atomic levels quickly, essentially dissolving anything that entered with any energy (assuming it's essentially a vacuum). To account for this would be extremely difficult.

6

chancellortobyiii OP t1_j43izqm wrote

Just imagine two billiard balls. One ball is near the edge of the wormhole at ground level. Throw a second billiard ball at a very slow speed just to nudge the first billiard ball into the ground level wormhole. The first billiard ball goes in the wormhole, drops 1 kilometer and by the time it reaches the ground again it would have attained a speed greater than the second billiard ball you threw to nudge it in.

0

sumknowbuddy t1_j442k5g wrote

How are you missing that the ball is not gaining any energy? That energy is simply being applied to the ground all the time in the case of the one on the ground, and the one falling is gaining energy to try and match the one that seems to be "at rest".

Are you aware of [elastic] potential energy? Or yhe energy contained in chemical bonds? A spring sitting under compression? Just because they are 'at rest' in reference to one thing doesn't mean they contain no energy in that system. You're just looking at the wrong things.

Also, how is any of this related to thermodynamics? I'm pretty sure all of those laws have to do with heat transfer...

2

chancellortobyiii OP t1_j44ffci wrote

The second law of thermodynamics states that as energy is transferred or transformed, more and more of it is wasted. It's one of the four laws of thermodynamics, which describe the relationships between thermal energy, or heat, and OTHER FORMS OF ENERGY and how energy affects matter.

The 2nd law is not just about heat.

What is thermodynamics? Thermodynamics is the study of the relations between heat, work, temperature, and energy. The laws of thermodynamics describe how the energy in a system changes and whether the system can perform useful work on its surroundings.

Again thermodynamics is not just about heat.

>That energy is simply being applied to the ground all the time in the case of the one on the ground,

Yes, of course the falling billiard will transfer its energy to the ground. The point is the energy it tried to transfer TO THE GROUND is bigger than the energy the second biliard ball tried to transfer to the first billiard ball when it nudged it into the wormhole.

You're the one misguided in your notions.

−2

sumknowbuddy t1_j4575ls wrote

Again, you're looking at a very narrow scope for the question you're posing. It's not gaining energy at all, since the Earth would be exerting the same amount of energy on it regardless.

Had your wormhole pulled it from a pure vacuum that cannot actually exist in real life, your 'misguided notions' would be correct. However, the energy in the system has not changed at all; the location of your theoretical billiard ball has. Now if we extrapolate the energy distribution over time across a large timeframe, unless we'll assume that that billiard ball is undergoing infinite "nudges" into said wormhole [all of which you're conveniently ignoring as energy going into the system], then that ball falling in a single instance is no different from one at a standstill in reference to the Earth.

For such a theoretical, large scale question, you sure are focused on the minutiae.

And wouldn't it be better just to use Newton's Laws, which the laws of thermodynamics are derived from anyways..?

2

Sir_Rated t1_j44c93c wrote

Good thing then, that every idea expressed in the above title is sci-fi horseshit.

6

Taliesin_Chris t1_j43gnrh wrote

Gravity will attempt to pull the wormhole shut. But lets say you overcome that by putting some exotic matter into it so that keeps it open.

The effect of the ground level wormhole will pull at things near it on the other side. So if you say, threw a ball through it, as it leaves the one at ground level, it would start 'falling' back towards the open wormhole because the effect of gravity is affecting things on that side as well.

If it had enough momentum to break free from that side and pass downward, it still would have been slowed until the 'typical' gravity of the earth took it over.

Another, more dramatic, way of thinking about it is: If you opened one side at ground level, and another side near a black hole, the black hole would pull the earth into it.

5

teflontactics t1_j43f0bb wrote

It's more likely any wormhole creation would destroy nearby massive objects at both ends, therefore removing them from the equation and making both ends functionally equal.

4

JhonnyHopkins t1_j43ua4z wrote

Yeah I imagine any type of usable wormhole being at least the size of the moon, maybe a tad smaller.

1

Femboy_Pantheon t1_j44ahmo wrote

Everything you just theorized violates all of thermodynamics

2

FinalJuggernaut_ t1_j45i596 wrote

Fucking lol

You really should look up what are black holes.

2

Zero1030 t1_j43e242 wrote

No wormhole has ever been proven to exist it's fantasy

1

Onrawi t1_j43ebpt wrote

Potentially yes, and maybe wormholes need a minimum amount of energy to open that is greater than the gravitational delta between the 2 locations (hence making them in similar locations in spacetime being the lowest energy cost, a good reason for gates to exist over a mobile/onboard system). It may also be that there is an energy penalty for traversing through wormholes that is equivalent to any kinetic energy gain that would have happened.

Edit: Lol, I thought I was in r/worldbuilding, whoops.

1

Affectionate-Aide422 t1_j43g6dq wrote

Laurence Dahners explores this is his Ell Donsaii scifi series. Fun read.

1

chatparty t1_j4417dg wrote

Wormhole physics is incredibly complicated. Traversible wormholes even more so. ArXiv is a free resource with tons of physics papers that might have something better to explain it.

1

Utxi4m t1_j44ajtf wrote

>If for example you were able to create a wormhole that connects a point in Earth at sea level to a point above Earth let's say 1 kilometer --- you'd be able to drop an object on the wormhole at sea level, have it appear 1 kilometer above earth, have it drop 1 kilometer and by the time it reaches the ground it'll have gain kinetic energy more than the energy you used to push it through the wormhole.

You'd have air moving towards lower pressure area. Maybe move the wormhole a few km higher and install a wind turbine at the opening for infinite energy.

1

ExtensionPersimmon72 t1_j44axur wrote

yes because everything must have polarity. Black holes are formed as other entrants arrive

1

FillThisEmptyCup t1_j44vhvs wrote

All wormholes suffer from this problem. You are further or closer to the center of gravity wells like the star in the solar system or center of milky way, etc. same thing.

I’m guessing if two points are like on a piece of paper and changing the spacetime so the paper bends and touches at that point - there’s something in that transfer or process that’s not quite so free everything can jump in.

1

Gonergonegone t1_j44z9fh wrote

You're forgetting that pressure equalizes when two pressure systems are introduced to each other. Not only would it take nearly infinite energy to create a wormhole initially, but both ends of the wormhole would suck and push on one another until a balance is reached. So, goodbye earth.

1

p1mrx t1_j455z1h wrote

Imagine that you put a (fictional) gravity shield on the ground, that creates a column of zero gravity above it, extending all the way to space.

If you tried to throw a ball into this column, it would just bounce off, unless it were initially traveling at escape velocity (11 km/s). The column would contain mostly vacuum, because it's connected to space, and air molecules aren't moving fast enough to enter it.

Maybe a wormhole would work the same way. If you want something to travel "upwards", you need to give it a push.

1

rixtil41 t1_j456gq8 wrote

If what you build breaks physics you made a mistake.

1

w0mbatina t1_j45q5zm wrote

If my Grandmother had wheels she would have been a bike.

1

mykepagan t1_j47l1r2 wrote

Or… in order to push an object through the wormhole you would need to add anergy. In the 1 km higher wormhole example, maybe you would need to put the same amount of enegy in as the 1km potential energy difference. So it would be like push the object up a 1km hill.

1

chancellortobyiii OP t1_j47mspj wrote

I was thinking the wormhole you push the object into is on the ground. If you peek down it you'd see down earth from a vantage point 1km above earth.

1

r2k-in-the-vortex t1_j47up0p wrote

Why do you think there is no work involved with pushing things through a wormhole?

If you make an assumption that it's possible to have a wormhole, you should at least assume that such a wormhole cannot violate laws of thermodynamics. Otherwise you might as well head to r/FictionWriting

1

chancellortobyiii OP t1_j4atfbn wrote

I was thinking that as well that wormholes would need enormous amount of work depending on the difference of properties at both ends. Difference in magnetic field, electric field, amount of light etc. not just difference in gravity. That was the whole point of my post... To speculate about how wormholes could violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics and how could it prevent from violating it.

1

DamonFields t1_j4cye0k wrote

Humans and their laws that all other beings must obey.

1

quettil t1_j4ga6kk wrote

Have the laws of thermodynamics been proven beyond doubt?

1

Sometimesplayerone t1_j43s9m9 wrote

Bob Lazar also described properties of the craft he worked on at are S-4 as breaking the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Einstein theorized wormholes would exist as well. Case closed boys another one in the books

−1