According to data discovered by a team of researchers at Sofia University, the lack of observation of wormholes may be due to the fact that they resemble black holes nearly exactly.
Petya Nedkova, Galin Gyulchev, Stoytcho Yazadjiev, and
Valentin Delijski compare theoretical linear polarisation from an accretion
disc that would be located around a class of static traversable wormholes to
photographs of black holes in their research that was published in the journal
Physical Review D.
Science fiction authors and scientists have debated the
theoretical viability of a wormhole for a long time. According to theory, such
a thing would resemble a tunnel that connects two separate cosmological
regions. By taking a shortcut, passing through the tunnel would make it
possible to go to far-off places in ways that aren't available to spacecraft
that can't move faster than the speed of light.
Sadly, no wormhole has ever been seen, and there isn't even
any tangible proof that they exist. Astrophysicists still believe they exist
because the evidence for their existence is so compelling. The issue is that
we've either been looking for them in the wrong places or don't have the
technology to notice them.
The researchers in Bulgaria contend that the latter is the
issue in this new endeavor. They have discovered theory-based evidence that
shows they may be there in the night sky, hidden from view, and that the only
reason we haven't noticed them is that we think they are black holes.
Studying wormhole theories and then using what was learned to
build simulations with a focus on the polarity of the light that such an object
would emit—as well as taking into account the features of an imagined disc
encircling its mouth—were the tasks at hand. They then compared the direct and
indirect representations of wormholes to black holes and discovered striking
similarities between the two.
According to the researchers, it should be feasible to
distinguish between wormholes and black holes by observing minute variations in
their polarisation patterns, intensities, and radii.
No comments