Some Black Holes May Be Portals Through Spacetime In Disguise
Theoretical physicists have long debated the possible existence of wormholes, which are mathematically possible, but no evidence points to their physical existence.
One theory suggests that these hypothetical tunnels in spacetime could be masquerading as black holes, as both objects share similar characteristics as a result of existing right on the edge of where known physics breaks down.
A new study adds more evidence to this conjecture by analyzing quasi-normal modes—distinctive vibrations in space-time caused by temporary perturbations—and finds that wormholes could mimic black holes in this particular context.
Although traversable wormholes are a popular trope in sci-fi, the space-time structures that connect two different points of the universe are—at least, as of now—completely hypothetical. One of the first types of wormholes ever theorized, the Einstein-Rosen bridge, is simply a specific solution to Einstein's field equations, which map space-time geometry within certain matter and energy conditions.
Sadly, these sci-fi dreams rest on the fantastical concept of 'negative energy,' a cosmic phenomenon that simply doesn't exist in the classical universe (though the answer isn't so clear cut in the quantum realm). Due to the space-time strangeness required to form a stable wormhole, some scientists have considered whether certain black holes might actually be wormholes in disguise. Although physical reality makes this a near-impossibility, mathematics shows that it's at least conceivable.
Now, a new study has analyzed a certain attribute of Schwarzschild black holes—which are named for German physicist Karl Schwarzschild and are themselves hypothetical objects, as they're black holes that contain no rotation or electric field—known as quasi-normal modes (QNMs). These modes are considered quasi-normal because they describe distinctive vibrations of space-time when a compact object is perturbed (i.e. they don't continue indefinitely).
Using different approaches—including a parameterization to define the properties of the area near the 'throat' of a wormhole while analyzing three different perturbation types (scalar, axial gravitational, and electromagnetic)—the researchers concluded that a wormhole could consistently replicate the QNMs associated with static (a.k.a. Schwarzschild) black holes. The results of the study were uploaded to the preprint server arXiv, and the authors note that the study will soon be published in the journal Physical Review D.
'Exotic compact objects—either beyond General Relativity (GR) predictions or arising from unconventional GR assumptions—could theoretically exist, though they remain undetected,' the authors wrote. 'This elusiveness may be due to their ability to closely mimic the observational properties of black holes.'
The idea of wormholes masquerading as black holes of all shapes and sizes isn't a new one—in fact, it's a theory that's been debated for decades. More recently, a 2021 study pondered whether active galactic nuclei, or AGN, are actually wormhole mouths rather than supermassive black holes. A year later, a team from Sofia University in Bulgaria concluded that light emitted from a disk surrounding a traversable wormhole would likely be 'nearly identical' to that of a static black hole. Long-standing theories have also wondered if black holes could be paired with mirror twins, known as 'white holes,' which would together form wormholes. Of course, white holes have never been observed or detected either, but once again, the math allows for their existence.
This new study adds to that growing discussion by analyzing the QNM aspect of static black holes and finding that the two are also similar.
'We can say that a wormhole can effectively emulate the Schwarzschild black hole in general relativity in its fundamental mode and first overtone across the three distinct perturbation types considered individually,' the authors wrote.
The authors also expect to build on this approach by improving near-throat parameters and analyzing the polar gravitational perturbations theoretically exhibited by both wormholes and black holes (though the problem presents a few computational difficulties that will need solving).
For now, wormholes remain firmly in the realm of science fiction. But with mathematics continuing to prove that such objects are possible, scientists will continue to search for these bridges across the universe.
You Might Also Like
The Do's and Don'ts of Using Painter's Tape
The Best Portable BBQ Grills for Cooking Anywhere
Can a Smart Watch Prolong Your Life?
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
How a mysterious particle could explain the universe's missing antimatter
Everything we see around us, from the ground beneath our feet to the most remote galaxies, is made of matter. For scientists, that has long posed a problem: According to physicists' best current theories, matter and its counterpart, antimatter, ought to have been created in equal amounts at the time of the Big Bang. But antimatter is vanishingly rare in the universe. So what happened? Physicists don't know the answer to that question yet, but many think the solution must involve some subtle difference in the way that matter and antimatter behave. And right now, the most promising path into that unexplored territory centers on new experiments involving the mysterious subatomic particle known as the neutrino. 'It's not to say that neutrinos are definitely the explanation of the matter-antimatter asymmetry, but a very large class of models that can explain this asymmetry are connected to neutrinos,' says Jessica Turner, a theoretical physicist at Durham University in the United Kingdom. Let's back up for a moment: When physicists talk about matter, that's just the ordinary stuff that the universe is made of — mainly protons and neutrons (which make up the nuclei of atoms), along with lighter particles like electrons. Although the term 'antimatter' has a sci-fi ring to it, antimatter is not all that different from ordinary matter. Typically, the only difference is electric charge: For example, the positron — the first antimatter particle to be discovered — matches an electron in its mass but carries a positive rather than a negative charge. (Things are a bit more complicated with electrically neutral particles. For example, a photon is considered to be its own antiparticle, but an antineutron is distinct from a neutron in that it's made up of antiquarks rather than ordinary quarks.) Various antimatter particles can exist in nature; they occur in cosmic rays and in thunderclouds, and are produced by certain kinds of radioactive decay. (Because people — and bananas — contain a small amount of radioactive potassium, they emit minuscule amounts of antimatter in the form of positrons.) Small amounts of antimatter have also been created by scientists in particle accelerators and other experiments, at great effort and expense — putting a damper on science fiction dreams of rockets propelled by antimatter or planet-destroying weapons energized by it. When matter and antimatter meet, they annihilate, releasing energy in the form of radiation. Such encounters are governed by Einstein's famous equation, E=mc2 — energy equals mass times the square of the speed of light — which says you can convert a little bit of matter into a lot of energy, or vice versa. (The positrons emitted by bananas and bodies have so little mass that we don't notice the teeny amounts of energy released when they annihilate.) Because matter and antimatter annihilate so readily, it's hard to make a chunk of antimatter much bigger than an atom, though in theory you could have everything from antimatter molecules to antimatter planets and stars. But there's a puzzle: If matter and antimatter were created in equal amounts at the time of the Big Bang, as theory suggests, shouldn't they have annihilated, leaving a universe made up of pure energy? Why is there any matter left? Physicists' best guess is that some process in the early universe favored the production of matter compared to the production of antimatter — but exactly what that process was is a mystery, and the question of why we live in a matter-dominated universe is one of the most vexing problems in all of physics. Crucially, physicists haven't been able to think of any such process that would mesh with today's leading theory of matter and energy, known as the Standard Model of particle physics. That leaves theorists seeking new ideas, some as-yet-unknown physics that goes beyond the Standard Model. This is where neutrinos come in. A neutral answer Neutrinos are tiny particles without any electric charge. (The name translates as 'little neutral one.') According to the Standard Model, they ought to be massless, like photons, but experiments beginning in the 1990s showed that they do in fact have a tiny mass. (They're at least a million times lighter than electrons, the extreme lightweights among normal matter.) Since physicists already know that neutrinos violate the Standard Model by having mass, their hope is that learning more about these diminutive particles might yield insights into whatever lies beyond. Neutrinos have been slow to yield their secrets, however, because they barely interact with other particles. About 60 billion neutrinos from the Sun pass through every square centimeter of your skin each second. If those neutrinos interacted with the atoms in our bodies, they would probably destroy us. Instead, they pass right through. 'You most likely will not interact with a single neutrino in your lifetime,' says Pedro Machado, a physicist at Fermilab near Chicago. 'It's just so unlikely.' Experiments, however, have shown that neutrinos 'oscillate' as they travel, switching among three different identities — physicists call them 'flavors': electron neutrino, muon neutrino and tau neutrino. Oscillation measurements have also revealed that different-flavored neutrinos have slightly different masses. Neutrino oscillation is weird, but it may be weird in a useful way, because it might allow physicists to probe certain fundamental symmetries in nature — and these in turn may illuminate the most troubling of asymmetries, namely the universe's matter-antimatter imbalance. For neutrino researchers, a key symmetry is called charge-parity or CP symmetry. It's actually a combination of two distinct symmetries: Changing a particle's charge flips matter into antimatter (or vice versa), while changing a particle's parity flips a particle into its mirror image (like turning a right-handed glove into a left-handed glove). So the CP-opposite version of a particle of ordinary matter is a mirror image of the corresponding antiparticle. But does this opposite particle behave exactly the same as the original one? If not, physicists say that CP symmetry is violated — a fancy way of saying that matter and antimatter behave slightly differently from one another. So any examples of CP symmetry violation in nature could help to explain the matter-antimatter imbalance. In fact, CP violation has already been observed in some mesons, a type of subatomic particle typically made up of one quark and one antiquark, a surprising result first found in the 1960s. But it's an extremely small effect, and it falls far short of being able to account for the universe's matter-antimatter asymmetry. In July 2025, scientists working at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN near Geneva reported clear evidence for a similar violation by one type of particle from a different family of subatomic particles known as baryons — but this newly observed CP violation is similarly believed to be much too small to account for the matter-antimatter imbalance. Experiments on the horizon So what about neutrinos? Do they violate CP symmetry — and if so, do they do it in a big enough way to explain why we live in a matter-dominated universe? This is precisely the question being addressed by a new generation of particle physics experiments. Most ambitious among them is the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), which is now under construction in the United States; data collection could begin as early as 2029. DUNE will employ the world's most intense neutrino beam, which will fire both neutrinos and antineutrinos from Fermilab to the Sanford Underground Research Facility, located 800 miles away in South Dakota. (There's no tunnel; the neutrinos and antineutrinos simply zip through the earth, for the most part hardly noticing that it's there.) Detectors at each end of the beam will reveal how the particles oscillate as they traverse the distance between the two labs — and whether the behavior of the neutrinos differs from that of the antineutrinos. DUNE won't pin down the precise amount of neutrinos' CP symmetry violation (if there is any), but it will set an upper limit on it. The larger the possible effect, the greater the discrepancy in the behavior of neutrinos versus antineutrinos, and the greater the likelihood that neutrinos could be responsible for the matter-antimatter asymmetry in the early universe. For Shirley Li, a physicist at the University of California, Irvine, the issue of neutrino CP violation is an urgent question, one that could point the way to a major rethink of particle physics. 'If I could have one question answered by the end of my lifetime, I would want to know what that's about,' she says. Aside from being a major discovery in its own right, CP symmetry violation in neutrinos could challenge the Standard Model by pointing the way to other novel physics. For example, theorists say it would mean there could be two kinds of neutrinos — left-handed ones (the normal lightweight ones observed to date) and much heavier right-handed neutrinos, which are so far just a theoretical possibility. (The particles' 'handedness' refers to their quantum properties.) These right-handed neutrinos could be as much as 1015 times heavier than protons, and they'd be unstable, decaying almost instantly after coming into existence. Although they're not found in today's universe, physicists suspect that right-handed neutrinos may have existed in the moments after the Big Bang — possibly decaying via a process that mimicked CP violation and favored the creation of matter over antimatter. It's even possible that neutrinos can act as their own antiparticles — that is, that neutrinos could turn into antineutrinos and vice versa. This scenario, which the discovery of right-handed neutrinos would support, would make neutrinos fundamentally different from more familiar particles like quarks and electrons. If antineutrinos can turn into neutrinos, that could help explain where the antimatter went during the universe's earliest moments. One way to test this idea is to look for an unusual type of radioactive decay — theorized but thus far never observed — known as 'neutrinoless double-beta decay.' In regular double-beta decay, two neutrons in a nucleus simultaneously decay into protons, releasing two electrons and two antineutrinos in the process. But if neutrinos can act as their own antiparticles, then the two neutrinos could annihilate each other, leaving only the two electrons and a burst of energy. Stay in the KnowSign up for the Knowable Magazine newsletter today A number of experiments are underway or planned to look for this decay process, including the KamLAND-Zen experiment, at the Kamioka neutrino detection facility in Japan; the nEXO experiment at the SNOLAB facility in Ontario, Canada; the NEXT experiment at the Canfranc Underground Laboratory in Spain; and the LEGEND experiment at the Gran Sasso laboratory in Italy. KamLAND-Zen, NEXT and LEGEND are already up and running. While these experiments differ in the details, they all employ the same general strategy: They use a giant vat of dense, radioactive material with arrays of detectors that look for the emission of unusually energetic electrons. (The electrons' expected neutrino companions would be missing, with the energy they would have had instead carried by the electrons.) While the neutrino remains one of the most mysterious of the known particles, it is slowly but steadily giving up its secrets. As it does so, it may crack the puzzle of our matter-dominated universe — a universe that happens to allow inquisitive creatures like us to flourish. The neutrinos that zip silently through your body every second are gradually revealing the universe in a new light. 'I think we're entering a very exciting era,' says Turner. This article originally appeared in Knowable Magazine, an independent journalistic endeavor from Annual Reviews. Sign up for the newsletter. Solve the daily Crossword
Atlantic
7 hours ago
- Atlantic
How States Could Save University Science
Whatever halfway measures Congress or the courts may take to stop President Donald Trump's assault on universities, they will not change the fact that a profound agreement has been broken: Since World War II, the U.S. government has funded basic research at universities, with the understanding that the discoveries and innovations that result would benefit the U.S. economy and military, as well as the health of the nation's citizens. But under President Trump—who has already targeted more than $3 billion in research funding for termination and hopes to cut much more, while at the same time increasing the tax on endowments and threatening the ability of universities to enroll international students —the federal government has become an unreliable and brutally coercive partner. The question for universities is, what now? It will take time for research universities to find a new long-term financial model that allows science and medicine to continue advancing—a model much less dependent on the federal government. But right now universities don't have time. The problem with recklessly cutting billions in funds the way the Trump administration has done—not just at elite private universities such as Harvard and Columbia but also at public research universities across the country—is that 'stop-start' simply doesn't work in science. If a grant is snatched away today, researchers are let go, graduate students are turned away, and clinical trials are halted with potentially devastating consequences for patients. Unused equipment gathers dust, samples spoil, lab animals are euthanized. Top scientists move their laboratories to other countries, which are happy to welcome this talent, much as the United States welcomed German scientists in the 1930s. Meanwhile, the best students around the world enroll elsewhere, where good science is still being done and their legal status is not up in the air. The result, ultimately, is that the U.S. leaves it to other nations to discover a cure for Alzheimer's disease or diabetes, or to make fusion energy practicable. No easy substitute exists for federal support of academic R&D—the scale of the investment is just too large. In fiscal year 2023, federal funding for university research amounted to about $60 billion nationwide. University-endowment spending, as reported by the '2024 NACUBO-Commonfund Study of Endowments,' is just half that—$30 billion, with much of the money earmarked for financial aid. Universities by themselves cannot save American science, engineering, and medicine. However, there is also no easy substitute within the American economy for university-based research—universities are the only major institutions that do what they do. The kind of curiosity-driven rather than profit-driven research pursued by universities is too risky for private corporations. By and large, industry conducts research to achieve milestones along a well-considered road map. It is up to universities to find the new roads and educate the experts who know how to travel them. Those roads are where the real potential for growth lies. After all, the internet and the artificial neural networks that enable generative AI arose out of basic research at U.S. universities. So did the most fundamental discoveries in molecular biology, which are now enabling astonishing one-time treatments that are potential cures for painful genetic diseases such as sickle cell. University research is particularly important in states where technology-intensive industries have grown up around the talent and ideas that universities generate—states such as Washington, California, New York, Massachusetts, Texas, Maryland, and North Carolina. Although the Trump administration may characterize federal research grants as wasteful spending, they are really an investment, one with higher returns than federal investment in infrastructure or private investment in R&D. There is a way forward—a way to bridge the huge gap in funding. It starts with the assumption that a bridge will be needed for several years, until some measure of sanity and federal support returns. It is based on the premise that, because universities are not the sole nor even the most significant beneficiaries of the scientific research they conduct, they should not be alone in trying to save their R&D operations. And it is focused not on Washington but on the individual states that have relied most on federal research spending. These states have the power to act unilaterally. They can set up emergency funds to replace canceled federal grants, allowing universities to keep their labs open until a shaky present gives way to a sturdier future. These states can also create incentives for corporations, investors, philanthropists, and of course universities themselves to step up in extraordinary ways at a time of emergency. This is not merely wishful thinking. Massachusetts has already made moves in this direction. At the end of July, Governor Maura Healey introduced legislation that would put $400 million of state funds into university-based research and research partnerships. Half would go to public colleges and universities, and half to other institutions, including private research universities and academic hospitals. Obviously, with $2.6 billion of multiyear research grants threatened at Harvard alone, action by the state will cover only part of the funding deficit, but it will help. It makes perfect sense for Massachusetts to be the first state to try to stanch the bleeding. With just 2 percent of the nation's workforce, Massachusetts is home to more than 11 percent of all R&D jobs in the country. It has the highest per capita funding from the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation in the U.S. Every federal dollar invested in academic science in Massachusetts generates about $2 in economic return for the state. And that's before taking into account the economic impact of any discoveries. In particular, Massachusetts has a powerful biomedical-research ecosystem to protect. But each state has its own strategic imperatives, and many ways to structure such emergency funds exist. Because the grants canceled by the Trump administration have already undergone the federal peer-review process, states don't need to force themselves into the challenging business of judging the worthiness of individual research proposals. They could make a large difference simply by refilling the vessels that have been abruptly emptied, possibly with grants that allow the universities to prioritize the most important projects. States could require that, in exchange for state help, universities must raise matching funds from their donors. In addition, states could launch their own philanthropic funds, as Massachusetts is also doing. Philanthropy—which already contributes an estimated $13 billion a year to university research through foundations, individual gifts, and the income on gifts to university endowments—is particularly important at this moment. As federal-grant awards become scarcer, it is a fair bet that federal-funding agencies will become more risk averse. Philanthropists have always played an important role in encouraging unconventional thinking because they are willing to fund the very earliest stages of discovery. For example, the philanthropists Ted and Vada Stanley funded a center at MIT and Harvard's Broad Institute specifically to explore the biological basis of psychiatric disorders. In a landmark 2016 study, researchers there found strong evidence of a molecular mechanism underlying schizophrenia, establishing the first distinct connection in the disorder between gene variants and a biological process. Foundations can also launch sweeping projects that bring together communities of scientists from different organizations to advance a field, such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, which has mapped a third of the night sky, or the Sloan Deep Carbon Observatory, which studied the carbon cycle beneath the surface of the Earth. States could also incentivize their business communities to be part of the rescue operation, perhaps by offering to match industry contributions to academic R&D. Some sectors, such as the biopharmaceutical industry, are particularly reliant on university discoveries. NIH-funded research contributed to more than 99 percent of all new drugs approved in the U.S. from 2010 to 2019. But China is now catching up to the U.S. in drug innovation. American biopharmaceutical companies are already dependent on China for raw materials. If they don't want to become completely reliant on China for breakthrough drugs as well—and able to access only those drugs that China is willing to share—they should do what they can to help save what has long been the world's greatest system for biomedical research. The same is true for science-based technology companies in fields that include quantum computing, artificial intelligence, semiconductors, and batteries. Academic breakthroughs underlie the products and services they sell. If they want to remain ahead of their global competition, they should help support the next generation of breakthroughs and the next generation of students who will contribute to those breakthroughs. Among those who would benefit from keeping U.S. university labs open are the venture capitalists and other investors who profit from the commercialization of university ideas. From 1996 to 2020, academic research generated 141,000 U.S. patents, spun out 18,000 companies, supported 6.5 million jobs, and contributed $1 trillion to the GDP. One of those spinouts was named Google. In our current state of emergency, investment firms should be considering ways to provide a lifeline to the university-based science that supports a high-tech economy. Governors and other leaders in states with major research universities will need to work quickly and decisively, bringing various parties together in order to stave off disaster. But what is the alternative? If states, corporations, donors, and other stakeholders do nothing, there will be fewer American ideas to invest in, fewer American therapies to benefit from, and fewer advanced manufacturing industries making things in the U.S. No contributions from elsewhere can completely replace broad-based federal support for university R&D. But until that returns, states with a lot on the line economically offer the best hope of limiting the losses and salvaging U.S. science.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
A Dark Mirror Universe May Be Hiding Right Next Door, Scientists Say
Here's what you'll learn when you read this story: We have not been able to detect dark matter yet, even though there are many aspects of the universe that suggest the existence of invisible matter. In one new theory, it is possible that dark matter exists in a mirror universe where there are only dark versions of forces that hold the universe together. Another new theory suggests that dark matter may have been created at the edge of the universe right after the Big Bang, then radiated into space as the universe expanded. Hypothetically, dark matter is supposed to exist, even though it has managed to elude every single detection attempt so far. It neither absorbs nor reflects light. Still, something has to be generating enough gravity to hold together immense galaxies that rotate so fast, they would otherwise end up annihilating themselves. We keep searching for it—but we might be searching in the wrong universe. There might be more exotic explanations for invisible matter that is supposedly right in front of us. Physicist Stefano Profumo of the University of California, Santa Cruz, suggests it could have come from one of two origins. It might be lurking in a dark mirror universe contained within the visible universe. The merging of dark matter black holes in that realm may cause gravitational waves which can be detected. If this is starting to sound like one of the multiple mirrorverses in Stephen King's The Dark Tower, think of it as a shadow version of the same rogue chasing the same man in black through space and time. 'The nature of dark matter remains one of the most pressing mysteries in modern cosmology and particle physics,' Profumo said in a study recently published in Physical Review D. 'While numerous candidates have been proposed, from weakly interacting massive particles to axions, the search for the fundamental nature of the dark matter and of the 'dark sector' it resides in continues.' Alternately, dark matter particles might have formed at the edge of the observable universe, or the cosmic horizon, as it expanded at breakneck speed right after the Big Bang. Profumo thinks these particles might still be radiated into space similarly to how Hawking radiation describes particles evaporating from right outside the event horizon of a black hole. The cosmic horizon is something like the universe's equivalent to a black hole's event horizon. Though Profumo admits both of his theories are highly speculative, they are not impossible. He was inspired by quantum chromodynamics (QCD), which explains how the strong force of gravity binds together the quarks and gluons which make up protons and neutrons. The dark mirror universe he envisions has its own versions of particles and forces that operate just like those in the universe we exist in. Dark quarks (which create protons) and gluons (which glue quarks together into protons) should be able to bind and create baryons such as protons and neutrons, which are the dark reflection of the baryons we can detect. Black holes (or at least objects that behave much like them) could have formed from dark baryons in the nascent universe. While there have been theories about primordial black holes forming as dark matter, researchers have seen them as the product of density fluctuations rather than emerging from a mirror universe. If clouds of dark baryons became dense and massive enough, they would have collapsed into themselves and formed nano-black hole. Enough of these black holes can contain all the dark matter in existence. With such a behemoth amount of gravity, they would also have a profound effect on the shape of the universe. Another possibility that Profumo explores is dark matter particles radiating from the cosmic horizon. The universe is already thought to have fast-forwarded through a period of inflation after its birth, and he argues that in the beginning, because it expanded faster than the speed of light, dark matter particles were released from its edges. While inflation has slowed down dramatically since then, the universe and the very fabric of spacetime are still expanding, which can be seen by the increasing distance between objects that are not gravitationally bound. That means dark matter should keep radiating for as long as expansion continues. 'The underlying mechanism leading to the production of the cosmological dark matter (DM) is at present an open question and a matter of ongoing, intense scrutiny,' Profumo said in a second study also published in Physical Review D. If a mirror universe controlled by the dark side of physics really does exist, is there a portal into it? Maybe the answer to that question will see the light someday. You Might Also Like The Do's and Don'ts of Using Painter's Tape The Best Portable BBQ Grills for Cooking Anywhere Can a Smart Watch Prolong Your Life? Solve the daily Crossword
