Talk:Wormhole

Possible vandalism of lead section by Asgard0392 (talk · contribs)

More precisely it is a transcendental bijection of the spacetime continuum, an asymptotic projection of the Calabi–Yau manifold manifesting itself in Anti-de Sitter space.

This passage in the lead section, which appears to be nonsense, was added by Asgard0392 (talk · contribs) in two edits made in 2017 and 2018. After it was removed by TimothyRias (talk · contribs) and by another user, Asgard0392 re-added it to the article.

The same user made a similar edit to the article on quark stars,

A quark star is a hypothetical type of compact exotic star, where extremely high temperature and pressure has forced nuclear particles to form a continuous state of matter that consists primarily of free quarks, which can be modeled using the Calabi–Yau manifold.

which was subsequently removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.70.109 (talk • contribs) 00:27, November 10, 2019 (UTC)

Not my field, so I have not clue on whether this is real, but the named user is an SPA on this issue. There is no mention of Calabi–Yau manifolds or Anti-de Sitter space elsewhere in the article, so why should this unsourced claim be in the lead? It certainly was not a minor addition as the user claimed. I've asked the editor to discuss the material here and provide reliable sources if this is real.

Any physicists out there who can comment on this? Meters (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm a freshman at UCLA, physics major. Calabi-Yau or Anti-de Sitter space is straight up bullshit. Can editors lock this article so Asgard0392 can't do this again? TH3NTLN3MAN (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Pardon me if I'm a bit leery of taking the word of an hours-old account whose every other edit has been reverted as vandalism. Meters (talk) 07:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

How the hell is that relevant? Asgard0392 is writing rubbish. Asgard0392 needs to be stopped or this crap will happen again. I'm not the only one who thinks its crap. TH3NTLN3MAN (talk) 08:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@TH3NTL3MAN: Why is that relevant? Because I don't know if I should believe you. A brand new account that makes three vandalism edits and then shows up here is not someone I'm going to take at his word. If you want your edits to be taken seriously then you are off to a bad start. Claiming to be knowledgeable about this based on being a first year physics major (all of 8 weeks into your first term) doesn't sound to me to be much of a qualification. Giving us broken links in your sig is not a good sign either. Meters (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about this being bullshit. Calabi-Yau manifolds and Anti de-Jitter spaces are both wikipedia articles. just saying.120.138.12.75 (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Coupe of years late but it's real check it out it's in a reasearch paper https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387868171_Wormholes_Tunnels_Through_Spacetime MariaGallaga (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I have a physics degree and this claim definitely does not belong here, least of all the lede. It's not even a coherent statement. If you have any doubt about the quality of this contribution just look at the cited "thesis". It has only a single high school-level equation and cites Wikipedia and news articles for its sources.

Furthermore, it also appears that Asgard0392 (talk · contribs) is committing futher sockpuppeting in this thread via the account MariaGallaga (talk · contribs). Isocliff (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

While we're at it, can we also remove the mention of a Jacobian and determinant from the lede paragraph? It has been repeatedly inserted by User:StraightFromTheHorsesMouth, for example, here: . I don't think it belong there, and, indeed, these terms are not mentioned in the body of the article.

Asgard0392 (talk · contribs) has once again added the nonsense passage to the introduction of the Wormhole article, while failing to address the concerns raised on the talk page. According to their contributions page, they are doing this persistently. StraightFromTheHorsesMouth (talk · contribs) has done the same. 67.171.70.109 (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Neither edit has been restored since the IP removed the material in question on Dec 3. I've warned Asgard0392 for unsourced content again, but StraightFromTheHorsesMouth was only active for three weeks more than one year ago (a total of 4 article edits, all this page). Meters (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Holy crap Asgard0392 was correct after all check it out there's research papers with the exact wording he/her/them was using check it out here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387868171_Wormholes_Tunnels_Through_Spacetime. Fixing the article. MariaGallaga (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I just came here to check the talk page after seeing that bizarre sentence in the intro paragraph. The sentence is bullshit, possibly not supported by the linked source, and the source itself seems rather suspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:9D84:9D30:786E:475D:CAB:4A6F (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

User:MariaGallaga has reinstated this bizarre statement to the lead, using as a source. This is a January 2025 paper hosted on researchgate.net that MariaGallaga claims is a "PhD research paper", but the author information indicates that it was written by a "Master's student". The paper has zero citations, which is not surprising, as it is very amateurish and even cites Wikipedia as one of its sources, in addition to several pop science websites, but as far as I can see, no actual scientific research. Furthermore, the paper does not even support the content added to the article, as the content mentions "an asymptotic projection of the Calabi–Yau manifold manifesting itself in anti-de Sitter space", but none of the words "asymptotic", "Calabi", "Yau", or "de Sitter" appear in the paper. Based on the weakness of the source and the above consensus from 2019, I believe this nonsensical content should not appear in the article at all, least of all in the lead. CodeTalker (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it's a nonsensical statement being backed up by a source that doesn't support it and isn't reliable by any stretch of the imagination. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 03:55, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

BTW, it seems plausible that this is an example of citogenesis. The disputed sentence was added to this article on 29 Sep 2024 by User:Colin.j.mathews (which has been their one and only edit to Wikipedia), and unfortunately remained in the article until it was finally noticed and removed on 5 Apr 2025 by User:Overseasexile. The paper cited by User:MariaGallaga was published in January 2025, and cites this very Wikipedia article, which at that time contained the disputed text. Most likely the paper's author copied the text from this article. CodeTalker (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds plausible. It's a pity the nonsensical line wasn't removed earlier. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

History section

Wheeler coining wormholes cites a paper but I think it was introduced during the Chapel Hill Conference in January 1957, much before the paper. ReyHahn (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Do we need the "citation needed" on the inside of a 3D wormhole being a spherinder?

The interior of a 2-dimensional wormhole is made by connecting the openings, turning 2 circles into one cylinder. Why this wouldn't also be the case for 2 spherical openings and one spherinder is beyond me. ↶只Sipiki (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

This equation don'ts matches

I can solve the equation in your equation we can't travel this is not wormhole equation my theory we can able to go to past and future BabuPraveen (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Exactly what I was thinking ~2025-42521-11 (talk) 06:29, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok, so let’s go.

The Zohan- ~2026-31585-46 (talk) 04:22, 27 May 2026 (UTC)