On Possible Origin of an Artificial Wormhole
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
The new version of the paper is surely improved with respect to the previous one. It results to be clearer in the logic and methodologies you have employed. However, I still find that the article necessitates a more careful revision in terms of the English style. Indeed, there are same sentences and equal words that are repeated in multiple time within the same paragraph, which makes the overall reading not very fluid and sometimes misleading. If the authors take seriously into account these comments, I will recommend the paper for being accepted for publication on Universe Journal.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for your comments. We tried to remove repeated words and one of our friends from UK has corrected a little the text.
Best Regards,
Authors
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have considerably improved the manuscript with respect to the first version and I think it can be now accepted for publication in Universe.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for all your comments and suggestions.
Best regards
authors
Reviewer 3 Report
I think the reviewer's points are well reflected. However, there is still room for correction in the reference. The style of reference is not the journal. Each reference has each form. Also the reviewer asked the reference [10] to be corrected in volume number, but it is still not reflected in the revised version.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for the comments. Indeed, we missed the misprint in reference [10]. Now we corrected it and brushed the overall style of references according to the journal requirements.
Best Regards,
authors
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This work was done for the creation of a Euclidean wormhole due to a scalar field based on authors’ series of works. We know that Euclidean wormholes are different from Lorentz wormholes, and because of nature of the Euclidean wormholes, they are called quantum wormholes, transient wormholes, 4D wormholes, etc. The authors used the mechanism of quantum field theory. This article seems to be technically correct.
The reviewer wants to point out a small detail.
1. The author used similar terms such as artificial wormhole, virtual wormhole, and Euclidean wormhole without detailed explanation. If the authors kindly explain the difference in terminology, it will help the reader understand the context of the article.
2. The authors have shown that perturbation causes the number density of wormholes. But readers want to know what factors increase the size of Euclidean wormholes. For reference, in the case of a Lorentz wormhole, its size is determined by its energy density.
3. In the introductory part, the authors mentioned that negative perturbation in the number density of wormholes leads to a positive shift in the value of the cosmic constant, but the reader would like to know more detailed mechanisms for this in the main body.
4. Reference 10 should be replaced with ‘Nuclear Physics, B144 (1978) 349.’
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors study the interplay between a distribution of “virtual wormholes” and external fields. They claim that external fields with strong enough intensity and inhomogeneities may help in externally controlling the density of virtual wormholes and creating an artificial wormhole.
In section 2, the authors consider a class of Euclidean metrics which represent the virtual wormholes. It is not clear what set of equations these metrics satisfy (the authors never say what theory they are considering) or what is the justification for considering them. The authors say that they minimize some Euclidean action (I guess given some boundary conditions), but the details are not explained in the paper. Then, the authors study the dynamics of a scalar field on such backgrounds under various assumptions (which I found difficult to follow) and obtain a quantum effective action. This contains two terms which are interpreted as corresponding to: scattering on the virtual wormholes and back reaction of the wormholes on the external field. In section 3, they study the possibility of creating an actual wormhole using a coherent set of virtual wormholes. All the relevant quantities depend on some “density” $n(y)$ whose physical origin and meaning remains obscure to me. Modifying this density at will, the authors produce different types of wormhole-like structures, including “astrophysical wormholes”, “star gates” or “Alcubierre drives”. In section 4, the authors argue that the creation of an artificial wormhole requires the external field to possess large inhomogeneities.
My impression while reading the paper is that the authors make a considerable number of barely justified (or simply unjustified) assumptions on which they build their different conclusions. Claiming that the artificial production of a wormhole may be possible or even within technological reach is a huge thing and, as such, in order to be taken seriously, it requires strong theoretical evidence and solid physical grounds, which I do not think are provided in this paper. Finally, assuming everything else is correct (which seems like a big if to me) as the authors point out in the discussion, very intense fields produce non-negligible particle production which may deem the whole discussion inconclusive. In sum, while I think many of the manipulations performed in the paper are probably correct under the assumptions performed, I think most of the assumptions are not properly justified throughout the paper. Therefore, my report cannot be positive.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
I have meticulously read your paper entitled “On possible origin of an artificial wormhole”, where the main topic relies on “virtual wormholes”. The work considers quantum wormholes filling the space, which can organize in coherent structures, as macroscopic-like wormholes, by the presence of external fields, endowed with extremely high energies. This study would imply the future possibility in artificially obtaining such configurations in a laboratory.
Although the paper could provide new interesting results, the manuscript is very difficult to read, because the arguments are not very clearly presented, the calculations are not properly justified, and the English style should be improved. For such reasons, I prefer to reject the paper, although I warmly suggest the authors to carefully review their work along the above-cited aspects and resubmit the paper once it has been considerably ameliorated.
