<p>The best current answer is "We can't".  We do not presently know of any way to stabilize wormholes without large negative energy densities. (Some argue that even that isn't enough, but I don't believe that the matter is settled, even on a theoretical level.)</p>

<p>Note that:</p>

<p>(a) No wormhole has <em>ever</em> been observed, nor have we observed anything which is a predicted effect of a wormhole: Wormholes are entirely theoretical.</p>

<p>(b) Having said that, Wormholes are a prediction of General Relativity, which is a very well-tested and well-established theory, so it's unwise to bet against them existing.</p>

<p>(c) Macroscopic wormholes are a purely GR phenomenon and while the fields involved are strong, they are not so strong that they are in the realm where we expect the eventual unified theory of quantum gravity to give markedly different results.</p>

<p>(d) And by the way, we haven't a clue how to create large negative energy densities.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-12T01:20:43.130Z
*Wormholes are a prediction of GR*  Not really.  They are a result of extending the *intended* domain of GR to a domain beyond which it was intended to model and, indeed, requires modeling of situations which will require a quantum theory of gravity - and we don't have a decent theory for that.  All the other well-tested stuff from GR is *within* it's intended domain.
StephenG - Help Ukraine
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-12T02:59:00.263Z
"Intended?" By whom?  GR is the field equations, and wormholes are a solution to those equations.  I'm perfectly aware that they are solutions quite a long way from what's been tested -- you'll note that I *said* that in my answer. As far as needing a quantum theory of gravity, that's true of microscopic wormholes -- the quantum foam and all that -- but, again, I'm aware of that and limited myself to macroscopic wormholes which do not depend on quantum effects.
Mark Olson
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-12T07:06:20.817Z
I like to think I know a bit about GR, and I agree with StephenG. And then some. Best if I don't get started on quantum gravity or quantum foam. Or point singularities. Or Hawking radiation. Or white holes. There's a lot in cosmology that's said to be a prediction of GR, but when you dig under the covers looking for the foundations, you find that there aren't any. But meh, +1 anyway, because I didn't answer it.
John Duffield
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-13T02:18:03.337Z
Mark Olson is half right. Due to dark energy, the microscopic wormholes (if they exist) from the beginning of the universe have probably expanded.
Leo Pan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-12T00:51:09.210Z
2018-06-12T00:51:09.210Z
Mark Olson
<p>I heard and read that a wormhole will collapse if they transport any positively charged matter. So, if wormholes exist, they probably close as soon as normal matter enters it, how can we access them without negative matter?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-12T04:49:33.267Z
FWIW, according to Kip Thorne et al it's not matter with a negative electric charge that's needed to stabilise a macroscopic wormhole, it's matter with negative mass. And we have no reason to believe that kind of matter exists.
PM 2Ring
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-13T21:44:11.943Z
@PM2Ring,yes as it is only a theory.
StellarExile
<wormhole>
If wormholes exist and behave like we think they do, can we cross them without "negatively charged matter "?
Leo Pan
# If wormholes exist and behave like we think they do, can we cross them without "negatively charged matter "?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-06-12)

I heard and read that a wormhole will collapse if they transport any positively charged matter. So, if wormholes exist, they probably close as soon as normal matter enters it, how can we access them without negative matter?

**Tags:** wormhole
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: FWIW, according to Kip Thorne et al it's not matter with a negative electric charge that's needed to stabilise a macroscopic wormhole, it's matter with negative mass. And we have no reason to believe that kind of matter exists.  
> **username_2**: @PM2Ring,yes as it is only a theory.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2018-06-12. Score: 7 | Accepted answer

The best current answer is "We can't". We do not presently know of any way to stabilize wormholes without large negative energy densities. (Some argue that even that isn't enough, but I don't believe that the matter is settled, even on a theoretical level.)

Note that:

(a) No wormhole has *ever* been observed, nor have we observed anything which is a predicted effect of a wormhole: Wormholes are entirely theoretical.

(b) Having said that, Wormholes are a prediction of General Relativity, which is a very well-tested and well-established theory, so it's unwise to bet against them existing.

(c) Macroscopic wormholes are a purely GR phenomenon and while the fields involved are strong, they are not so strong that they are in the realm where we expect the eventual unified theory of quantum gravity to give markedly different results.

(d) And by the way, we haven't a clue how to create large negative energy densities.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: *Wormholes are a prediction of GR*  Not really.  They are a result of extending the *intended* domain of GR to a domain beyond which it was intended to model and, indeed, requires modeling of situations which will require a quantum theory of gravity - and we don't have a decent theory for that.  All the other well-tested stuff from GR is *within* it's intended domain.  
> **username_3**: "Intended?" By whom?  GR is the field equations, and wormholes are a solution to those equations.  I'm perfectly aware that they are solutions quite a long way from what's been tested -- you'll note that I *said* that in my answer. As far as needing a quantum theory of gravity, that's true of microscopic wormholes -- the quantum foam and all that -- but, again, I'm aware of that and limited myself to macroscopic wormholes which do not depend on quantum effects.  
> **username_5**: I like to think I know a bit about GR, and I agree with StephenG. And then some. Best if I don't get started on quantum gravity or quantum foam. Or point singularities. Or Hawking radiation. Or white holes. There's a lot in cosmology that's said to be a prediction of GR, but when you dig under the covers looking for the foundations, you find that there aren't any. But meh, +1 anyway, because I didn't answer it.  
> **username_0**: Mark Olson is half right. Due to dark energy, the microscopic wormholes (if they exist) from the beginning of the universe have probably expanded.  

---

