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

[paddoboy]

Here are a couple of scientific views and opinions on the speculative subject of worm holes, both rather different and both interesting with good points, but as I have been saying all along, "No reputable physicist would say that they categorically that they do not exist".
Here are those views.......
https://www.spaceanswers.com/deep-space/could-wormholes-really-exist/
Dr Eric Davis, Senior Research Physicist at the Institute for Advanced Studies, Austin

YES
“Wormholes should exist in nature, because they are predicted by Einstein’s theory of general relativity which is the theory that also predicted black holes, cosmology, neutron stars, the gravitational lensing of galaxies, gravitational redshift and time dilation, bending of light by stars (gravitational lensing) amongst other things.

“All of these astrophysical phenomena have been repeatedly observed to high precision and thus verify general relativity theory. There is no reason why wormholes should not exist based on a very well tested theory whose other predictions have been verified as previously mentioned. Another prediction of general relativity is gravitational waves, and there has been a search for their existence going on for over 50 years. This search is now ramping up with a major British astronomy program dedicated entirely to detecting them.”


Professor Andreas Karch, a professor of physics at the University of Washington

NO

“I would completely agree that most likely they are just a theoretical construct. It’s very unlikely that we will ever see the more standard kind of wormhole – the one that you could transverse through, as seen in science fiction movies.

“According to our understanding of physics, those seem almost impossible and we certainly haven’t seen one. Even if they exist, I’m not sure how to hunt for them. One could not measure the existence of a wormhole directly without sending in two observers into the two connected black holes [which could also form the basis of a wormhole]. If they meet in the middle, there’s a wormhole. If not, then there’s no wormhole. In any event the more-fortunate outside observers would never know the outcome of the experiment.

“Of course that doesn’t mean that one should stop looking, we should always look for what’s out there, however, I wouldn’t hold my breath.”
[Highlights by me in case of any knee jerk reactions and supporting what my view is]
"No reputable physicist would say that they categorically do not exist"

 

[expletives deleted]

@ James R:

Please, before composing your reply, take extra note of the closing comment of my present post. Thanks.

expletives deleted:

As I understand it, wormhole solutions are legitimate solutions of the equations of general relativity.

As 'legitimate' as solutions were once upon a time claimed to be for "singularities" at the center of black holes. But as you must be aware by now, we have since dispelled that 'blind-faith-in-math' based 'belief' in such things; not only dispelled by GR mathematical-theorists themselves, but also by Quantum Theorists.

You see the point, James R? Making a claim based on unphysical absurdities issuing from unreasonable extrapolation of the maths is not 'science'; but rather 'pure maths explorations' extending beyond the real physical domain of applicability of what after all is supposed to be a physical theory even though its language is couched in mathematical terms and models. That is why even in paddoboy's own linked material it is described as "certain extensions of GR" by mathematical theorists who were not trammeled by the need to stay in the physical domain, and so went into the unphysical domain for purely maths explorations 'results' which, while they may be termed 'legitimate solutions' in the MATHS CONTEXT, they may not have been 'physical solutions' when checked by physicists who were not interested only in the maths but also the physical possibility aspect.

Hence the "BH singularity" and "Wormhole" and "Naked Singularities" concepts being increasingly reclassified by mainstream as "unphysical solutions" most un-likely to actually exist in physical fact, even if they 'exist' as pure maths abstractions.

Now, you might certainly object that "exotic energy" might not exist in the "real" universe (or that it might be impossible to create it), but unless you can actually show that such a thing is impossible then it remains an open possibility. Agreed?

There comes a point, after a century of GR maths and physics intellectual effort at arriving at real not imaginary understandings, when the preponderance of evidence and probability points to some in=escapable conclusion unless one is to be captive to the science fiction/fantasy concepts for their own sake or as examples to be trotted out when trying to give currency to the PHILOSOPHICAL musing that unless something is expressly forbidden it must exist. That is the same sort of rationalizations used by religions for their gods and demons etc. We as scientists must have regard for the physicality and probability considerations, and not just use the cop out claus when we want to dress up non-scientific concepts and claims as 'scientific' or 'real' etc. Otherwise we would still be speaking of "BH Singularities", "naked singularities" as if they were possible physically, against all the obvious arguments against hem and especially as Quantum Theory makes GR moot in that domain where it is beyond GR's ambit physically (but "certain extensions" into pure maths scenarios is still 'fun' for those who like that sort of thing; but we now know that un-physicality and im-probability considerations strongly indicate that "certain maths concepts" do not and cannot in fact exist).

But perhaps you have the necessary disproof of wormholes or exotic matter. Got a link?

When a 'crank' claims something 'exists', they are reminded that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" The same stricture applies to ALL claims irrespctive of who makes them. Agreed?

So it is not encumbent upon ME to "disprove" the 'exotic energy' and wormhole' and singularities and 'entangled black holes' etc, is it? It is up to their proponents to present extraordinary proof. Especially when increasingly the Quantum and other physicality strictures and the domains of applicability of the maths, etc etc considerations, are brought to bear; and these increasingly indicate strongly that such "pure maths extensions of GR maths" may be "legitimate" AS pure maths exploratory outcomes, but are not testable or provable given what we already know and have learned since the EARLY days when 'everything was possible' in the mathematical realm, but since found that 'certain' math 'possibilities' were not physically so. That is the state of play UNLESS extraordinary proof is provided by their proponents; and not apply double standards by attempting to improperly SWITCH the burden of extraordinary proof onto the legitimate challenge to said extraordinary claims.

Regarding the science/pseudoscience demarcation you seem to be attempting to make in this thread, notice that many professional physicists have published on that topic in peer-reviewed publications. If "wormhole physics" is obviously pseudoscience, as you appear to be suggesting, then why are so many professional scientists interested in the topic? Can you suggest a reason?

I have highlighted the "you seem" phrase in your above comment, because it is an indication that the "seeming" is what may be the problem here.

For example, as usual in most threads and discussions into which paddoboy has inserted himself and his usual distractions and confusions and mischaracterizations and clutter (as you've seen for yourself all too often by now), it becomes a mess which moderators have no time to scrabble through to get what is actually going on, and may be under the wrong impression of what has happened.

This is just another of those instances. Paddoboy's stream of beside the point and/or repetitive restatement/requoting of 'background' stuff already known BEFORE the point/discussion arose which questioned that very same already known stuff. It is BURYING the essential narratives and exchanges on the point, and making paddoboy's 'last cluttering posts and mischaracterizations "seem" like it is what has happened and who said what....when it is NOT. But the cursory reader would not realize that if they merely go by paddoby's latest 'bombing' of his own opinions and mischaracterizations and shifting of stances and burdens etc.

See the problem you and moderators and even those on point and on science participants have all the time? Paddoboy comes in and makes a perfect mess of the whole narrative and claims and responses, by introducing a blizzard of confusions, conflations, irrelevances, appeals to authority that are where the discussion began, and finally ending up trying to bury and or twist the whole tenor and thrust of the original discussion in attempt to give wrong "seeming" impression to you and anyone who is trying to get a handle on the actual discussion and the points at issue.

CLOSING COMMENTS: The actual issue here is two-pronged:

On the one prong: the OP 'idea' itself by Susskind. It is merely a qualitative opinion that ER + EPR. No more, no less; as they admit, since no real investigation as to the mathematical and physical aspects' "equality" has yet started. So whether this Susskind OP 'idea' is termed an alternative or 'pseudoscience' speculation not yet having mainstream support, is up to the reader. I merely suggested one or the other category AT THIS STAGE; for the reasons just given.

On the other prong: for its scientific validity, physicality possibilities and claimed "equality" in fact (as distinct in loose "equality" in the qualitative terms it is currently posed in, the conceptual products involved in this Susskind 'idea' will ultimately depend on the existence of "wormholes", "singularities/naked singularities", "entangled black holes" and "exotic energy"....all of which have already been increasingly discounted on known quantum and other general physical considerations let alone logical ones. So, unless Susskind and proponents of such unphysical things can bring the extraordinary proof demanded by the same physicists and scientists who put that same burden on others who make extraordinary claims which on the face of it go against physical and logical known factors and mainstream understandings (and not just mathematical physicist understandings and exploratory unphysical 'legitimate solutions'), than I ask that this 'idea' is mere speculative "publish or perish" offering which should not at this stage be given any 'mantle of respectibility' simply because its authors are 'professionals'.

Even the linked comments and quotes that paddoboy has posted admit, that the above mentioned things were always, and still are, in the 'science fiction/fantasy' category, and must not therefore be mistaken for actual scientific possibilities despite the generous tendency to say "oh well it COULD be possible". If any crank said that about their own particular 'science fiction/fantasy' claims, you and most here would laugh them into silence and ionvoke the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs', and probably insult them personally to boot!

Thanks for your kind attention, James R. I trust you now have a fuller and more correct impression as to what is what in this, yet another, paddoboy-confused thread/exchange. Best wishes for a quick recovery from the headache which must be raging every time you see the messes made by the usual instigator of these kinds of messes which test your patience and your time. Whatever the result, thanks anyway, for I know you have at least tried your best to bring some reason and decorum into the threads, James R.

 

[paddoboy]

Another paper on the nature of worm holes:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.06375v4.pdf

Black Hole as a Wormhole Factory:

Abstract:
There have been lots of debates about the final fate of an evaporating black hole and the singularity hidden by an event horizon in quantum gravity. However, on general grounds, one may argue that a black hole stops radiation at the Planck mass (¯hc/G ) 1 / 2 ∼ 10 − 5 g, where the radiated energy is comparable to the black hole’s mass. And also, it has been argued that there would be a wormhole-like structure, known as “space-time foam”, due to large fluctuations below the Planck length (¯hG/c 3 ) 1 / 2 ∼ 10 −33cm. In this paper, as an explicit example, we consider an exact classical solution which represents nicely those two properties in a recently proposed quantum gravity model based on different scaling dimensions between space and time coordinates. The solution, called “Black Wormhole”, consists of two different states, depending on its mass parameter M and an IR parameter ω: For the black hole state (with ωM 2 > 1 /2), a non-traversable wormhole occupies the interior region of the black hole around the singularity at the origin, whereas for the wormhole state (with ωM 2 < 1 /2), the interior wormhole is exposed to an outside observer a s the black hole horizon is disappeared from evaporation. The black hole state becomes thermodynamically stable as it approaches to the merge point where the interior wormhole throat and the black hole horizon merges, and the Hawking temperature vanishes at the exact merge point (with ωM 2 = 1 /2). This solution suggests the “Generalized Cosmic Censorship” by the existence of a wormhole-like structure which protects the naked singularity even after the black hole evaporation. One could understand the would-be wormhole inside the black hole horizon as the results of microscopic wormholes created by “negative” energy quanta which have entered the black hole horizon in Hawking radiation processes; the quantum black hole could be a wormhole factory ! It is found that this speculative picture may be consistent with the recent “ER = EP R” proposal for resolving the black hole entanglement debates.

 

[paddoboy]

Worth repeating, the important tail piece of my post 61:

“Of course that doesn’t mean that one should stop looking, we should always look for what’s out there, however, I wouldn’t hold my breath.”
[Highlights by me in case of any knee jerk reactions and supporting what my view is]
"No reputable physicist would say that they categorically do not exist"

 

[paddoboy]

Here's some info on quantum/worm hole entanglement:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150424-wormholes-entanglement-firewalls-er-epr/

Wormholes Untangle a Black Hole Paradox
A bold new idea aims to link two famously discordant descriptions of nature. In doing so, it may also reveal how space-time owes its existence to the spooky connections of quantum information.


One hundred years after Albert Einstein developed his general theory of relativity, physicists are still stuck with perhaps the biggest incompatibility problem in the universe. The smoothly warped space-time landscape that Einstein described is like a painting by Salvador Dalí — seamless, unbroken, geometric. But the quantum particles that occupy this space are more like something from Georges Seurat: pointillist, discrete, described by probabilities. At their core, the two descriptions contradict each other. Yet a bold new strain of thinking suggests that quantum correlations between specks of impressionist paint actually create not just Dalí’s landscape, but the canvases that both sit on, as well as the three-dimensional space around them. And Einstein, as he so often does, sits right in the center of it all, still turning things upside-down from beyond the grave.

Like initials carved in a tree, ER = EPR, as the new idea is known, is a shorthand that joins two ideas proposed by Einstein in 1935. One involved the paradox implied by what he called “spooky action at a distance” between quantum particles (the EPR paradox, named for its authors, Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen). The other showed how two black holes could be connected through far reaches of space through “wormholes” (ER, for Einstein-Rosen bridges). At the time that Einstein put forth these ideas — and for most of the eight decades since — they were thought to be entirely unrelated.


But if ER = EPR is correct, the ideas aren’t disconnected — they’re two manifestations of the same thing. And this underlying connectedness would form the foundation of all space-time. Quantum entanglement — the action at a distance that so troubled Einstein — could be creating the “spatial connectivity” that “sews space together,” according to Leonard Susskind, a physicist at Stanford University and one of the idea’s main architects. Without these connections, all of space would “atomize,” according to Juan Maldacena, a physicist at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., who developed the idea together with Susskind. “In other words, the solid and reliable structure of space-time is due to the ghostly features of entanglement,” he said. What’s more, ER = EPR has the potential to address how gravity fits together with quantum mechanics.

Not everyone’s buying it, of course (nor should they; the idea is in “its infancy,” said Susskind). Joe Polchinski, a researcher at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, whose own stunning paradox about firewalls in the throats of black holes triggered the latest advances, is cautious, but intrigued. “I don’t know where it’s going,” he said, “but it’s a fun time right now.”
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Should be plenty more papers/articles on entanglement, negative energy, and how they interact with worm holes.
Back later to see what I can find.

 

[expletives deleted]

@ James R:

Please, James, can you please justify to me, under the rules, how paddoboy can get away with repetitive and unnecessary reposting of bits and pieces which have already been read or already known from general backgrounding etc; and so need not be repeated for any real reason of narrative of understanding necessity?

And how many times need paddoboy post GRATUITOUSLY his SAME OPINION already posted by him many times?

How many times have moderators made clear that unwarranted repetitive posting of material for no cogent reason is not acceptable? As it buries the crucial posts and narrative in a flurry of unnecessary clutter, and makes your job harder and the discussion points hard to discern in their proper order and content in the exchanges when moderator attention is called in. Is it whinging to point out this latest gratuitous and rule breaking post from paddobnoy? I leave that to your consideration in context here. Thanks. Best.

On Edit: See what I meant earlier, about his clutter and tactics designed to bury and confused (especially when he is not going well)? I posted the above appeal to you in open forum because if I Reported it then the usual anonymous responder would say something like stop wasting out time and sort it out in the thread or whatever. Or even stop whinging to moderators and deal with it in the thread. It's catch-22 territory!

 

[paddoboy]

From the previous paper:
"But if ER = EPR is correct, the ideas aren’t disconnected — they’re two manifestations of the same thing. And this underlying connectedness would form the foundation of all space-time. Quantum entanglement — the action at a distance that so troubled Einstein "

While the fact remains that the reality of wormholes is that they most certainly cannot be said to categorically not exist, then could taking into account Professor Susskind's paper and the statement above, maybe just possible after more research, lead us to that holy grail of physics and cosmology, a TOE!
Just the thoughts of an interested bystander.

 

[The God]

How to effectively handle Paddoboy is
neither known to you nor to me and nor to Mods.

As per site rules unnecessary copy pastes wherever link can be given should be avoided and it shd be clearly mentioned what purpose is served by copy pastes but then Paddoboy has stretched it too far.

 

[paddoboy]

How to effectively handle Paddoboy is
neither known to you nor to me and nor to Mods.

As per site rules unnecessary copy pastes wherever link can be given should be avoided and it shd be clearly mentioned what purpose is served by copy pastes but then Paddoboy has stretched it too far.

Talk science instead of trash just for the sake of it.

 

[The God]

While the fact remains that the reality of wormholes is that they most certainly cannot be said to categorically not exist, then could taking into account Professor Susskind's paper and the statefment above, maybe just possible after more research, lead us to that holy grail of physics and cosmology, a TOE!
Just the thoughts of an interested bystander.

What a joke....how can one talk science with you..

 

[paddoboy]

From my previous link:

What a joke....how can one talk science with you..

Easy: forget your god of the gaps argument.....come down to Earth and realise that you or nobody else will ever invalidate any mainstream accepted theory from the realms of a science forum....forget your ego....accept that you are not a professional.....your peers are judging and will judge you.

 

[The God]

From my previous link:

Easy: forget your god of the gaps argument.....come down to Earth and realise that you or nobody else will ever invalidate any mainstream accepted theory from the realms of a science forum....forget your ego....accept that you are not a professional.....your peers are judging and will judge you.

Talk science instead of trash just for the sake of it..

 

[paddoboy]

From the last paper....................
“In other words, the solid and reliable structure of space-time is due to the ghostly features of entanglement,” he said. What’s more, ER = EPR has the potential to address how gravity fits together with quantum mechanics"
Probably all in line with string theory and its many derevitives and QLG that I believe Professor Susskind is heavily involved in as well. Also, obviously and possibly addressing that long sought after holy grail I mentioned earlier...a TOE.
All highly theoretical stuff that as yet despite the mathematical beauty thereof, at this time totally unobservable for any validating.
As the Professor said, “I don’t know where it’s going,” he said, “but it’s a fun time right now.” and of course without question the raod ahead will be a long hard slog, but totally worth it if at the end they are able to formulate/discover the TOE.

Considering that once an otherwise great scientist, Lord Kelvin, made a remark in a letter to a friend re some aeronautical club or such, that he could see no future in manned flying craft around 10 years before the Wright Brothers. And the same bloke was again rather short sighted when he made another monumental statement around the turn of the century[19th/20th] from memory, that all that was to be discovered, was discovered..translated: Physics was at the end of the road!
Likewise time dilation, gravitational lensing, etc, as predicted by GR, were all "science fiction" not so long ago, and so realistically, although many problems involved, it is rather rash to say that worm holes do not exist, and once again, no rational, reputable scientist would say that wormholes categorically do not exist, not withstanding idle conversation and totally unsupported rhetoric discussed on a remote science forum.

 

[James R]

expletives deleted:

Regarding your concerns about moderation, as it happens, I have recently had an almost mirror-image exchange by private messaging about such things with paddoboy. You two are perhaps more alike than you realise.

Ordinarily, I would prefer to do this by private conversation, but since you have chosen to do it publically I will make a few brief comments here.

Re advice from moderators re appropriate mode of communication with others for resolution disagreements; and re the tone and style of the post and its content:

I was advised to "just press the Report button, don't engage".

When I followed that advice, I was then re-advised "sort it out in the thread" instead.

Now that I am trying to do just that, I am re-re-advised to use the Private Conversation route.

The problem is the mixed messages issuing from across the various moderatos advising from time to time.

What you see as mixed messages possibly comes from a confusion you may have regarding what issues are appropriate for discussion in the public forums and what issues are appropriate to refer to moderators.

If another member clearly breaches our site posting guidelines in some way, it may be appropriate to draw the matter to the attention of the moderators using the "report" function. Thus, for example, if a member were to call you names or insult you, or to post spam or hate speech, you would be well advised to hit the "report" button and let the moderators attend to the matter. We advise, for example, that if another member tells you to go and fornicate with yourself, you should not get angry and respond in kind, because doing so may result in both of you receiving official warnings.

On the other hand, if a member merely posts on-topic about something with which you happen to disagree, appropriate courses of action might be (a)to ignore it; or (b) respond on-topic in the relevant thread, without breaching the site rules (of course). You might, for example, choose to argue the point, without insulting the other member, of course. It would not be appropriate in these circumstances to hit "report" and complain to the moderators that "The member is obviously trolling the thread by posting incorrect information. Please correct him. We can't allow this pseudoscientific nonsense/lies here." If you were to hit "report" in this kind of of example, a moderator might well tell to you "sort it out in the thread".

See the distinction? In one case, you would be referring a breach of the site rules to moderators for attention. In the other case you would be having a disagreement about a topic, within the site rules, which does not require moderator intervention.

In our posting guidelines, you will not find a rule that says that a poster must be correct about things. We don't moderate people just because they are wrong about something, and you (generic "you") shouldn't expect us to. If you have a disagreement, you ought to be able to resolve it in a reasonable fashion in the thread. Ideally, this is a site for adults who can self-regulate and carry on a courteous conversation, even when they disagree. Moderators step in only when certain members turn out to be unable to control themselves and when they forget that there's a human being on the other end of their internet connection.

What we (the moderators) are finding of late is that we are receiving a truly extraordinary number of reports from just a handful of posters. And we're also finding that even when there are legitimate breaches of our posting guidelines reported by a member, it often turns out on closer examination that the reporting member has breached the same guidelines in a similar manner to the person they are reporting.

Now, as moderators, in such situations we have two choices: (1) we can moderate all parties who turn out to have breached our guidelines, which could include the original reportee and reporter, or (2) we can reject the report, essentially saying "you're in no position to expect somebody else to be punished for behaviour that you are also engaging in". Often, moderators tend to opt for solution (2) rather than (1), which is actually a favour to the "combatants" who are trying to use the moderators as weapons in their personal battles. It also makes our lives a little easier, because we don't have to deal with the more insistent complaints that we tend to get from certain people who believe the rules should only apply to others and not to them. But we're currently considering making it a policy to adopt approach (1) as a default rule, because that's what the most prolific reporters here seem to want - even though to us it appears like those people are potentially undermining their own interests. So, we might see how that goes for a while. I suspect that certain people will be unhappy.

And re the Private Conversation route:

Given how paddoboy has a bad habit of mischaracterizing others words and intents, even in open forum, as many have remarked upon, I am wary of engaging him via Private Conversations which may open a whole other can of worms for moderators. Eg, if a dispute arises as to who said what, it would require even more problematic resolution processes.

Private conversations are private. Moderators cannot read your private conversations. Interactions between members in private conversations are just like emailing each other, in effect. It would be an extraordinary circumstance in which we would ever delve into private conversations - probably it would have to involve actual threatening or otherwise illegal behaviour.

To put that a different way: don't complain to us about something somebody said in a private message. You are not obliged to receive private messages from anybody other than moderators, and you have the option of blocking any other member from contacting you.

And even in my Private Conversations with moderators, it has become clear to me that prejudicial general impressions and inter-moderator issues etc produce mischaracterized and bedside-the-point 'decisions' from whatever moderator is left holding the bag when the Report blizzards have to be 'cleared up' even when time and investigation resources are insufficient and or unwilling to be applied to actually understand the full situation before responding to the reported issue.

You should keep in mind that while you are obviously aware of what you report and how the moderators interact with you, you do not see the reports that other people make, or other people's interactions with moderators via private messaging or official warnings.

For example, you complain that paddoboy gets a "free ride" because you report him and your reports are sometimes rejected. And he makes exactly the same complaints about you. And you two are no the only ones who see things that way.

You give the moderators too little credit if you believe we do not properly investigate the context in which a particular report is made, and therefore do not understand the "full situation". Our job is (again, ideally) to objectively evaluate the full situation and to consider both "sides" of a report where there is room for interpretation.

Again, I have merely responded to what the INSTIGATOR has already done 'in spades' (and not as politely or reasonably as I did in response!). His constant use of 'familiarity' and demeaning characterizations and downright lying about the person he is insulting, is there for all to see, and has been too often the cause of much of the reports and the trouble that arises when paddoboy enters a thread in his usual manner that usually ends up reported and so dragging in moderators who have better things to do with their their valuable time.

And again, you might be surprised to learn that other people have made mirror-image comments about your "instigating" behaviour.

This is not a defence of paddoboy, by the way.

Also worth mentioning is that the self-justification from a participant in a flame war that "he started it first!" doesn't usually impress the moderators very much. The best time to report another member's bad behaviour is when one's own behaviour in respect of that member is beyond reproach. Otherwise, your report is prone to look self-serving.

The moderators are not fools. Our report and warning system is not an "extra" weapon to be used as part of one's arsenal in prosecuting a personal vendetta. But some members apparently think they can "game" us in that way.

--
I'm not sure whether this response helps you at all, but there it is.

 

[James R]

expletives deleted:

Back to the topic of the thread...

As 'legitimate' as solutions were once upon a time claimed to be for "singularities" at the center of black holes. But as you must be aware by now, we have since dispelled that 'blind-faith-in-math' based 'belief' in such things; not only dispelled by GR mathematical-theorists themselves, but also by Quantum Theorists.

Singularities are still legitimate solutions of the GR equations. We have good reasons to suspect that singularities might turn out not to be physical but merely an artifact of GR being a classical theory. But I do not believe that the physical existence of singularities has been conclusively "disproven" at the current time.

You see the point, James R? Making a claim based on unphysical absurdities issuing from unreasonable extrapolation of the maths is not 'science'; but rather 'pure maths explorations' extending beyond the real physical domain of applicability of what after all is supposed to be a physical theory even though its language is couched in mathematical terms and models.

In physics, theory and experiment/observation constantly interact. Sometimes theory leads experiment; sometimes experiment leads theory. Those "pure maths explorations" often turn out to lead to useful insights and new discoveries. The theory of relativity itself started as a "pure maths exploration". So did much of modern quantum physics.

Hence the "BH singularity" and "Wormhole" and "Naked Singularities" concepts being increasingly reclassified by mainstream as "unphysical solutions" most un-likely to actually exist in physical fact, even if they 'exist' as pure maths abstractions.

I am not (yet) personally convinced that wormholes are unphysical. But, admittedly, I'm not an expert in the field and it has been a while since I've studied up on wormhole theory, so perhaps I'm out of date. That's why I asked whether you had any links to material showing that wormholes are indeed "unphysical". For example, I am aware of some proposals for creating regions of "negative energy density", as is required by the "exotic matter" in some wormhole theories. But maybe those ideas have proven untenable. I don't know.

And is there a proven "no naked singularities" theorem of some sort, or does that remain speculative?

When a 'crank' claims something 'exists', they are reminded that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" The same stricture applies to ALL claims irrespctive of who makes them. Agreed?

So it is not encumbent upon ME to "disprove" the 'exotic energy' and wormhole' and singularities and 'entangled black holes' etc, is it? It is up to their proponents to present extraordinary proof.

Yes, of course.

I merely question your apparent certainty that those things are impossible. I do not dispute that it remains to be shown that any of them actually exist "in reality".

Moreover, my main point in my previous post was to question the idea that theories of exotic energy or wormholes are pseudoscientific. The fact that a hypothesis is unproven does not make it pseudoscientific, as you know.

I have highlighted the "you seem" phrase in your above comment, because it is an indication that the "seeming" is what may be the problem here.

For example, as usual in most threads and discussions into which paddoboy has inserted himself and his usual distractions and confusions and mischaracterizations and clutter (as you've seen for yourself all too often by now), it becomes a mess which moderators have no time to scrabble through to get what is actually going on, and may be under the wrong impression of what has happened.

I was trying to address what you wrote. That has nothing to do with anything paddoboy wrote. Does it?

CLOSING COMMENTS: The actual issue here is two-pronged:

On the one prong: the OP 'idea' itself by Susskind. It is merely a qualitative opinion that ER + EPR. No more, no less; as they admit, since no real investigation as to the mathematical and physical aspects' "equality" has yet started. So whether this Susskind OP 'idea' is termed an alternative or 'pseudoscience' speculation not yet having mainstream support, is up to the reader.

Fair enough.

On the other prong: for its scientific validity, physicality possibilities and claimed "equality" in fact (as distinct in loose "equality" in the qualitative terms it is currently posed in, the conceptual products involved in this Susskind 'idea' will ultimately depend on the existence of "wormholes", "singularities/naked singularities", "entangled black holes" and "exotic energy"....all of which have already been increasingly discounted on known quantum and other general physical considerations let alone logical ones. So, unless Susskind and proponents of such unphysical things can bring the extraordinary proof demanded by the same physicists and scientists who put that same burden on others who make extraordinary claims which on the face of it go against physical and logical known factors and mainstream understandings (and not just mathematical physicist understandings and exploratory unphysical 'legitimate solutions'), than I ask that this 'idea' is mere speculative "publish or perish" offering which should not at this stage be given any 'mantle of respectibility' simply because its authors are 'professionals'.

I think that we should not discount out of hand a suggestion made by a professional physicist of Susskind's calibre. He's not your run-of-the-mill backyard crank making up fantasies based on a misunderstanding of the relevant physical theory. I'd say he has earned a hearing.

On the other hand, I completely agree with you that the onus is on him to make a convincing case, and not for others to prove him wrong.

Regarding the specific proposal that forms the topic of this thread, I can't comment - I admit I haven't looked into the matter. Therefore, I keep an open mind on this for now.

Thanks for your kind attention, James R. I trust you now have a fuller and more correct impression as to what is what in this, yet another, paddoboy-confused thread/exchange.

I have a fuller impression about your view of the matter. The question of correctness remains unresolved for me.

Best wishes for a quick recovery from the headache which must be raging every time you see the messes made by the usual instigator of these kinds of messes which test your patience and your time.

Keep in mind that I have posted in this thread in two separate capacities. One is as a moderately-interested participant in the discussion of the thread topic. The other is as a moderator responding to issues raised regarding moderation of the forum. If I was not interested in the topic, I would have restricted myself to commenting on the moderation matters alone.

 

[paddoboy]

I have a fuller impression about your view of the matter. The question of correctness remains unresolved for me.

And that is the basis of this rather pedantic debate.
As I have asked many times, for any reference, link or citation of a reputable physicist that claims worm holes categorically do not exist. That has never been forthcoming.
Every article/paper that I have linked to, have ranged from, yes the probability is there for the existence of worm holes, to probably unlikely that they exist.
But no where does any physicist say that they categorically do not exist. In that respect, as I said earlier, the best we can say is that we are not sure, or we do not know.

 

[paddoboy]

And obviously continued research into the possibility of worm holes, will always continue, just as the following article emphasises...................
http://www.universetoday.com/118423...e-a-huge-wormhole-thats-stable-and-navigable/

Our very own Milky Way could be home to a giant tunnel in spacetime.

At least, that’s what the authors of a new study have proposed. According to the team, a collaboration between Indian, Italian, and North American researchers at the International School for Advanced Studies (SISSA) in Italy, the central halo of our galaxy may harbor enough dark matter to support the creation and sustenance of a “stable and navigable” shortcut to a distant region of spacetime – a phenomenon known as a wormhole.

extract:
But according to the team at SISSA, large amounts of dark matter could provide this fuel. Using a model of dark matter’s abundance that is based on the rotation curves of other spiral galaxies, the researchers found that the distribution of dark matter in the Milky Way produced solutions in general relativity that would, theoretically, allow a stable wormhole to arise.
more at link.....
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

[paddoboy]

The paper:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.00490v1.pdf
5th Jan: 2015:

Possible existence of wormholes in the central regions of halos:


Abstract:
An earlier study [1, 2] has demonstrated the possible existence of wormholes in the outer regions of the galactic halo, based on the Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) density profile. This paper uses the Universal Rotation Curve (URC) dark matter model to obtain analogous results for the central parts of the halo. This result is an important compliment to the earlier result, thereby confirming the possible existence of wormholes in most of the spiral galaxies.


Concluding remarks:
The possible existence of wormholes in the outer regions of the halo was discussed in Ref. [1], based on the NFW density profile. Possible detection by means of gravitational lensing, discussed in Ref. [2], has shown that the basic features, such as the throat size, are independent of the position within the halo. Because of certain discrepancies discovered near the center, this paper uses the observationally motivated URC dark matter density profile instead in order to accommodate the region closer to the center of the halo. This center is also the center of the wormhole. It is subsequently shown that the solution obtained satisfies all the criteria for the existence of a wormhole, particularly the violation of the null energy condition. In the special case of the Milky Way galaxy, if the throat radius r = r0 coincides with the radius of the core, then b ′ (r0) ≈ 1.74×10−6 , thereby meeting the flare-out condition. A similar result can be expected for most spiral galaxies. Thus our result is very important because it confirms the possible existence of wormholes in most of the spiral galaxies. Scientists remain silent on whether it is possible to manufacture or create of the exotic matter violating null energy condition in laboratory. As a result the construction of a wormhole geometry in our real world is extremely difficult. However in the galactic halo region, dark matter may supply the fuel for constructing and sustaining a wormhole. Hence, wormholes could be found in nature and our study may encourage scientists to seek observational evidence for wormholes in the galactic halo region.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

The paper:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.00490v1.pdf
5th Jan: 2015:

Possible existence of wormholes in the central regions of halos:

...Linked and addressed 55 Post earlier...

As noted by a reputable Scientist : Dr. Matthew R. Francis - https://bowlerhatscience.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/resume_matthewrfrancis.pdf

" A lot of science fiction plot devices are devoted to getting around the speed of light. In the real Universe, nothing with mass can travel faster than light, which means we can’t travel to distant stars without taking decades, centuries, or longer in transit. So, sci-fi draws from teleportation, hyperdrive, warp drive, and the ultimate cosmic short-cut: wormholes.[1]

In some cases, the source of a science fiction concept actually is in physics — though it rarely looks the same in fiction as in reality. (Ain’t that the truth for so many things?) And of course many scientists are sci-fi fans, who have tried to determine if any of these schemes actually work with physics as we know it. A lot of these calculations are for fun or for curiosity, but whether with serious intent or not, the science is pretty clear: without something unexpected, the speed of light is still the limit. We can’t get from here to a distant star system instantly, no matter how much we want to.[2]

I’m as disappointed by this as anyone, though I won’t let it stop me from enjoying Star Trek and the rest. It’s important to remember that scientists like me don’t shoot down sci-fi ideas because we hate them: we just need to keep ourselves grounded in what successful theories and experiments tell us about the world.

For that reason, I got a little grumpfy last week when a press release from SISSA (Scuola Internazionale Superiore di Studi Avanzati, or the International School for Advanced Studies for those of us who don’t speak Italian) claimed researchers showed that our galaxy could harbor a huge wormhole, powered by dark matter. [ http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.00490 ] Thankfully most outlets didn’t pick up on the story (apart from Universe Today, which loves to run uncritical stories about wild speculative science). However, I got enough questions via Twitter and Facebook that I thought it’s worth going over what established science tells us about wormholes and dark matter.

Briefly stated: wormholes probably don’t exist in real life, for a wide variety of reasons from general relativity and quantum physics. To make matters worse, the way the new paper treats dark matter contradicts a lot of research in cosmology, and flatly is ruled out by existing observations in the Milky Way. Let’s start from the beginning….
What is a wormhole?"
- ^^above quoted^^ from : https://galileospendulum.org/2015/01/26/why-wormholes-probably-dont-exist/

 

[paddoboy]

...Linked and addressed 55 Post earlier...

All duly noted dmoe, but the fact remains that no physicist worth his name, will say categorically that worm holes do not exist.
We have no evidence as yet of any, so yes, they are still fiction of the science type, or a speculative hypothetical if you will. But speculative hypotheticals and fiction are still open science: Gravitational waves, time dilation, cosmological redshift, the expanding universe, were also at one time "science fiction" and/or simply hypothetical.
And that is why the professional experts such as Professor Susskind and the others whose papers I have linked to, are maintaining the scientific method, and still conducting research, theoretical and otherwise.
And that is what James is trying to tell expletive deleted.
But your addition to harmless discussion on a science forum is always noted.
You have a good day now, ya hear!