This new equation might finally unite the two biggest theories in physics, claims physicist

[paddoboy]

@ paddoboy:
The science is what matters, paddoboy, not the person. Why keep deferring to person instead of science methodology, paddoboy? However 'qualified' they may be, that person may be wrong (you've even had occasion to point that out before yourself about Einstein!).

Yes the science is what matters and also the person: In the latter your's qualifications are questionable at best and your citations, references supporting your hypothetical, non existent.
Plus of course your rather silly rhetoric again changes nothing and the fact remains that what you point out [re the H/T system] and what you ignore, is totally unscientific and invalid, and changes nothing in the greater [or lesser] scheme of things.
The H/T system and gravitational waves have been researched for 40 years by expert professionals, and the results and methodology beyond question.
That's the way it is at this time, and I'll bet my short n curlies, that's the way it will be tomorrow.

And I can only offer the same relevant Hulse-Taylor studies/papers that you have, paddoboy. Be reasonable.

The H/T papers discussed magnetic fields and other factors: The overwhelming result and interpretation stands as is, not withstanding your own fabricated version on a remote public science forum that means exactly SFA!

And they show my observation was correct. You haven't shown where any o=f those relevant Hulse-Taylor studies/papers properly exhaustively considered/quantified the (real not hypothetical) magnetic interaction effects I alluded to that may be a significant mechanism for the observed Hulse-Taylor Binary Orbital Period decay rates.

Well at least you have withdrawn some of your previous outright claims!
But as an unknown amateur in this field, you need to now bow to the superior knowledge of the recognised professionals, instead of cling forlornly to your dreams of invalidating accepted mainstream science, which will never be done from public forums...agreed?

But that's exactly what my first post and its questions (not claims) addressed, paddoboy; as follows:So you see that it was you that then came tearing up on your mighty mule attempting to bludgeon the discussion into the "us versus them" issue about any "claims" that they can physically exist. I merely pointed out the known science facts as to why they cannot physically exist. If you want to keep arguing that issue, then argue with the science itself I pointed out, and not keep repeatedly making and quoting irrelevant personal opinion-dependent assertions either way. Stick to the science, not to whatever scientists' personal philosophical stance re the issue of 'existence' in realms other than reality as discovered by the science.

Calm down, your overly pretentious excitement is impressing no one, least of all me.
At best your own expertise and credentials are unknown.....at worst taking into account the many other denials by yourself of mainstream cosmology, and requests re support for your claims by others, that have all been ignored, you appear to be conducting some sort of evangelistic mission: Which from the realms of a public forum means SFA as I have just said.
There are proper avenues for you to take if you genuinly have evidence to invalidate any of those many mainstream theories and claims.
But that also like other requests will be ignored, and consequently an unfavourable light thrown on whatever credibility you have.

Science is about objective investigation, not fantasy stories for children and adult pop-sci-fantasy buffs. Two totally different fields of endeavor, paddoboy. Learn to recognize when you've crossed the line from one to the other, paddoboy.

Cosmological redshift is a recognised fact: spacetime curvature in the preence of mass is a recognised prediction of GR: gravitational lensing is also accepted and observed as such: gravitational waves are recently confirmed in line with GR and any reasonable definition of a scientific theory: likewise BH's: likewise DM.
Those entities and effects are not fairy tales and to argue or even suggest that they are is to show ignorance of 21st century cosmology, and possibly reveal an agenda of sorts. To hide behind the fabricated nonsense that all you are doing is "questioning" the results and interpretations, considering all requests to support your "questionings" or whatever you are implying, have all strangely gone unanswered, which again suggests an agenda of sorts.

Who cares what any physicist's philosophical stance on possibility of existence or not is, paddoboy?

Who cares what some agenda driven, unqualified lay person, who is unable to support anything he ever says, despite requests from many, including James, thinks or pretends he knows?

Learn to tell the difference between scientific questioning and denial. Two totally different things which you seem to have conflated in your own biased and hostile approach to science discussion.

No conflation necessary and that is recognised by your "so called questioning" which others also, including James seems to have interpreted as denial.

At this stage, I see your excitement is building, and the usual lengthy rhetoric continues unabated. So we'll just bypass the nonsensical approach reflected in your posts and say that again, "No physicist has ever said that wormholes categorically do not exist"

 

[paddoboy]

Not your fault, those who are proposing such absurdities also cannot.

In reality the only absurdities are those expressed by yourself every time you deny accepted mainstream theory, without offering any alternative.

 

[expletives deleted]

@ paddoboy:

Yes the science is what matters and also the person: In the latter your's is questionable at best.

No no no, paddoboy. That "and also the person" is your own unwarranted interpretation of the science method which specifically and strictly excludes "person" considerations!

This fixation of yours with "persons", instead of "objective science method without personal considerations", is what drives your mistaken personal crusade against "persons" while failing to address the actual objective science point. Get rid of that scientifically unhealthy "persons" fixation, paddoboy.

Plus of course your rather silly rhetoric again changes nothing and the fact remains that what you point out [re the H/T system] and what you ignore, is totally unscientific and invalid, and changes nothing in the greater [or lesser] scheme of things.
The H/T system and gravitational waves have been researched for 40 years by expert professionals, and the results and methodology beyond question.
That's the way it is at this time, and I'll bet my short n curlies, that's the way it will be tomorrow.

I observed the lack of proper scientific quantification etc of the extreme fields, interactions and effects which may explain the Hulse-Taylor data and bring the grav-wave interpretations and claims into question. That is what science demands of me, paddoboy, to observe where possible flaws may lie in the relevant studies/papers and the claims dependent on them.

The H/T papers discussed magnetic fields and other factors: The overwhelming result and interpretation stands as is, not withstanding your own fabricated version on a remote public science forum that means exactly SFA!

They did not consider or quantify properly in exhaustive scientific manner. That is what makes the exercises and claims suspect (like with the bicep2 exercise and claims) until proper scrutiny based on what I observed is done properly.

Well at least you have withdrawn some of your previous outright claims!
But as an unknown amateur in this field, you need to now bow to the superior knowledge of the recognised professionals, instead of cling forlornly to your dreams of invalidating accepted mainstream science, which will never be done from public forums...agreed?

I made no claims. I observed that the relevant studies/papers were lacking what I observed they should have if their exercise and claims are to withstand proper scientific scrutiny. It is now up to you/them to support your claims. I merely observed the lack of what I pointed out.

And you yourself, paddoboy, have reminded others that even "professionals" (ie even Einstein) could and in some cases have been wrong. Why the uncritical faith in "professionals" now that I have observed where they may have made a mistake of omitting what I pointed out should have been done before claiming etc?

You make convenient switches of stances when it suits your personal misunderstandings and biases, paddoboy. Not a good way to discuss science on facts instead of persons considerations, paddoboy.

Calm down, your overly pretentious excitement is impressing no one, least of all me.
At best your own expertise and credentials are unknown.....at worst taking into account the many other denials by yourself of mainstream cosmology, and requests re support for your claims by others, that have all been ignored, you appear to be conducting some sort of evangelistic mission: Which from the realms of a public forum means SFA as I have just said.
There are proper avenues for you to take if you genuinly have evidence to invalidate any of those many mainstream theories and claims.
But that also like other requests will be ignored, and consequently an unfavourable light thrown on whatever credibility you have.

And there you go "projecting" again, paddoboy. I have remained calm and to the science point; while you have been all over the shop repetitively posting assertions and mischaracterizations which have now become your trademarks here.

And again with your fixation on irrelevant person and venue demands which the science methodology explicitly excludes from consideration. Do you even understand that distinction, paddoboy. Seems not, since you have repeatedly defaulted to those irrelevances time and again in order to evade what science demands of YOU and the relevant studies/papers re Hulse-Taylor observations and claims.

Cosmological redshift is a recognised fact: spacetime curvature in the preence of mass is a recognised prediction of GR: gravitational lensing is also accepted and observed as such: gravitational waves are recently confirmed in line with GR and any reasonable definition of a scientific theory: likewise BH's: likewise DM.
Those entities and effects are not fairy tales and to argue or even suggest that they are is to show ignorance of 21st century cosmology, and possibly reveal an agenda of sorts. To hide behind the fabricated nonsense that all you are doing is "questioning" the results and interpretations, considering all requests to support your "questionings" or whatever you are implying, have all strangely gone unanswered, which again suggests an agenda of sorts.

All these are hypothesis based and are being actively reviewed because of the newer telescopes and knowledge being gained which have brought into question those previous claims based on those hypotheses. Repeating those hypothetically based claims is not automatically proving or confirming them, paddoboy; as James R etc have tried to explain to you many times. Hence the questions now, scientifically valid scrutiny; not 'denial' as you mischaracterize it as.

So you admit that the "separating two black holes" was a nonsense fabricated by the author of your own quoted article and not me, paddoboy? Thank goodness at least one misattribution by you has been corrected. Many more similar corrections are needed before you can be trusted to actually have the right end of the stick on any matter, paddoboy.

Who cares what some agenda driven, unqualified lay person, who is unable to support anything he ever says, despite requests from many, including James, thinks or pretends he knows?

Your unqualified lay person assertions, based on admitted non-understanding etc, is what you bring. I bring valid scientific observations and questions. See the difference there, paddoboy?

No conflation necessary and that is recognised by your "so called questioning" which others also, including James seems to have interpreted as denial.

I answered James R as to that. I explained where it was valid challenge based on YOUR OWN LINKS to the relevant REFERENCED studies/papers. You miss that obvious fact again and again.

At this stage, I see your excitement is building, and the usual lengthy rhetoric continues unabated. So we'll just bypass the nonsensical approach reflected in your posts and say that again, "No physicist has ever said that wormholes categorically do not exist"

What you "see", and what there is in reality, have often proven to be two quite different things, paddoby. Don't brag about "seeing" while you admit to not even "understanding" your own references, paddoboy.

That last personal philosophical stance aspect is your own unwarranted and non-sequitur insertion into the discussion, paddoboy. It is irrelevant to the science itself as I already pointed you to but you ignore, preferring to repeat your well worn irrelevances instead. Learn to tell the difference between important things, paddoboy, especially between real science and pop-sci-fantasy and philosophical irrelevancies. Thanks. Best.

 

[paddoboy]

Theoretical question.:
Blackhole A is in the milkyway and is entageld (connected aka wormhole) to blackhole B in the andromeda galaxy.
now if they are "connected" as he talks about in the video, is it then theoretical possible for them to collide? and thus ending up existing 2 places at the same time like matter does in quantum theory ? or even just exist in one place after colliding?

Two BH's cannot of course be pulled apart, as once they are merged they become one...
Whereas if the two mouths of a wormhole were to collide, my best guess is that after the collision identical mouths would [1] simply merge as per colliding BH's and as per the aLIGO discovery, or [2]Upon merging the wormhole’s shape would be something like the three-dimensional generalization of the surface of an eye screw......A traveler could enter the single mouth of the wormhole, travel the length of its interior region, and exit the mouth only to discover that she is back where she started.
And of course I would see it as logical that gravitational waves would also result.

 

[expletives deleted]

@ paddoboy:

Two BH's cannot of course be pulled apart, as once they are merged they become one...
Whereas if the two mouths of a wormhole were to collide, my best guess is that after the collision identical mouths would [1] simply merge as per colliding BH's and as per the aLIGO discovery, or [2]Upon merging the wormhole’s shape would be something like the three-dimensional generalization of the surface of an eye screw......A traveler could enter the single mouth of the wormhole, travel the length of its interior region, and exit the mouth only to discover that she is back where she started.
And of course I would see it as logical that gravitational waves would also result.

Didn't you read where I pointed out to you that such "wormhole" cannot even be created in the first place unless two black holes are separated (as your own link told you; and which you now admit is impossible)?

Hence your "two mouths of a wormhole colliding" is pure cart-before-horse fabrication without any sense in logic let alone science, paddoboy.

Please next time read properly and don't forget important things which, if you do forget, may lead you into such non-sequitur fantasy nonsense territory such as that above. Thanks. Best.

 

[paddoboy]

@ paddoboy:



No no no, paddoboy. That "and also the person" is your own unwarranted interpretation of the science method which specifically and strictly excludes person considerations!

There we have indications of the delusional aspect of your posts in general.
Let me reiterate, you obviously have no standing in the scientific world and your continued refusal to support anything you say, reiforces that negative standing.
[some of your often repeated delusions ignored in what follows.....

I observed the lack of proper scientific quantification etc of the extreme fields, interactions and effects which may explain the Hulse-Taylor data and bring the grav-wave interpretations and claims into question. That is what science demands of me, paddoboy, to observe where possible flaws may lie in the relevant studies/papers and the claims dependent on them.

Your observations interpretations are dictated by your obvious agenda, and you are not able to support any of it.
The H/T result are not in question in anyway by the proper scientific quarters and academia. They stand as is as a great observation nd research by many notable scientists and the logical conclusion of gravitational waves at which they arrived at.

They did not consider or quantify properly in exhaustive scientific manner. That is what makes the exercises and claims suspect (like with the bicep2 exercise and claims) until proper scrutiny based on what I observed is done properly.

They certainly did consider and quantifiy all the H/T observations as 40 years of research testifies.
The BICEP2 results were modified in short time by the proper scientific methodology and experiment as done by professionals, rather than any preaching on a public forum.
Your observations as I have already said, stand tainted at best.

I made no claims. I observed that the relevant studies/papers were lacking what I observed they should have if their exercise an claims are to withstand proper scientific scrutiny. It is now up to yo/them to support your claims,. I merely observed the lack of what I pointed out.

Your tainted observations [if any at all] are simply another reflection of your general anti 21st century cosmology stance, that at times you like to shroud in ambiguity by claiming "critical questioning"when in reality it is what it is...unscientific, unsupported, cynicism at best, and pseudoscience at worst.

And you yourself, paddoboy, have reminded others that even "professionals" (ie even Einstein) could and in some cases have been wrong. Why the uncritical faith in "professionals" now that I have observed where they may have made a mistake of omitting what I pointed out should have been done before claiming etc?

Sure I have and thanks for raising that relevant point. Again the matter in this thread is openly recognised as "hypothetical" and none of the professionals I have cited have said otherwise.
But for amateurish no bodies on a public forum[whoever they are, ] to claim that they are wrong without supporting their case is just plain laughable and crazy!

And there you go "projecting" again, paddoboy. I have remained calm and to the science point; while you have been all over the shop repetitively posting assertions and mischaracterizations which have now become your trademarks here.

My assertions are simply mainstream accepted scientific theories that are supported by observational evidence and experiments, while any mischarecterisations are your own doing and simply a logical extention based on what your posts are reflecting.

Seems not, since you have repeatedly defaulted to those irrelevances time and again in order to evade what science demands of YOU and the relevant studies/papers re Hulse-Taylor observations and claims.

Since it is you that are unable to support any of your claims, and since the H/T system results still stand as confirmed and the first evidence of gravitational waves, I suggest you need to self determine exactly where you are coming from...although I believe I have revealed that.

All these are hypothesis based and are being actively reviewed because of the newer telescopes and knowledge being gained which have brought into question those previous claims based on those hypotheses. Repeating those hypothetically based claims is not automatically proving or confirming them, paddoboy; as James R etc have tried to explain to you many times. Hence the questions now, scientifically valid scrutiny; not 'denial' as you mischaracterize it as.

No you have the bull by the arse end again.... James openly stated in the other thread that he believed q-reeus was wrong and that future research will reveal that one way or the other.
James of course also asked you for supporting citations which you wriggled around to avoid answering by concocting some fabricated fairy tale.

So you admit that the "separating two black holes" was a nonsense fabricated

Not at all. I admit that I'm an amateur and unqualified as you yourself appear to be. I stated my own beliefs just as I stated fact when I said that no physicist has ever claimed that wormholes categorically do not exist.

Your unqualified lay person assertions, based on admitted non-understanding etc, is what you bring. I bring valid scientific observations and questions. See the difference there, paddoboy?

I see unsupported claims and delusions on your part expletive deleted, and a generally unsupported denial of 21st century cosmology.

I answered James R as to that. I explained where it was valid challenge based on YOUR OWN LINKS to the relevant REFERENCED studies/papers. You miss that obvious fact again and again.

No, I remember it quite well....a highly fabricated nonsensical avoidance answer that if you were to answer truthfully, would have revealed everything you are trying to achieve on this forum: ie trying to invalidate 21st century cosmology for obvious reasons...Let me count the ways! gravitaional waves, gravitational lensing, BH's, cosmological redshift, DM, and the list goes on.

Don't brag about "seeing" while you admit to not even "understanding" your own references, paddoboy.

You are the one claiming to be a professional, not me.
And I certainly understand that all my references simply invalidate all the hypotheticals you are trying to push.
All in all, the fact remains that "No physicist has ever said that wormholes categorically do not exist"

 

[paddoboy]

@ paddoboy:



Didn't you read where I pointed out to you that such "wormhole" cannot even be created in the first place unless two black holes are separated (as your own link told you; and which you now admit is impossible)?

Hence your "two mouths of a wormhole colliding" is pure cart-before-horse fabrication without any sense in logic let alone science, paddoboy.

Please next time read properly and don't forget important things which, if you do forget, may lead you into such non-sequitur fantasy nonsense territory such as that above. Thanks. Best.

worm holes are a hypothetical prediction of GR and one method speculated for their forming as I have already told you is in the post BB Planck era, and of course what you pointed out, is just what you think you pointed out.
"No physicist has ever said that wormholes categorically do not exist"
Wanna try again?

 

[expletives deleted]

@ paddoboy:

worm holes are a hypothetical prediction of GR and one method speculated for their forming as I have already told you is in the post BB Planck era, and of course what you pointed out, is just what you think you pointed out.
"No physicist has ever said that wormholes categorically do not exist"
Wanna try again?

No, paddoboy, they are a product of speculative extensions to GR; as already pointed out to you. Any such speculative scenarios have no basis in physical theory, only 'existing' in mathematical "extensions" constructs not tied to reality considerations.

And unless you can provide the physically real means whereby two black holes can be "separated" then your whole house of cards fantasy is just that, mathematical fantasy.

And your constant refrain, re physicists philosophical stance re "existence or not", is scientifically irrelevant insertion of yours into a discussion of real physical scientific possibilities; not persons or philosophical stances that have no effective bearing on what the science ITSELF strongly indicates irrespective of "persons" you fixate on.

Learn to tell the subtle differences, paddoboy. Best.

 

[paddoboy]

@ paddoboy:



No, paddoboy, they are a product of speculative extensions to GR; as already pointed out to you. Any such speculative scenarios have no basis in physical theory, only 'existing' in mathematical "extensions" constructs not tied to reality considerations.

Wrong once again expletive deleted and quite an unscientific statement to boot.
wormholes while remaining speculative are most certainly a solution of GR, just one that as yet has never been realised. And no matter which way you chose to twist and turn with relation to that prediction, it remains so....
Let me say it again...
"No physicist has ever said that wormholes categorically do not exist"

And unless you can provide the physically real means whereby two black holes can be "separated" then your whole house of cards fantasy is just that, mathematical fantasy.

Rubbish.....firstly like you, as an unqualified amateur, I don't believe once merged, that two BH's can be separated, but that in no way "disproves" [another non scientific statement you use a lot] worm holes.
"No physicist has ever said that wormholes categorically do not exist"

And your constant refrain, re physicists philosophical stance re "existence or not", is scientifically irrelevant insertion of yours into a discussion of real physical scientific possibilities; not persons or philosophical stances that have no effective bearing on what the science ITSELF strongly indicates irrespective of "persons" you fixate on.

Total confused word salad.
This subject, the OP and first paper by Professor Susskind is a discussion on the speculative nature of worm holes and quantum entanglement, which he recognises in his "equation" that you and the usual others, failed to recognise for what it is....a comparison in views by Einstein and Rosen to that by Einstein, Rosen and Podolsky.
Further more, no matter how you like to see yourself, or this forum, you are at best an unknown quantity, that refuses to support anything you hypothesise, and this public forum remains a vehicle for chit chat and scientific discussion, as unqualified and unsupported as that at times may be, and as you seem happy to illustrate.

Learn to tell the subtle differences, paddoboy. Best.

The subtle differences is that i as a lay person, have no qualms about supporting, confirming or referencing all claims I make: You as a lay person obviously, seem to believe that what you preach here is gospel [no pun intended]

 

[The God]

Two BH's cannot of course be pulled apart, as once they are merged they become one...
Whereas if the two mouths of a wormhole were to collide, my best guess is that after the collision identical mouths would [1] simply merge as per colliding BH's and as per the aLIGO discovery, or [2]Upon merging the wormhole’s shape would be something like the three-dimensional generalization of the surface of an eye screw......A traveler could enter the single mouth of the wormhole, travel the length of its interior region, and exit the mouth only to discover that she is back where she started.
And of course I would see it as logical that gravitational waves would also result.

This is black salad full of worms..
Do you understand what you have written?

 

[The God]

"No physicist has ever said that wormholes categorically do not exist"
Wanna try again?

This one would be troublesome for you Paddoboy, but just substitute 'God' in place of wormholes...

 

[paddoboy]

This is black salad full of worms..
Do you understand what you have written?

Sure I do, as everyone else does other than yourself and probably expletive deleted.
When you are finally able to look at similar aspects of speculative science, as well as observed science, without your hindering agenda, then possibly you will see it to.
But as apparently so many here have you on ignore, it seems whatever you decide to do is of no consequence to anyone.
"No physicist has ever said that wormholes categorically do not exist"

 

[Schmelzer]

The subtle differences is that i as a lay person, have no qualms about supporting, confirming or referencing all claims I make: You as a lay person obviously, seem to believe that what you preach here is gospel [no pun intended]

This is, in your case, nothing to be proud of. You have no own opinion, your opinion is "the mainstream is right", and in such a situation it is easy to find mainstream sources which support the mainstream opinion. And, given that IYO the mainstream is right, this mainstream opinion about the mainstream opinion is evidence "confirming" these claims.

Laymen who doubt the mainstream opinion have a much harder job. They almost always fail, but such is life. If you go against the mainstream, the risk is always high to err.

 

[paddoboy]

This is, in your case, nothing to be proud of. You have no own opinion, your opinion is "the mainstream is right", and in such a situation it is easy to find mainstream sources which support the mainstream opinion. And, given that IYO the mainstream is right, this mainstream opinion about the mainstream opinion is evidence "confirming" these claims.

Laymen who doubt the mainstream opinion have a much harder job. They almost always fail, but such is life. If you go against the mainstream, the risk is always high to err.

Wow! You certainly have it bad! I know that I poopooed your ether hypothetical rather strongly, but three things you need to consider, [1] I 'm not responsible for it to still be languishing in oblivion probably never to be heard of again, unless on this forum, [2] The languishing of your self as a professional without any notable work/s, [3] The apparent death knell of your forum, although I must admit I have not been there to verify.

Couple all those obvious failures with your often unprofessional utterences, such as "So what?" or "who cares?" and recently the following doozy,

The point being? That I have read evil sources? I have never claimed that I read only good sources. It is my approach to extract information from all available sources.

Says all there needs to be said re your "tit for tat" actions here.
Do better Schmelzer.

 

[Schmelzer]

Wow! You certainly have it bad! I know that I poopooed your ether hypothetical rather strongly, but three things you need to consider, [1] I 'm not responsible for it to still be languishing in oblivion probably never to be heard of again, unless on this forum, [2] The languishing of your self as a professional without any notable work/s, [3] The apparent death knell of your forum, although I must admit I have not been there to verify.

The point is that your only argument against the ether is that it is not supported by the mainstream. And you are unable to present anything else. I don't have to worry about my theory. First, because it was never my dream to develop a sociologically successful theory. My dream has always been to find some true theory. I'm without notable works? LOL, I have reached in this relation much more, I repeat, much more than I have dreamed about in my childhood. And my forum - it is now simply part of my website, and fine there. Whenever somebody wants to discuss something about some hidden variable theory, it is available.

I don't understand what is your problem with tit for tat. Can you explain? Or is it something similar to your dislike of "conspiracy theories", a phrase invented by the CIA to discredit alternative theories about the JFK murder?

 

[Engell79]

I guess i can stop following this thread is been taken way off original subject sadly. otherwise id like to commend people for an interesting discussion most of the time. How ever at this point i don't see any one show any reputable arguments for or against the theory, other than the original post it self.

 

[paddoboy]

While some play on forums such as this, the real professionals are conducting their research into this fascinating speculative scenario........
https://www.quora.com/What-is-ER-EPR

Q: What is ER=EPR?

A:
[Masroor Bukhari, Particle Physicist, with life-long quest for knowledge in physics and science]


Thank you for asking me this question.

Please understand, first of all, these are purely theoretical ideas and not proven yet.

Before you understand ER=EPR, you have to understand what is EPR, what is Bell Inequalities and what is ER.

EPR Paradox

The EPR paradox refers to a theoretical conjecture by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, three theorists, upset with the mysterious but irrefutable outcomes of quantum mechanics, such as Entanglement and correlations between two quantum systems, such as a pair of twin photons generated would be somehow dependent on each other, eg following similar choices or paths, etc. enunciated a theory that quantum mechanics is a hidden-variable theory in which there are certain variables which we are unaware of but are present in the system which enable two objects to retain common or similar states (as if twin brothers traveling separately but being aware of their itinerary by means of a secret communication link, the hidden variable).

The Bell Theorem

Bell, another contemporary bright theorist, worked out a theorem known as the Bell’s Inequalities or Bell’s theorem, proving mathematically that no hidden local variable theory can predict the same outcomes as the quantum mechanics. The theorem is correct and hence it proves that quantum mechanics does not work with some underlying hidden variables, but it is in fact a feature of nature, embedded in microscopic systems. Thus, technically, the Bell Inequalities challenged the spirit of the EPR paradox.

This theorem holds central significance in quantum physics, as it proves its fundamental tenets.

Einstein-Rosen Bridge (A “Wormhole”)

Now, ER, stands for Einstein Rosen bridge, also known as a wormhole in common language, is once again a theoretical conjecture by Einstein and Rosen, whereby they suggested there is a topological possibility in space-time that two remote coordinates in could be connected (or Warped) by a correlation called a bridge, ER, or a wormhole. This is supported by certain solutions to the Einstein Field Equations, the core of GR, and also by the negative energy states possibility supported by the Casimir effect.

Now, the new conjecture, ER=EPR, proposed by Maldacena and Susskind, integrates the ideas of ER with that of EPR and suggests quantum entanglement between two particles to exist in the form of an ER bridge or a wormhole. Thus you can have two black holes which are correlated or entangled by means of an ER wormhole. They go ahead and even propose that the entanglement governs the geometry of space-time and its curvature (ie gravity).

In a way, the theory implies unification of gravity with quantum mechanics, which is not true, and even if true, would be limited. This is a radically new and extremely bold idea and a hypothesis, which of course remains a hypothesis till proven.

 

[Schmelzer]

I guess i can stop following this thread is been taken way off original subject sadly. otherwise id like to commend people for an interesting discussion most of the time. How ever at this point i don't see any one show any reputable arguments for or against the theory, other than the original post it self.

Of course, there are no physicists here to argue about the content of ER=EPR itself. So, there would be no point to explain why I think it is nonsense.

The point is that I think that in quantum gravity there has to be such a thing as a superposition of different gravitational fields. And in such a superpositional state, the concept of a position nonetheless has to be well-defined. That means, to define a superposition of two gravitational fields, one has to specify which point of one gravitational field corresponds to which point of the other one. But in this case, above fields have to have the same topology. Superpositions between gravitational fields of different topology are simply impossible. So a theory of quantum gravity has to have a fixed background geometry. So there is no place for wormholes and similar sci-fi in quantum gravity.

 

[paddoboy]

I guess i can stop following this thread is been taken way off original subject sadly. otherwise id like to commend people for an interesting discussion most of the time. How ever at this point i don't see any one show any reputable arguments for or against the theory, other than the original post it self.

Yes, sorry about that.
The following "treatment" of this scientifically speculative subject may help..........
http://ggd2013.mpp.mpg.de/files/slides/jensen.pdf

 

[paddoboy]

Here's another......
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/31/21/214007/meta

PAPER
Wormholes and entanglement:
John C Baez and Jamie Vicary

Abstract
Maldacena and Susskind have proposed a correspondence between wormholes and entanglement, dubbed ER=EPR. We study this in the context of three-dimensional topological quantum field theory (TQFT), where we show that the formation of a wormhole is the same process as creating a particle–antiparticle pair. A key feature of the ER=EPR proposal is that certain apparently entangled degrees of freedom turn out to be the same. We name this phenomenon 'fake entanglement', and show how it arises in our TQFT model.