Jump to content
Science Forums

Ramifications of Practical Wormholes: Is the Business Effective Enough?


Recommended Posts

Hi folks,

 

A novel technology is supposed to be created. The question is: Should that be created at all? … or, do we need much more waiting (to assess its extensive consequences, …) before the experiments?

Another question can be so: Do we have to expect revolutionary discoveries, from the military sector only, or another approach, e.g., via private companies, is a better possibility? And what would be the answer of this question, if the starter country of the related event, would be somewhere like Iran?

 

Please help me to find the best replies ... :)

 

Attached link:

 

starstreamresearch.com/mansouryar.htm

 

Cheers,

MM

 

P.S.: Please forget my last thread:

 

hypography.com/forums/science-projects-homework/5654-novel-proposal.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look to this dialog between me & a man who has been able to provide $ 20,000,000 venture capital for a project:

 

Dear Dr. …,

 

Hello. I'm a young researcher on spacetime shortcuts & need funding to realize my plans. I was offered to contact to you, because you've gained successes to raise the needed money for a similar exotic project.

Anyway, I'd be so thankful, if you could have some guidance, advice, or recommendations for me please.

 

Cheers & Happy new year,

M. Mansouryar

 

**

 

Hi Mohammad

 

It would appear that our projects and the one you are proposing are vastly different, so take my advice with a grain of salt.

No-one will finance this sort of project outside of an academic institution. If you want to pursue this type of research, you'll have to do it at a university financed by government research dollars.

For insight into why this is, put aside all of the technical considerations and imagine you've succeeded at creating your machine/system. How do you turn it into a business? How much financing is required? What other complimentary assets would you need? Who are your customers? Etc...

For something like this to be financeable as a business you'd need general consensus from the scientific community that your approach was reasonable, a financing plan that gets you to profitability with less

than $100M total raised, a rock-solid understanding of customers and

market and a working small-scale proof of concept prototype (note: this

is necessary but not sufficient to satisfy the first requirement I mentioned). If you had all of these then I think you might be able to finance it.

So my advice is to join a well-known academic group working on the theory of things like this and start assembling the pieces required to take it further in a university with government funding.

 

Hope this helps.

 

**************************************

 

Nice email Buffy, eh? But the fact that I am in Iran! You see? Iran! What other place could give one more pleasant!!!!!!!! feelings to continue such big plans?

Indeed, I have some raw ideas, but I want to listen more from you, then I'll announce what I'm going to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's asking for a business plan, just like I am. If you want venture money, you basically need to show how you're going to make money either by: showing that the amount of money to be made is gigantic, or better, that you know how much it will cost to bring in X amount of income. VC's don't care if its "cool"--they want to know how they're going to make money off of it.

 

Academic research is actually *not that different*: no one wants to fund something these days unless there is patent potential or at least glory to be gotten at a *reasonable* cost with a *reasonable* liklihood of success.

 

Kip Thorne says wormholes are possible, but that there's no way to do anything practical with them because they'd be so small and wouldn't persist long enough, even *theoretically*, let alone trying to solve the practical implementation problems. That's a key obstacle you're going to have to battle against to deal with the "liklihood of success" factor.

 

I personally agree that Iran is a sucky place to be trying to do this right now, and while the US is too stupidly bias against anything Iranian now (the government visa officials mainly: you'll find the academics and VCs *don't care* if you give them what they want), but there are lots of other places to look (try France!). OTOH, even Amadinejad will be looking for some hot new technology to put Iran in a world leadership position once he trades away the Nuke card (as it looks at least *this* week to the diplomatic community), so I wouldn't say its impossible there, although you *still* need to deal with that image of your plan being "doable."

 

Lots of feedback to be gotten around here, but its hard to help without details...

 

Hypothetically speaking,

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's asking for a business plan, just like I am.

 

If nothing unusual would happen, I’d present my business plan in the next few weeks. At the moment, I’m involved in some details. For instance, I want the “people of the world” would be the main investors, by buying “one dollar & ten cents” shares & receiving tenth times interest after completing the commercialization. Therefore, the number of the required investors would be about ten million ones! BTW, I know the people who do invest on a project, want the most possible money out of it. :)

 

no one wants to fund something these days unless there is patent potential

 

Surely I’ve thought about this point; but this stuff is a novel “technology”, … a “wave” … not limited to a certain production.

 

That's a key obstacle you're going to have to battle against to deal with the "liklihood of success" factor.

 

I think I’ve done the job. For example, see this fresh document, p. 245:

 

unm.edu/~isnps/pdfs/2007abstractbook.pdf

 

Further findings would be classified as the commercial secrets.

 

there are lots of other places to look (try France!)

 

I only travel abroad based on an invitation. The only invitation I received was from that conference, but the USG didn’t issue me a visa. So, the only way to me is doing my best herein.

 

some hot new technology to put Iran in a world leadership position once he trades away the Nuke card

 

The efforts must be in that direction that no disaster would raise from this scenario, but it’s quite clear that as one individual, I cannot decide on ALL the things & it’s my right to not commit a suicide. It’s obvious from these words that I’m trying to act as a moral guy, isn’t it? :(

 

you *still* need to deal with that image of your plan being "doable."

 

With all due understanding the differences between having a faith & believing in a scientific theory, I assure you it, is doable. However, by experience I’ve found out there are people who like to have an endless theoretical debate. The best answer to them is showing them something in the “real” world. ;)

 

Lots of feedback to be gotten around here, but its hard to help without details...

 

What exactly do you want to know? :) Bring up them. Although, please consider there are considerations with a guy who wants to have a business with his plan, and lives in a dictator easterner regime …

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have a wormhole, even a very tiny one (ideally a very tiny one, that is, one with a “mouth” with very little mass), of the kind described by Thorne and others, here’s a way to (clandestinely) make money with it:

  1. Put one wormhole mouth (:) in a secure place
  2. Put the other (A) on a modified starwisp – one with an outer and inner ring, capable of a return trip
  3. Launch the starwisp system into Earth orbit – the starwisp itself, and a powerful microwave laser
  4. Propel the starwisp up to a appreciable fraction of the speed of light (a “conventional” starwisp is intended to be accelerated to about .2 c), away from the maser
  5. Separate the starwisp rings, propelling the starwisp back to Earth
  6. Capture the returned starwisp and return it to Earth
  7. Put the starwisp-accelerated wormhole mouth (A) in a secure place – near the Earthbound mouth (;) is OK
  8. Project whatever can be made to work (photons, electrons, etc.) into B. Pulse or otherwise modulate the projected beam to carry a digital signal.
  9. Receive the digital signal at A.

The signal emerging from A will be an amount of time determined by the total “twins paradox” time dilation experienced by the starwisp and its mouth.

 

The ability to send a signal into ones past would be very useful. For example, if the total time dilation was on the order of 1 day, the signaling system could be use to pass a list of the best performing publicly traded stock one day into the past, allowing you to buy enough shares to make a lot of money, but not so many that their don’t perform well. :)

 

If you’re able to whip an intense gravitational field (via a small black hole, etc), you can dispense with the complicated, expensive, risky starwisp business, and get the needed time dilation by placing one mouth in the field for the proper time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My framework has nothing to do with the time-warping. You may call it the (physical) distance reduction engineering.
Regardless of your intention, a consequence of a reduced length spacelike path, such as those hypothesized to exist thought “long” stable wormholes, and best current physical theory, is that the length of the related timelike path is also reduced. If you have a wormhole with movable mouths, or two wormholes with unmovable mouths, they can be made into a device like the one I describe.

 

The device I describe is from Kip Thorne’s highly recommended “Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy” (see ”Wormholes and time travel” at wikipedia for a brief synopsis). It’s worth noting that the possibility of such a device, and hence, of long, stable wormholes, is controversial, and the subject of one of the famous wagers between Thorne and Steven Hawking.

 

There are all sorts of less controversial money-making possibilities for tame wormhole. Small ones could be built into computers to circumvent signal speed limitations, making for much more computationally powerful architectures.

Large ones could be used to transport valuable materials from distant places on scales from the mundane (eg: a replacement for conveyer belts in mining) to the astronomical (eg: mining precious metals on asteroids) to the recreational (eg: space tourism) to the whimsical (eg: a handy door next to my TV-watching chair so I can grab cold beers from my fridge without having to get up).

 

I agree with Buffy that the key obstacle to convincing people – either venture capitalists, or a huge community of small shareholders – to give you money to attempt to create such wormholes is the “likelihood of success” factor. Compared to the challenge of succeeding in making a useful wormhole, how to profit from it once it is made appears a trivial one.

Have a more attention to my interview with Gary Bekkum
I’ve never heard of your interview with Gary Bekkum. Can you provide a link to it?

 

PS: If you wish to attract investors, I’d recommend against mentioning Gary Bekkum. Although a colorful person, self described (at his blog) as an “independent 'occasional' rogue journalist & web author, researching material that blurs the distinction between fiction and reality”, I don’t think such mention would inspire investor confidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a consequence of a reduced length spacelike path, such as those hypothesized to exist thought “long” stable wormholes, and best current physical theory, is that the length of the related timelike path is also reduced

 

Not necessarily in my case. Look, time travel is a wide field of studies & I have no plan to deal with it now, maybe in a far future.

 

If you have a wormhole with movable mouths, or two wormholes with unmovable mouths, they can be made into a device like the one I describe.

 

No they can’t, IMHO. There are four approaches against converting a traversable wormhole into a time machine. I choose a hybrid mechanism of two of them to avoid formation of a closed timelike curve, i.e., by combining the Hawking chronology protection conjecture & Novikov consistency conjecture, we’d come to this conclusion: Traversable wormhole Yes, Time machine No! Matt Visser has written a nice book on these concepts.

 

I agree with Buffy that the key obstacle to convincing people – either venture capitalists, or a huge community of small shareholders – to give you money to attempt to create such wormholes is the “likelihood of success” factor.

 

This point is realistic. However, please consider I’m not talking on a funny stuff, like requesting money to find a unicorn horse at the Mars! The wormhole physics is a known branch of the general relativity & its energy discussions relate to the quantum field theory. Although, there are people who do not accept these theories, … even there are people in the new millennium who believe the earth is flat! What can be done? It’s the life. People are free to have their own beliefs & share to my project by giving one dollar or ten million dollars or ignore it at all, it’s a reality; but let me say if the mankind was cynical to all the challenging likelihood we’ve encountered so far, we’d have been living in the caves yet & hunting the animals by stones!

 

I’ve never heard of your interview with Gary Bekkum. Can you provide a link to it?

 

You could have searched the words: Mansouryar, Bekkum & interview in Google. Anyway, since based on this forum’s laws I cannot post a link, try this term:

 

starstreamresearch.com/mammad_interview.htm

 

I don’t think such mention would inspire investor confidence.

 

Thanks for your comment, but if the academic society members were not too pessimistic & conservative towards such ideas, I would have not brought up them with the people who are affiliated with the defense & intelligence community of the USA. Indeed, I welcome to any tribune that could publish my thoughts honestly & I ask people, investors or otherwise, to care at the content of my words, not the properties & favorites of the interviewer! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having had time to superficially review Mansouryar’s ideas about creating traversable wormholes, I feel able to offer an inexpert opinion on his original questions

A novel technology [traversable wormholes] is supposed to be created. The question is: Should that be created at all? … or, do we need much more waiting (to assess its extensive consequences, …) before the experiments?
Based on my understanding and assumptions about the technology in question, I think research toward creating TWs should proceed as rapidly as possible. Though I’m skeptical that such research will produce practical applications in the near term (within 30 years), even if it cannot, the physics produced could be valuable.

 

My opinion, however, is largely due to my inability to see how this technology could pose a threat to humanity. I can see no way it can be used to produce very powerful interactions (a bomb), nor how it could be used as a weapon delivery system, or provide computing or communication resources much different than those already existing (weapon design, espionage, and tactical communication).

Another question can be so: Do we have to expect revolutionary discoveries, from the military sector only, or another approach, e.g., via private companies, is a better possibility?

 

IMO, the best basic and applied research in physics is done by large state and privately supported educational institutions, and research institutions funded by many states, such as CERN.

And what would be the answer of this question, if the starter country of the related event, would be somewhere like Iran?
From the impression I’ve formed in conversations with Iranians living in the US, I don’t believe Iran’s academic, government, and private research capabilities compare favorably with those in Europe, England, and America.

 

Although I know too little about Mansouryar's personal circumstances to offer advice, I believe he should seriously consider studying and researching at an institution well known for excellence in physics research, even though doing so would require living outside of Iran.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think research toward creating TWs should proceed as rapidly as possible.

 

Exactly like my own comment.

 

Though I’m skeptical that such research will produce practical applications in the near term (within 30 years),

 

I don’t know how did you reach to that number. My estimation on achieving to practical results is a much sooner time.

 

My opinion, however, is largely due to my inability to see how this technology could pose a threat to humanity. I can see no way it can be used to produce very powerful interactions (a bomb), nor how it could be used as a weapon delivery system, or provide computing or communication resources much different than those already existing (weapon design, espionage, and tactical communication).

 

Bad applications are possible via it, but I hate to talk about them. This technology has to be developed by moral-civilized people who respect to the humans. I pray all of us would be so & that’s one of the main reasons that why I discuss on such ideas in the web. A wise guy does not reveal everything about a sensitive subject, but this case is rather different …

 

IMO, the best basic and applied research in physics is done by large state and privately supported educational institutions, and research institutions funded by many states, such as CERN.

 

But consider the researches therein are not active for months. Indeed, the required budgets to testify the advanced predictions of the high energy physics & string theory are very enormous. I prefer the model of Microsoft; however I wish the world were not so militarized & there would be a better relationship between Iran & rest of the countries, especially the West.

 

From the impression I’ve formed in conversations with Iranians living in the US, I don’t believe Iran’s academic, government, and private research capabilities compare favorably with those in Europe, England, and America.

 

However, there is a big difference between those places & here. I don’t know anybody in there who continues such stuffs seriously enough, but there is a determined guy in Iran who has devoted his life to realize that technology, much sooner that anyone could ever imagine … alas … if there would be a stable peace in the Middle East, the present capabilities could … forget it at all …

 

I believe he should seriously consider studying and researching at an institution well known for excellence in physics research,

 

Honestly speaking, there is no need to that work. I know all I should know to handle the deal. That could only bring me a valueless degree. Nobody can understand the grieves of a self-taught person. :)

 

even though doing so would require living outside of Iran.

 

My aspiration is doing a scientific advancement & giving a service to the mankind, so the place of living is not important. The borders must be removed, although, some dictator decision makers herein might not think as peacefully as me (& I cannot move the mountains). It’s a gamble between me & my circumstances in “here”, that no foreign person did want to be an effective player in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
  • 2 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...