News Physics

Wormholes created between entangled quantum particles?

Spread the love
wormhole connecting two black holes. (Credit: Alan Stonebraker/American Physical Society)

Maybe, but don’t try this at home.

Quantum entanglement occurs when a pair or a group of particles interact in ways that dictate that each particle’s behavior is relative to the behavior of the others. In a pair of entangled particles, if one particle is observed to have a specific spin, for example, the other particle observed at the same time will have the opposite spin.

The “spooky” part is that, as past research has confirmed, the relationship holds true no matter how far apart the particles are — across the room or across several galaxies. If the behavior of one particle changes, the behavior of both entangled particles changes simultaneously, no matter how far away they are.

So far, that’s just standard quantum physics.

Recent research indicated that the characteristics of a wormhole are the same as if two black holes were entangled, then pulled apart. Even if the black holes were on opposite sides of the universe, the wormhole would connect them.

Black holes, which can be as small as a single atom or many times larger than the sun, exist throughout the universe, but their gravitational pull is so strong that not even light can escape from them.

If two black holes were entangled, Karch said, a person outside the opening of one would not be able to see or communicate with someone just outside the opening of the other.

“The way you can communicate with each other is if you jump into your black hole, then the other person must jump into his black hole, and the interior world would be the same,” he said.

The work demonstrates an equivalence between quantum mechanics, which deals with physical phenomena at very tiny scales, and classical geometry — “two different mathematical machineries to go after the same physical process,” Karch said. The result is a tool scientists can use to develop broader understanding of entangled quantum systems.

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG

Where it would get really crazy is, you jump into your black hole and find that goof from fifty billion miles away in there watching your TV and drinking your beer, like it was his. And it is. Too.

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG

That, dear readers, is why quantum physics never caught in the macro world. Yes, it would give us time travel through space wormholes. Which would mean that a lot of dead guys are back, also drinking your beer. And it’s theirs. Too.

11 Replies to “Wormholes created between entangled quantum particles?

  1. 1
    Mapou says:

    Chicken feather voodoo physics. Who will rise up to deliver us from the mountain of cr*p called modern theoretical physics?

  2. 2
    scordova says:

    Who will rise up to deliver us from the mountain of cr*p called modern theoretical physics?

    Modern experimental physics.

  3. 3
    Mapou says:

    Sal:

    Modern experimental physics.

    I don’t think so, Sal. The solution will not be found in experimental physics but in its correct interpretation. We already have all the experiments and observations we need to find our way out of the mess that we are in. Unfortunately, the mainstream interpreters are very powerful and they have a bully pulpit.

    Almost every extrapolation from Einstein’s purely mathematical spacetime theories are either wrong or stem from a misunderstanding: black holes, wormholes, time travel, the relativity of position/motion/time, continuous structures, etc. Spacetime itself is a complete mathematical fiction. The situation is so hopeless, not even a traditional Kuhnian paradigm shift can solve it. We will need a much bigger revolution. We will need a particle-centric physics to replace our current observer-centric model.

  4. 4
    scordova says:

    The problem is, a wrong theory, as long as it does the job, will stay in place. Newtonian mechanics worked soooo well until we started to deal with objects that were really small, or moving so really fast.

    With regard to Einstein, even though I have my doubts the problem is that it does make testable predictions, hence, even if it is wrong, it works well in certain domains (way better than evolutionary biology). Even epicycles predicted eclipses!

    Here are some critical tests that General and Special Relativity “predicted”:

    1. enormous energy in matter, E=m c^2
    2. time dilation (or clock dilation, or whatever)
    3. Shapiro effect
    4. mercury precession
    5. Pound Rebka
    6. gravitational red shift
    7. gravitation time dilation
    8. gravitation lensing

    As I’ve posted at UD, I’ve posted reports of experiments that cast doubt on Einsteinian relativity.

    As far as quantum mechanics, in terms of building useful devices like lasers and computers and modern chemical analysis, it works. Physicists, if asked which theory has priority would probably say quantum mechanics.

    As far as spacetime being a mathematical fiction, I’ve suggested the field interpretation of General Relativity makes more sense then the spacetime formulation.

    At a personal level, if some of the guys in the renewable energy field build working devices that don’t conform to mainstream theory, that’s what will make the difference.

    Who will care then what the theoreticians say, the experimentalists will have stuff that actually works even if it violates prevailing theory, and the experimentalists can take that to the bank.

    As far as mainstream physicists, there is some nastiness, but nothing like evolutionary biologists. Even my General Relativity class texts, pointed out where the problems were. You won’t get that from Jerry Coyne.

    One thing the theoreticians have going for them is that they are usually the brightest of the lot. Even though the experimentalists look down on some of the kookiness of theoretical physicists, the experimentalists hold the theoreticians with some degree of awe because the theoreticians are quite smart, and are usually the professors teaching the experimentalists the math.

    I was at a reception for Nobel Prize winner Adam Reiss and we all gathered around him asking questions about his discovery of “dark energy”. There were some pointed theoretical questions, and he replied, “I’m not a theoretician, you’ll have to ask them.”

    And as an aside, a lot of theoretical physicists are closet pure mathematicians — its not about whether the theory is true or useful, its whether the theory is beautiful. When I studied General Relativity, that thought crossed my mind, even if this is found to be false in the end, it was a beautiful story!

    Our GR class spent a week studying wormholes, and then at the close of the topic the professor said, “I don’t think they exists, this was just an exercise in math.” Every one laughed. No one seemed to care whether wormholes were real or not, like actors performing a fictional drama, it was about the beauty of the story. Yeah, that was our General Relativity class….

  5. 5
    scordova says:

    And this is from Albert himself, it epitomizes the spirit of theoretical physics:

    “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”

  6. 6
    Mapou says:

    even if it is wrong, it works well in certain domains

    That’s what’s keeping it alive and what emboldens theoretical physicists to continue to spew some of the most outrageous nonsense in the history of science. Einstein’s spacetime physics should be questioned precisely because it works only within a limited domain. Its failures are spectacular but they almost never get mentioned by mainstream physics, which is, to a large extent, just as much a religion as Darwinism. For examples:

    – It completely fails at the Planck level where it predicts infinite gravity.
    – It posits the existence of a time dimension, even though it is a known fact that a time dimension makes motion impossible.
    – It forbids quantum entanglement or “spooky action at a distance”, which is experimentally confirmed.
    – It posits the existence of space, even though entanglement is a direct result of non-spatiality (distance should be seen as a perceptual illusion) and the laws of conservation.
    – It assumes continuous structures even though they lead to an infinite regress.
    – It imposes the erroneous but widespread belief that all positions and motions in the universe are relative even though it leads to a self-referential system.

    I could go on. My point is that any partially successful theory that is so deeply wrong about so many fundamental aspects of physical reality is bound to retard progress in our understanding of the universe for centuries if not millenia. Something must be done.

  7. 7
    selvaRajan says:

    Mapou / Scordava,
    The paper is based on String theory, so it can be crumpled and thrown into the wastebasket. String theory is taken seriously only by handful of disillusioned scientists, post docs and philosophers. Nothing that String theory postulates can be tested. The only thing that could be tested was the prediction of 5 Higgs Boson. We got just one! There is no way of testing their ‘compactified’ curled space dimension as testing the manifold requires Planck scale energy of 10^18 – 10^19 GeV. String theory is just a hypothesis.In fact some String theory physicists want to call it just ‘String hypothesis’.

  8. 8
    selvaRajan says:

    Mapou @ 6,

    It completely fails at the Planck level where it predicts infinite gravity.

    Space-time is explanation for gravity. It posits that heavier objects curve space-time more hence have more gravity. There is no mention of infinite gravity

    It posits the existence of a time dimension, even though it is a known fact that a time dimension makes motion impossible.

    Time is just another coordinate added to Space coordinates, so how could time ‘make motion impossible’?

    It forbids quantum entanglement or “spooky action at a distance”, which is experimentally confirmed

    You are mixing up Quantum mechanics with General relativity !

    It posits the existence of space, even though entanglement is a direct result of non-spatiality (distance should be seen as a perceptual illusion) and the laws of conservation.

    Again, you are mixing up Quantum mechanics with General relativity !

    It assumes continuous structures even though they lead to an infinite regress.

    Space time has to be continuous – as with any other coordinates. There is no regress

    It imposes the erroneous but widespread belief that all positions and motions in the universe are relative even though it leads to a self-referential system.

    I know you are referring to time being self referential. Let’s derive space-time equation so it is clear that time need not be self referential:
    Time can be expressed as component of distance d = v *t( Where d is distance,v is velocity and t is time).If we now calibrate v as say ‘c’, we can plot ct (time) on Y axis and distance ‘d’ on x axis.
    Mark 2 points on this graph. So, the distance in space time ‘S’ can be obtained by simple Pythagoras theorem S^2= (ct)^2+ d^2 OR S^2= (ct)^2 - d^2. The former equation leads to speed being greater than light speed and allows travelling back ward in time, so we accept the later equation: s^2 = (c^t)^2 - d^2. This is a parabola and time can’t travel backward. Speed cannot overshoot speed of light. Congratulations! we just derived space-time equation without self referencing time!

  9. 9
    KRock says:

    Can someone tell me what the best theory we have going is then? I keep hearing about the multiverse(s), string theory, etc. If these theories can’t be tested and are simply, hypotheses, does this not render them all as “pure speculation?”

  10. 10
    selvaRajan says:

    Can someone tell me what the best theory we have going is then?

    The best theory we have now is we live in flat universe which is expanding rapidly. The universe started with a Big Bang (which is not a bang but just a very rapid inflation). The inflation was so rapid that the matter and antimatter formed couldn’t alienate each other. Large amount of matter survived to form our universe. We have proof of expanding universe, the Big bang is the only theory that explains homogeneous Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. The matter and energy calculation show that the Omega = 1 , hence we conclude universe is flat.

    multiverse(s), string theory, etc. If these theories can’t be tested and are simply, hypotheses, does this not render them all as “pure speculation?”

    Most models are not speculation because mathematically (theoretically) they are possible but they have not been tested experimentally. Let’s take String theory which posits 9 space dimensions and 1 time dimension. This theory came in to describe super symmetry and evolved out to be a theory of everything and it’s aim is to unify Quantum mechanics with General Relativity and bring in gravity with other 3 forces – Weak Nuclear Force, Strong Nuclear force and Electromagnetic Force. But out of the 9 space dimensions, String theory says 6 are hidden or ‘compactified’ into curled tiny space. To probe those manifold, we need energy up to Planck scale- 10^19 GeV- which is impossible to achieve at least in the foreseeable future. So there is no way to test the theory.
    Worm holes and time travel concept too came from String theory. To get worm holes and time travel, the Space time has to Curve in reverse direction – like a saddle. This requires negative energy and negative mass in large proportion. There is no negative energy except for that which was inferred in Casimir experiment. So that too is just a theoretical possibility.
    You can safely ignore String theory.It predicts hidden space time, it predicts 10^500 universes, it predicts worm holes, it predicts time travel, it predicts entanglement – Nothing that it predicts has been ever observed. In fact when LHC became operational, String theory predicted 5 Higgs Boson, we got only one !
    Of course physicists who are not String theorists too believe in multiverse but just a few universes – not 10^500 and above.

  11. 11
    KRock says:

    @selvaRajan

    Thanks!

    Would not a flat universe, that is expanding, point away from any multiverse theory?

Leave a Reply