When we ask the question "Are Portals Possible?" the most common answer would be a simple no. Upon first glance, it defies common sense and any law of physics that we have built an understanding on. Although they do defy both common sense and the laws of physics, they are still included in the realm of possibility. The article above tackles a popular videogame called Portal which is based around a character that solves puzzles with a blue and orange portal being the centerpiece.Even if we suppose that it was a wormhole which was what bridged the two points, it cannot be classified as concrete.

Are Portals Possible?

<div itemprop="upvoteCount" data-value="21">
 21
 </div><div data-value="12">12</div>In a video game series called Portal, we are given a gun, which shoots two portals: an orange one and a blue one.These portals have the following properties:<UL><LI>Anything that goes into the orange portal comes out of the blue portal (instantaneously), and vice versa.</LI><LI>Only two portals may be fired at any one time; if another blue (orange) portal is fired, then the already-existing blue (orange) portal will disappear and be replaced by this new portal.</LI><LI>Portals can only be fired onto flat, stationary 1&nbsp; surfaces. If a portal is fired onto a stationary 1&nbsp; surface, and the surface then moves 1&nbsp;, then that portal will disappear.</LI><LI>Portals may not coincide (i.e. two portals can't be in the same place at the same time)</LI><LI>When an object travels from one portal to the other, momentum is conserved, relative to the portal normal.
i.e. pinitial=pfinal, or, in other words, if a body enters one portal with a given velocity, it will exit the other portal with the same velocity.</LI></UL>This picture succinctly demonstrates what's going on:
<img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/Kp0mN.png" alt="enter image description here" width="388" height="349">Now, assuming that such we can create such a gun, does the existence of these portals contradict any of the laws of physics? Is their existence possible, in theory?1 Relative to the planet that both the gun and the portal are on. For some reason, if the gun and the portal are on different planets (say, if you shot a portal from the Earth to the moon) this rule <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NABJVXOgiA&amp;t=4m50s" rel="noreferrer" dir="ltr">doesn't apply</a>.<div itemprop="upvoteCount" data-value="25">
 25
 </div>There was a paper on this when portal came out, though I cannot seem to find it right now.The end answer was Yes, portals are physically possible, but the picture is probably not. The worst hand waving has to be done in the process of making the portal. Defining why two sections of space-time would get cemented together in this way is a job for worldbuilders like us, not for scientists.Instantaneous communication is no problem, because we could curve space-time to make the link. Effectively this would decrease the "straight line" distance between an emitter and a receiver to keep the speed of light rules in place. There would be some annoying General Relativity effects during the process of placing the portals to deal with, but I don't think it would violate anything. It'd just be nuisance.Conservation of energy requires a bit more excitement. After all, Portal's ability to break the laws of physics in this way were legendary. Most energy is conserved without effort. Momentum in equals momentum out, and that accounts for a great deal of the potential conservation issues. However, there's always gravity.These portals would need to interact with gravitational fields to avoid violating the conservation of energy. Whatever the underlying mechanism is for gravity, it would have to bend the direction of gravity around the portal. It would, in fact, have to bend the direction of gravity everywhere to ensure gravitational potential energy can still be modeled as a divergence free gradient field. Hopefully the mechanic would be localized, so it would have less and less of an effect as you walk away from the portals, otherwise people on the other side of the world would notice when you plopped them down. That being said, the more "evil" you are in your portal placement, the more the laws of physics will have to be "creative" to keep the laws intact.The picture of how portals work would probably not apply. Because you simply jumped off a ledge and were carried by gravitational energy to the portal, through it, and off to the far ledge, the far ledge would need to be at a lower gravitational potential even though instinct directs us to assume that, because its "higher," its at a higher potential energy. We are used to working in fields where gravity always points down. I would expect most "reasonable" portal field implementations would not have this behavior (for a reason I'll mention at the end), so it is unlikely but not impossible that the picture would work.Now for the hard partsThe edges of the portals will be tricky. As Peter Masiar put it, we like space time to be continuous. These sharp edges will end up being mighty torrents of quantum rage... not infinitely thin, but you'd have to spend a lot of work stabilizing them because... well... you cut a hole in the universe pulled itself through itself, and then glued it all together. What do you think would happen? Fortunately, the portal graphics clearly show this chaotic dangerous region around the edges. For your safety and the safety of others, please do not lick the edges of the portal.The final issue would be the nastiest: the energy of creating a portal. When you drag spacetime around, the conservation of energy is STILL in effect. If you change the direction of the gravity field, you will need to effectively recalculate the potential energy of every object in the universe. If you "raise" the universe, you have to put energy into it as you make the portal to offset this potential energy. If you "lower" the universe, it will emit energy which will have to be reclaimed, or lost as gamma radiation. Don't have any tumors? Well, unless you're wearing lead lined underwear, we've taken care of that too!So in the picture example, if you do the following:<UL><LI>Rest state A
</LI><LI>Rest state B</LI></UL>Then you MUST have put in mgh worth of energy into the portal to lift you from Rest state A to Rest state B. It looks like that's about 2m higher than before. The portal gun has to do the work... you don't get the energy for free.Also worth noting is that the gun doesn't get to "know" how you plan to use the portals, so it probably wont get to be so efficient. It will probably have to warp a lot of gravity and "move a lot of objects." Likely it will require a nuclear power station's worth of energy to generate a consistent gravity field, and then unleash a nuclear bomb's worth of energy when you collapse it back to normal (with the difference between work in and "loud bang" out being exactly 1 Chel mass * 9.8m/s^2 * 2m. I tried to weigh her, but the scale couldn't display enough digits).So sure, you can bend the laws of physics to make the portal work. You just can't break them.<div itemprop="upvoteCount" data-value="3">
 3
 </div>It's been assumed that the portals work as wormholes, changing the topology of spacetime. But, what if that's not how it works? It could be teleportation ports instead. I recall a book series where "fax" technology had nanomachines that disassemble and analyse what is pushed into it (the plane of nanotech seems to be a portal) and another one can reproduce it. That could implement a portal in principle without twisting physics at all, reducing it to normal stuff: communication bandwidth and power input. Going in and coming out at a substantial velocity would be a challenge to the engineering, but in principle does not require new physics. The receiving end applies velocity to the atoms it's arranging at the surface.Portals following those rules violate the laws of physics in several ways.First, energy and momentum aren't just conserved globally, they're conserved locally. They obey continuity equations, which tell you that in order to get them from one place to another, they have to travel through the space between. There's a lot of quantum mechanics that sounds like it breaks that rule, but it doesn't.Second, the portals don't conserve momentum at all. (Yes, GLaDOS was wrong about that.) Momentum is a vector. It's not just an amount of stuff; its x-, y- and z-components are separately conserved. Changing its direction disconserves it.Third, any requirement that something be stationary violates Galilean relativity. It gives one frame of reference special status. The portals you describe conserve (specifically) kinetic energy in the frame of reference where they're stationary, but not in others. Consider the case where the two portals are side by side on a wall. In the frame of reference where the portals are stationary, an object moves with constant speed v directly towards one portal. It emerges from the other portal with speed v in the opposite direction. In the frame of reference where the object is initially stationary, it emerges from the second portal with speed 2v.Fourth, the portals violate Einsteinian relativity. They permit instantaneous transmission of information between locations, and therefore they require time travel. Since there's some confusion about why those are related, let me explain. Suppose you travel instantly from point A to point B. According to an observer moving (rapidly) in the direction from A to B, you arrive at B before you leave A. Since all frames of reference are equivalent, you're free to travel from B back to A instantaneously in this other frame, thus arriving at A before you left, killing your own grandfather, etc.Now, with general relativity you may (or may not) be able to create wormholes which change the topology of spacetime and bring previously distant locations close together. But I think it's sort of guaranteed never to be useful. I mean, we're talking planet-destroying bending of spacetime. Picture pinching a balloon to bring two distant points on its surface together. And you're still constrained to obey causality.

sciencefiction

Science Fiction

scienceandnature

Science & Nature

In a video game series called Portal, we are given a gun, which shoots two portals: an orange one and a blue one.

These portals have the following properties:

<ul><li>Anything that goes into the orange portal comes out of the blue portal (instantaneously), and vice versa. </li><li>Only two portals may be fired at any one time; if another blue (orange) portal is fired, then the already-existing blue (orange) portal will disappear and be replaced by this new portal. </li><li>Portals can only be fired onto flat, stationary 1   surfaces. If a portal is fired onto a stationary 1   surface, and the surface then moves 1   , then that portal will disappear. </li><li>Portals may not coincide (i.e. two portals can't be in the same place at the same time) </li><li>When an object travels from one portal to the other, momentum is conserved, relative to the portal normal. i.e. p initial = p final , or, in other words, if a body enters one portal with a given velocity, it will exit the other portal with the same velocity. </li> </ul>

This picture succinctly demonstrates what's going on:

Now, assuming that such we can create such a gun, does the existence of these portals contradict any of the laws of physics? Is their existence possible, in theory?

1 Relative to the planet that both the gun and the portal are on. For some reason, if the gun and the portal are on different planets (say, if you shot a portal from the Earth to the moon) this rule <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NABJVXOgiA&t=4m50s">doesn't apply </a>.

There was a paper on this when portal came out, though I cannot seem to find it right now.

The end answer was Yes, portals are physically possible, but the picture is probably not. The worst hand waving has to be done in the process of making the portal. Defining why two sections of space-time would get cemented together in this way is a job for worldbuilders like us, not for scientists.

Instantaneous communication is no problem, because we could curve space-time to make the link. Effectively this would decrease the "straight line" distance between an emitter and a receiver to keep the speed of light rules in place. There would be some annoying General Relativity effects during the process of placing the portals to deal with, but I don't think it would violate anything. It'd just be nuisance.

Conservation of energy requires a bit more excitement. After all, Portal's ability to break the laws of physics in this way were legendary. Most energy is conserved without effort. Momentum in equals momentum out, and that accounts for a great deal of the potential conservation issues. However, there's always gravity.

These portals would need to interact with gravitational fields to avoid violating the conservation of energy . Whatever the underlying mechanism is for gravity, it would have to bend the direction of gravity around the portal. It would, in fact, have to bend the direction of gravity everywhere to ensure gravitational potential energy can still be modeled as a divergence free gradient field. Hopefully the mechanic would be localized, so it would have less and less of an effect as you walk away from the portals, otherwise people on the other side of the world would notice when you plopped them down. That being said, the more "evil" you are in your portal placement, the more the laws of physics will have to be "creative" to keep the laws intact.

The picture of how portals work would probably not apply. Because you simply jumped off a ledge and were carried by gravitational energy to the portal, through it, and off to the far ledge, the far ledge would need to be at a lower gravitational potential even though instinct directs us to assume that, because its "higher," its at a higher potential energy. We are used to working in fields where gravity always points down. I would expect most "reasonable" portal field implementations would not have this behavior (for a reason I'll mention at the end), so it is unlikely but not impossible that the picture would work.

Now for the hard parts

The edges of the portals will be tricky. As Peter Masiar put it, we like space time to be continuous. These sharp edges will end up being mighty torrents of quantum rage... not infinitely thin, but you'd have to spend a lot of work stabilizing them because... well... you cut a hole in the universe pulled itself through itself, and then glued it all together. What do you think would happen? Fortunately, the portal graphics clearly show this chaotic dangerous region around the edges. For your safety and the safety of others, please do not lick the edges of the portal .

The final issue would be the nastiest: the energy of creating a portal. When you drag spacetime around, the conservation of energy is STILL in effect. If you change the direction of the gravity field, you will need to effectively recalculate the potential energy of every object in the universe. If you "raise" the universe, you have to put energy into it as you make the portal to offset this potential energy. If you "lower" the universe, it will emit energy which will have to be reclaimed, or lost as gamma radiation. Don't have any tumors? Well, unless you're wearing lead lined underwear, we've taken care of that too!

So in the picture example, if you do the following:

<ul><li>Rest state A </li><li>Rest state B </li> </ul>

Then you MUST have put in mg h worth of energy into the portal to lift you from Rest state A to Rest state B . It looks like that's about 2m higher than before. The portal gun has to do the work... you don't get the energy for free.

Also worth noting is that the gun doesn't get to "know" how you plan to use the portals, so it probably wont get to be so efficient. It will probably have to warp a lot of gravity and "move a lot of objects." Likely it will require a nuclear power station's worth of energy to generate a consistent gravity field, and then unleash a nuclear bomb's worth of energy when you collapse it back to normal (with the difference between work in and "loud bang" out being exactly 1 Chel mass * 9.8m/s^2 * 2m. I tried to weigh her, but the scale couldn't display enough digits ).

So sure, you can bend the laws of physics to make the portal work. You just can't break them.

It's been assumed that the portals work as wormholes, changing the topology of spacetime. But, what if that's not how it works? It could be teleportation ports instead. I recall a book series where "fax" technology had nanomachines that disassemble and analyse what is pushed into it (the plane of nanotech seems to be a portal) and another one can reproduce it. That could implement a portal in principle without twisting physics at all, reducing it to normal stuff: communication bandwidth and power input. Going in and coming out at a substantial velocity would be a challenge to the engineering, but in principle does not require new physics. The receiving end applies velocity to the atoms it's arranging at the surface.

Portals following those rules violate the laws of physics in several ways.

First, energy and momentum aren't just conserved globally, they're conserved locally. They obey continuity equations, which tell you that in order to get them from one place to another, they have to travel through the space between. There's a lot of quantum mechanics that sounds like it breaks that rule, but it doesn't.

Second, the portals don't conserve momentum at all. (Yes, GLaDOS was wrong about that.) Momentum is a vector. It's not just an amount of stuff; its x-, y- and z-components are separately conserved. Changing its direction disconserves it.

Third, any requirement that something be stationary violates Galilean relativity. It gives one frame of reference special status. The portals you describe conserve (specifically) kinetic energy in the frame of reference where they're stationary, but not in others. Consider the case where the two portals are side by side on a wall. In the frame of reference where the portals are stationary, an object moves with constant speed v directly towards one portal. It emerges from the other portal with speed v in the opposite direction. In the frame of reference where the object is initially stationary, it emerges from the second portal with speed 2v.

Fourth, the portals violate Einsteinian relativity. They permit instantaneous transmission of information between locations, and therefore they require time travel. Since there's some confusion about why those are related, let me explain. Suppose you travel instantly from point A to point B. According to an observer moving (rapidly) in the direction from A to B, you arrive at B before you leave A. Since all frames of reference are equivalent, you're free to travel from B back to A instantaneously in this other frame, thus arriving at A before you left, killing your own grandfather, etc.

Now, with general relativity you may (or may not) be able to create wormholes which change the topology of spacetime and bring previously distant locations close together. But I think it's sort of guaranteed never to be useful. I mean, we're talking planet-destroying bending of spacetime. Picture pinching a balloon to bring two distant points on its surface together. And you're still constrained to obey causality.

Are Portals Possible?

Are Portals Possible?

Sidharth Bharatwaj's ideas are part of this journey:

Related collections

Similar ideas