Adding another pence here, just wanted to say that while SciFi and science geeks always dream of ways to make the space thing happen, that doesn't reflect the public at large.  Most people want dinner on the table and some sense that their paychecks will keep coming in.  Space is just a, "Hunh?" thing to them.

We went to the moon when there was absolutely no point at all for going there--other than to say that we did.  it was a huge and practically unreal goal at the start and the only thing driving it was to show the world that we were still on top of the game against communism.

What came out of that effort is staggering.

Study history and you will find that most of the real breakthroughs for society and in technology usually come from one of two things: Exploration or dealing with war and dire calamities.

People need to dream and they are inspired when dreams become real.  You just have to present the dream.  I'd be happy with a healthy orbital and near earth space industry.  If we get there, the rest will follow.

But I do believe sending a probe to another star would make a positive  difference in the way people look at life, each other and the world.  It would also be a treasure trove of developed technology that's not likely to happen any other way in our futures.

Everything we theorize now about any wormholes suggests they will be microscopic on a quantum level and no matter could pass them without collapsing them.  What may be possible though is to "teleport" information through them.

"Spooky action at a distance" still appears to propagate at the speed of light so even a quantum entangled signal device would still seem to be limited to light speed.  If a wormhole could be opened or created, it might be possible to propogate this information through it--via entanglement--and reach across space "instantly"...if you had a receiver in place and a conveniently placed wormhole.

Perhaps one day,an interstellar web could be set up from located wormholes allowing worlds to be reached more quickly for communication than c allows.  Ultimately, we will have to learn how to create and orient our own wormholes if we really want use of them.

The fact that it won't happen in our lifetimes doesn't mean it isn't worth thinking about now--that's always how you start to get where you want to go...and the fact is, as smart as we like to think we are, we really are extreme novices at understanding these sorts of things.

I think you know by now that I dont wish to verbally attack you, but seeing as how this has gone back and forth a bit, I wanted to throw out a disclaimer.

Well, clearly some matter (contextual meaning: made of positive energy) must make it through the wormhole, otherwise you have no way of transmitting the information through the hole. Unless you jiggle the hole or something with the hole itself, but no one knows how the thing will react in reality, especially on a quantum scale.

Next, the microscopic ones, according to the theories that invent them to begin with, would last a very short time, and would probably not go very far. So, in order to send the billions and billions of bits of information through the wormhole, you would have to have a ton of these wormholes all going to the same space in a very predictable way (otherwise the information would be scrabbled and un-useable). Also, with all that information (aka, matter) compressed in such a small area, your likely to have it disappear into a mini blackhole (if they exist; but then again, if mini-wormholes exist.... its pretty likely).

An interesting idea.... I don't think I've heard of this idea before. But I'm not sure entanglement would hold once the wormhole is shut down. That would be a hugely interesting and fundamental experiment on the nature of entanglement. As far as using it to teleport someone, you'd still have to create a set of entangled particles and bring a set to the location you want to teleport to along with the other half of the teleporter. And that means you have to be able to get there via ordinary means before you can teleport.

Finally, there have been ideas that exploit wormholes to time travel by putting one end in a strong gravitational field, thus changing the rate of time on that end. I bring this up because you are using the wormhole to violate the lightspeed limit, thus having some measure of time travel already. I am highlighting this because if micro-wormholes exist, quantum theory says they would be all over the place... winking into and out of existence. Any degree of time travel on such a scale means that causality would be destroyed on the large scale, and there are a few ways to do it with that situation. I feel my argument here is not strong, but I think that you would end up without any savings in time, although with less chance for interception and/or destruction of the information teleported.

That isn't really a 'fact'. It's a good guess based off the past. Only years down the line, when/if we actually do know everything could we look back and say that we are novices. Evidence supports the viewpoint that faster than/as fast as light travel will never be possible. As I've said before, I dont object to looking around and seeing what might be possible, and trying things out. But at the end of the day, theres an overwhelming probability that we are stuck in this solar system short of a multi-generation/hibernation approach.

Also, I find it humorous that some people here thought my idea was unbelievable and later a wormhole teleporter is suggested

When the Karl Benz invented the first modern car back in the late 1800's, people thought that if man traveled in an open air car going faster than 25 mph, his skin would melt and fall off his body. Everything fantastic is unbelievable at first. And our understanding of Physics can change. Has happened many times before.

Haha...fool!  Never enter a land war in Asia  or argue with a Sicilian when quantum physics is on the line!

If you want to be nitpicky: energy in the form of matter is problematic to pass through a quantum WH.  Matter in an energy state has a better chance. Sunlight can pass through my windowpane but--mysteriously--birds are killed by it.  I don't see why--they are just the same stuff in different states. 

No...I can't be smarter than advanced science because science is itself an contrived intellectual construct and is thus incapable of having an intelligence.  On the other hand, there may be some scientists out there smarter than me but who can really say?  It's so subjective.  Perhaps the world's smartest scientists and myself are in fact essentially indistinguishable--I am merely a different state of a smart scientist--we are all made of stars.

The precedent of history is  that it's more likely we have major errors in our formulations at present than it is that we are "extremely correct".  These are theoretical sciences so we really are guessing.  Is their a Higgs Boson?  Is there actual dark energy and dark matter--or did we just make it all up?

My guess that we have a lot more guessing to do is as accurate as describing evolution.  We haven't witnessed major species changes occurring before our very eyes in higher animals but we have enough evidence to assume it is happening.  Same thing  here.

It seems I must apologize. I was under the impression many gravitational models of solar systems had been run, without success, on binary systems. Binary systems are the most common type of solar system, and red dwarf stars are the most common star, so this is very suprising.

The most surprising thing to me about the binary system is how close the stars are to each other. I'm guessing that it formed further out and was pulled in? I might be off base here, but I think that in most binary systems the stars orbit in a way that is closer to a figure-8 (each star has a circular orbit).

As for the wormhole information... Once again, negative mass (exotic matter) is used. If you can find/make exotic matter, it's probably easier to make a warp drive, but then again I don't know how you would make/find exotic matter in the first place. Using the wormhole to transmit the teleportation information does have the advantage that you would need the least amount of exotic matter possible by decreasing the size (seeing as how you only need a stream of particles). However, you run the risk of having information loss if your particle beam interacts with the exotic matter.

Now, you may be wondering where I am getting this 'exotic matter must be used' from when it isn't explicitly mentioned in the quote you provided. well, its the part about prying open the wormhole and keeping it that way. You need an anti-gravitational force to counteract the wormhole's tendency to collapse due to gravity. To create a truly anti-gravitational force (what you need here as it is space itself that is collapsing), you need something with negative mass (exotic matter). You can, for instance, use a laser beam to send the information and thereby reducethe affect on space within the wormhole, but light is still coupled to space and it will therefore cause some degree of collapse in wormhole. The amount is definitely far less than say, a proton beam, but there is some. The wormhole, even with nothing sent through will collapse of its own devices (I am unsure how long and so am also unsure as to the amount of exotic matter needed). Now, the delicate balance is this: Exotic matter is rare (probably impossible, but going with 'rare') and so you want to use as little as possible. But you need a tunnel big enough for your beam to get through, and you need it there long enough to get lots of information through (truly, a cosmic amount of information). So, first you need enough to counteract the wormhole's desire to collapse. Next, you need enough space to send your beam through (most probably, wormholes will exist on the Planck scale, which is far, far smaller than the wavelength of a photon). If you use photons for your beam, you will need the tunnel to be bigger than if you used electrons. But if you use electrons, the have a mass, and so will increase the collapse of the wormhole. I'm not sure what the most effective particle beam would be, but you'd want to minimize the use of exotic matter, reduce the interaction rate of your particle beam with the exotic matter, contain the exotic matter to the tunnel(its repulsive, so it has a tendency to want to fly out one end or the other), and do so for long enough to get all the information contained in a single person through. And this is all before really dealing with the teleportation part.

I think I'll put my viewpoint like this: Humanity has created some amazing things, but all mimicking nature. Airplanes mimick birds, rockets mimick volcanos, solar panels mimick plants (obviously generalizing a bit, but you get it). I have seen or heard of nothing that travels faster than light, nothing that travels via wormholes. To do so would truly be something new. Show me something that does this, and I'll be converted to someone who thinks it's possible.

Agreed. And we won't have enough energy to really experiment until we get cold fusion or true efficiency Nuke Reactors. Right now the average reaction efficiency of a standard fission reactor is 0.1%. Just imagine the possibilities if we got them to 10-15-20%?

Your same logic could be applied with Einsteinein Physics to actually say:

"I would like to point out once again that there is no such thing as matter. Matter is simply energy stored in a concentrated state until an external force acts upom it and moves it to a state of higher kinetic energy/lower potential energy or vice versa. Matter is really just an artificial construct that we use to define and contain within our finite sphere of reality the truth that everything is really just a state of pure energy. "

E=mc2......So many people quote it yet it is rarely understood. This equation makes so many thing theoretically possible. Pure matter to energy conversion? Mathematically speaking, completely possible. In fact, as near as we can tell, the Sun is the most perfect example we have to illustrate that energy is mass itself. The sun gives off 3.8 x 10^17 Terra-Watts per second of energy and yet it is calculated to have lost less than .03 percent of it's mass in the last 4.5 BB years. But the point is that it IS losing mass because mass is converted to pure energy.

Can we make Artificial Gravity? Yeppers. This equation tells us that even pure energy is affected by gravity and EXERTS gravity as well. Erego, hyper concentrated energy can cause artificial gravity at least mathematically speaking.

Lastly, Radioactive Decay is a form of mass to energy conversion. Matter is nothing more than hyper concentrated energy so tightly packed as to give the feel of materiality.

OK, now Im sleepy and I agree with the portion of SithLord's post pertaining to mass and the Higgs. But I couldn't let the "Energy isn't real" fallacy slide. Albert would be very disappointed indeed if I didn't stick up for him.

develop a massive acceleration ring on the moon to shoot a capsule.  hopefully the occupants aren't turned to jelly.

I think it is you who is misunderstanding E=mc^2 and my point. 'Energy' isn't a thing that exists in our universe. It's a made up idea that makes it easier to relate different processes. The sun is loosing mass because it ejects light and particles non-stop. Not because it is turning mass into energy. If it were, you wouldn't see it at all because it got converted to this 'energy' stuff that doesn't do anything at all.

I'm going to attempt to explain my position here, but I want to add a disclaimer: yes, you read about stars and they use the word energy. There's a chapter or two on energy in every physics book, I know. I'm not discrediting them or Einstein. I'm saying that it is non-physical. A limited analogy: 'wetness' might appear in a chart with a number of other measurements, but there is actually no such thing as 'wetness'. It is not an elementary particle, an atom, or even a property of the atoms or particles. But it can be used to help categorize things or understand the subjects being considered (for example, maybe this chart is explaining different types of rain-proofed material).

Lets zoom in and look at the fusion process for a bit. You have Hydrogen (1 proton, 1 electron) atoms bouncing around running into one another. Occasionally, some of them will absorb a neutron and become deuterium(hydrogen +neutron). This releases positrons and neutrinos in the process. Then some of the deuterium fuses with hydrogen to make Tralphium (helium short a neutron) and light. The Tralphium then fuses together to make Helium, positrons, light and neutrinos. Nowhere is there a point at which there is a thing called 'energy' that is physical and involved in the process. But talking about the concept of energy is much simpler than stating all of that: You just say "the sun fuses hydrogen into helium, releasing energy", and that is much quicker and easier. The catch is the word 'releasing'. The quantity we call energy has not changed since the universe began. It merely transforms. That is because it reflects reality which is basically an extremely long chain reaction since the beginning of the universe. Where 2 particles annihilate each other and make several new and different particles.

Maybe its best if I simply list each of the different 'types' of energy and explain off of that. Theres Kinetic energy, which is simply the energy associated with the particles motion. What is meant is that particles with a larger momentum will impart a larger momentum on those that they collide with. Potential energy is the 'stored' energy that could be converted into kinetic energy but is being prevented from succumbing. What is meant by this is that the particle is under the affect of acceleration, but is not doing so due to something in the way. For example, holding a can of soup on your hand high off the ground has potential energy, in that it could be falling to the ground, but is prevented from doing so due to your hand. That's really it as far as energy goes. everything else is derived from these two 'forms of energy'. Electric and Gravitational energy are merely potential energy in a different guise. Heat is just kinetic energy. But in an of themselves, energy does not exist.

Thanks. Hey, you know your link in that last post doesnt link to anything specific. Just the science daily quantum physics news listing.

Well, everything gets convoluted as you go deeper into the quantum physics of it. For example, there are said to be 4 fundamental forces. These 'forces' are the result of particle exchanges (gravity is not very well understood, so im not really speaking of that force), and these dont even abide the f=ma law that defined the term 'force'. So in a real sense, forces dont exist either. Its just a convient way to group particles together by how they work together to cause a specific action. I think this is a fairly broad base already, and it does include some non-fundamental 'forces' that arise under certain conditions.

For example, quantum degeneracy pressure is a force that arises when you try to contain particles beyond the heisenberg limit. This is what keeps white dwarfs and neutron stars from collapsing. Stars like our sun are kept from collapsing by thermal pressure, which is itself caused by the electromagnetic force. Another thing that might be viewed as a force might be mass after the Higgs is discovered.

So there are a few ways that the idea of forces has been broadened and refined, and I agree that more will arrive in the future. The problem I see with exotic matter is that it's like trying to dig a hole with nothing but a dump truck full of dirt. You can add stuff all you want, but you cant get a hole that way.

I might be nitpicking here, but can you give me an example of a situation that is not this?