Talk:Ellis drainhole

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mathematics Low‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 13 February 2016 by reviewer SwisterTwister (talk · contribs).

Not necessarily an NPOV issue but this is definitely written wrong

A lot of this page, while factually not incorrect, seems like it was written by someone who prefers Ellis’s work over that of Einstein/believes Einstein is wrong. This is especially prevalent in the Applications section, which in my opinion is mostly superfluous anyways. This article would be greatly improved by a rewrite/removal of that section and others.

I don’t personally have the references on-hand necessary to write a full article on the Ellis wormhole (unless I could be pointed to a particular section in MTW Gravitation). If someone with references could rewrite the article to sound less like a research report/ad for Ellis and more like an encyclopedia that would be great.

Some of the issues I’m seeing:

”Imagine two euclidean planes, one above the other. Pick two circles of the same radius, one above the other, and remove their interiors. Now glue the exteriors together at the circles, bending the exteriors smoothly so that there is no sharp edge at the gluing. If done with care the result will be the catenoid pictured at right, or something similar. Next, picture the whole connected upper and lower space filled with a fluid flowing with no swirling into the hole from above and out the lower side, gaining speed all the way and bending the lower region into a more conical shape than is seen in If you imagine stepping this movie up from flat screen to 3D, replacing the planes by euclidean three-spaces and the circles by spheres, and think of the fluid as flowing from all directions into the hole from above, and out below with directions unchanged, you will have a pretty good idea of what a 'drainhole' is” - Not only is this a poor way to think about four-dimensional spacetime geometry, but it’s also not written in the proper tone for reasons I hope is clear.

The Applications and Further Applications sections - I see the former as incomplete/misnamed and at the very least having a poor encyclopedic tone and the latter as completely unnecessary. These sections seem like they’re dissing Einstein/advertising Ellis in a bad way. Einstein’s assumptions weren’t “unjustified”, in fact it was Einstein’s field equations that Ellis used to formulate the wormhole in the first place.

If not otherwise possible I’ll go through what references I have and try a rewrite myself. OverzealousAutocorrect (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]