> wormholes either can't exist or can't transmit information.
This would contradict known physics. Again, please provide a better solution.
> Just because the maths says it can exist in one set of equations
That "one set of equations" is everything we know about the universe.
> but anyone sensible knows the outcome.
You mean like Kip Thorne, Leonard Susskind, Mat Visser, David Deutsch, and any other physicist who's studied wormholes? Because all those people agree that either we're wrong about physics or wormholes are theoretically possible. Causality violation, probably not, but wormholes don't violate causality just by existing.
> They will not be possible not matter how much you want them to be true
I have no strong opinion one way or the other. However, I accept that, based on the best physical theories we have available to us, wormholes are physically viable.
It seems like, for some reason, you really want them to be false. Perhaps it's your sense of "sensibility", which does not appear to be based in fact (unless you know something physicists don't).
My point is, lots of things are still unproven but we know the outcome. This includes in mathematics. Things remain unproven but mathematicians know the outcome.
It might piss the purists off to think like this but tough luck this is how the world works.
You seem happy to throw out causality? but not the faster than light bit. This seems biased.
> You seem happy to throw out causality? but not the faster than light bit.
Nope, going faster than light violates causality. As I have said N times, wormholes do not allow you to go faster than light. I really can't be any clearer on that. What they do is alter the topology of space so that you can create a shorter route between two locations that used to be "far away" in the old topology.
Yes, but if you entering the wormhole at one end and leaving it at the other are events with spacelike separation, then those events have no absolute order, which means that there is at least one frame of reference in which you leave the wormhole before you enter it. That's time-travel, and that raises the possibility of causality violations.
This would contradict known physics. Again, please provide a better solution.
> Just because the maths says it can exist in one set of equations
That "one set of equations" is everything we know about the universe.
> but anyone sensible knows the outcome.
You mean like Kip Thorne, Leonard Susskind, Mat Visser, David Deutsch, and any other physicist who's studied wormholes? Because all those people agree that either we're wrong about physics or wormholes are theoretically possible. Causality violation, probably not, but wormholes don't violate causality just by existing.
> They will not be possible not matter how much you want them to be true
I have no strong opinion one way or the other. However, I accept that, based on the best physical theories we have available to us, wormholes are physically viable.
It seems like, for some reason, you really want them to be false. Perhaps it's your sense of "sensibility", which does not appear to be based in fact (unless you know something physicists don't).