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

@ paddoboy:

First of all I note that you have come across the work by Carrol's team to which I alluded earlier.
Obviously what you are alluding to, is a continuation of the apparent delusional nature of your posts in general.
Professor Carroll, just like Professor Susskind, and unlike yourself and myself, are professional colleagues, considering research into many aspects of the OP and paper involved.
In that respect both eminent men agree as to the present speculative nature of the paper/s, plus the fact that neither would ever be so foolish as to say, that worm holes categorically do not exist, as most other reputable scientists would agree.
But you continue to have a good day, ya hear! ;)
ps: Apologies at this time for ignoring the bulk of your rhetoric.....same old same old! and all unsupported and without citation. :)

At this stage of proceedings I have deleted without reading, the rest of your lengthy rhetorical diatribe and remind you of what another great once said......
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
 
Last edited:
In the meantime here is another article discussing research and data and speculative scenarios re entanglement and wormholes.

http://news.mit.edu/2013/you-cant-get-entangled-without-a-wormhole-1205

You can’t get entangled without a wormhole
MIT physicist finds the creation of entanglement simultaneously gives rise to a wormhole.

Jennifer Chu, MIT News Office
December 5, 2013


Quantum entanglement is one of the more bizarre theories to come out of the study of quantum mechanics — so strange, in fact, that Albert Einstein famously referred to it as “spooky action at a distance.”

Essentially, entanglement involves two particles, each occupying multiple states at once — a condition referred to as superposition. For example, both particles may simultaneously spin clockwise and counterclockwise. But neither has a definite state until one is measured, causing the other particle to instantly assume a corresponding state. The resulting correlations between the particles are preserved, even if they reside on opposite ends of the universe.

But what enables particles to communicate instantaneously — and seemingly faster than the speed of light — over such vast distances? Earlier this year, physicists proposed an answer in the form of “wormholes,” or gravitational tunnels. The group showed that by creating two entangled black holes, then pulling them apart, they formed a wormhole — essentially a “shortcut” through the universe — connecting the distant black holes.

Now an MIT physicist has found that, looked at through the lens of string theory, the creation of two entangled quarks — the building blocks of matter — simultaneously gives rise to a wormhole connecting the pair.

The theoretical results bolster the relatively new and exciting idea that the laws of gravity holding together the universe may not be fundamental, but arise from something else: quantum entanglement.

Julian Sonner, a senior postdoc in MIT’s Laboratory for Nuclear Science and Center for Theoretical Physics, has published his results in the journal Physical Review Letters, where it appears together with a related paper by Kristan Jensen of the University of Victoria and Andreas Karch of the University of Washington.

The tangled web that is gravity

Ever since quantum mechanics was first proposed more than a century ago, the main challenge for physicists in the field has been to explain gravity in quantum-mechanical terms. While quantum mechanics works extremely well in describing interactions at a microscopic level, it fails to explain gravity — a fundamental concept of relativity, a theory proposed by Einstein to describe the macroscopic world. Thus, there appears to be a major barrier to reconciling quantum mechanics and general relativity; for years, physicists have tried to come up with a theory of quantum gravity to marry the two fields.

“There are some hard questions of quantum gravity we still don’t understand, and we’ve been banging our heads against these problems for a long time,” Sonner says. “We need to find the right inroads to understanding these questions.”

A theory of quantum gravity would suggest that classical gravity is not a fundamental concept, as Einstein first proposed, but rather emerges from a more basic, quantum-based phenomenon. In a macroscopic context, this would mean that the universe is shaped by something more fundamental than the forces of gravity.

This is where quantum entanglement could play a role. It might appear that the concept of entanglement — one of the most fundamental in quantum mechanics — is in direct conflict with general relativity: Two entangled particles, “communicating” across vast distances, would have to do so at speeds faster than that of light — a violation of the laws of physics, according to Einstein. It may therefore come as a surprise that using the concept of entanglement in order to build up space-time may be a major step toward reconciling the laws of quantum mechanics and general relativity.

Tunneling to the fifth dimension

In July, physicists Juan Maldacena of the Institute for Advanced Study and Leonard Susskind of Stanford University proposed a theoretical solution in the form of two entangled black holes. When the black holes were entangled, then pulled apart, the theorists found that what emerged was a wormhole — a tunnel through space-time that is thought to be held together by gravity. The idea seemed to suggest that, in the case of wormholes, gravity emerges from the more fundamental phenomenon of entangled black holes.

Following up on work by Jensen and Karch, Sonner has sought to tackle this idea at the level of quarks — subatomic building blocks of matter. To see what emerges from two entangled quarks, he first generated quarks using the Schwinger effect — a concept in quantum theory that enables one to create particles out of nothing. More precisely, the effect, also called “pair creation,” allows two particles to emerge from a vacuum, or soup of transient particles. Under an electric field, one can, as Sonner puts it, “catch a pair of particles” before they disappear back into the vacuum. Once extracted, these particles are considered entangled.

Sonner mapped the entangled quarks onto a four-dimensional space, considered a representation of space-time. In contrast, gravity is thought to exist in the next dimension as, according to Einstein’s laws, it acts to “bend” and shape space-time, thereby existing in the fifth dimension.

To see what geometry may emerge in the fifth dimension from entangled quarks in the fourth, Sonner employed holographic duality, a concept in string theory. While a hologram is a two-dimensional object, it contains all the information necessary to represent a three-dimensional view. Essentially, holographic duality is a way to derive a more complex dimension from the next lowest dimension.

Using holographic duality, Sonner derived the entangled quarks, and found that what emerged was a wormhole connecting the two, implying that the creation of quarks simultaneously creates a wormhole. More fundamentally, the results suggest that gravity may, in fact, emerge from entanglement. What’s more, the geometry, or bending, of the universe as described by classical gravity, may be a consequence of entanglement, such as that between pairs of particles strung together by tunneling wormholes.

“It’s the most basic representation yet that we have where entanglement gives rise to some sort of geometry,” Sonner says. “What happens if some of this entanglement is lost, and what happens to the geometry? There are many roads that can be pursued, and in that sense, this work can turn out to be very helpful.”
 
Note the very words you used have dynamited your own argument:

claimed that wormholes do in fact exist


No, they do not "in fact" exist. They do "in fiction" exist.

Where I come from, fact and fantasy are distinct.

And, considering we're in one of the hard science sub-forums. let's keep it that way.

(Otherwise I'd like to disccus my thoughts on Carroll's Frumious Bandersnatch.)

To be sure, DaveC426913, ...wormholes do in fact exist...in Science Fiction ; for fun or for curiosity ; in wild speculative science ; in hypothetical constructs ; in Mathematical exercises...
....just not in Reality!!!!
Phrasing, semantics...I am not a professor of English Or Literature...
You know very well what I was Stating, DaveC426913 : It is a fact that wormholes exist in Science-Fiction - Fictional wormholes, but those imaginary fictional wormholes are not manifest in Physical Reality...

Oh, and yes..."Beware the Jabberwock", DaveC426913

D O N E !
 
It seems some erratic claims re a previous poster that I never attended university and just rattle off "pop science/s articles" does need a reply of sorts. :)
So far the opposition to the fact that "no scientist/cosmologist will ever categorically say that worm holes do not exist," all supposedly attended uni, while I did not. The same poster then fails to enlighten the forum as to what areas of study their apparent courses were in.....one a glorified electrician and the others totally irrelevant areas not related to cosmology.
While I certainly did not attend uni, I have read heaps of reputable material of professionals that are trained in the relevant discipline, and as a result am able to sort the wheat from the chaff with regards to those former university attendants and their own various courses, unrelated to cosmology. This fact appears to have created apparent delusions of grandeur in them believing they are able to logically invalidate the professionals I have linked to and the scientific papers, that some of our delusional friends refer to as "pop science"
A cop out argument that god botherers and cranks often use in their evangelistic crusades against accepted mainstream science.
 
In essence my friend expletive deleted, the god are making totally unsupported claims not just here, but elsewhere, re 21st century cosmology in general:
Let me list their apparent "modus opernadi" so far......
[1] Making non mainstream claims [their right] but refusing to support with reputable link.
[2] The usual preacher style pretentious and condascending nature of their posts.
[3] The unknown factor as to their credentials and qualifications [if any]
[4] Expecting the forum to accept their non mainstream claims without knowing the qualifications etc
[5]Unsupported unqualified nonsense as is evidenced in other threads similar to here, such as in the DM, cosmological redshift, gravitational waves threads.

Let's state it again very clearly: Wormholes are a speculative concept that is predicted by GR. And while problems would exist as to their nature, the fact remains that no professional scientist/cosmologist, will ever say that wormholes categorically do not exist. We have never seen them or have evidence of them, but the overwhelmingly observed success of GR, still leads that possibility open.
Unless of course someone is able to support any other stance with citations, links or references.
But obviously that will not happen. :rolleyes:
 
It seems some erratic claims re a previous poster that I never attended university and just rattle off "pop science/s articles" does need a reply of sorts. :)
So far the opposition to the fact that "no scientist/cosmologist will ever categorically say that worm holes do not exist," all supposedly attended uni, while I did not. The same poster then fails to enlighten the forum as to what areas of study their apparent courses were in.....one a glorified electrician and the others totally irrelevant areas not related to cosmology.
While I certainly did not attend uni, I have read heaps of reputable material of professionals that are trained in the relevant discipline, and as a result am able to sort the wheat from the chaff with regards to those former university attendants and their own various courses, unrelated to cosmology. This fact appears to have created apparent delusions of grandeur in them believing they are able to logically invalidate the professionals I have linked to and the scientific papers, that some of our delusional friends refer to as "pop science"
A cop out argument that god botherers and cranks often use in their evangelistic crusades against accepted mainstream science.

1.) - Please "CITE" by properly "QUOTING" these "erratic claims".

2.) - Please provide your EVIDENCE that this "previous poster" did NOT Complete and Earn Credits in Relevant courses in Physics, Astrophysics and Cosmology while this "previous poster" was Earning Majors in other Disciplines.

And once again, why do you continue to refuse to acknowledge, paddoboy, that actually many Scientists have "categorically" claimed that wormholes do exist...in Science Fiction ; for fun or for curiosity ; in wild speculative science ; in hypothetical constructs ; in Mathematical exercises...
....just not in Reality?
 
Last edited:
Worth noting from the first paper re Professor Susskind and three rather notable quotes.......

Niels Bohr:
If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet .
Richard Feynman:
We have always had a great deal of difficulty understanding the world view that quantum mechanics represents. At least I do, because I’m an old enough man that I haven’t got to the point that this stuff is obvious to me. Okay, I still get nervous with it.... You know how it always is, every new idea, it takes a generation or two until it becomes obvious that there’s no real problem. I cannot define the real problem, therefore I suspect there’s no real problem, but I’m not sure there’s no real problem.
Paul Dirac:
There is hope that quantum mechanics will gradually lose its baffling quality...... I have observed in teaching quantum mechanics, and also in learning it, that students go through an experience.... The student begins by learning the tricks of the trade. He learns how to make calculations in quantum mechanics and get the right answers.....it is comparatively painless. The second stage comes when the student begins to worry because he does not understand what he has been doing. He worries because he has no clear physical picture in his head..... Then, unexpectedly, the third stage begins. The student suddenly says to himself, I understand quantum mechanics, or rather he says, I understand now that there isn’t anything to be understood..... The duration and severity of the second stage are decreasing as the years go by. Each new generation of students learns quantum mechanics more easily2 than their teachers learned it.....
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
 
Pl explain in your words, what is worm hole.
You're the one that dismisses all of 21st century cosmology, and worm holes...you explain it. :rolleyes:
Again the onus is on you and every other poster , on which the cap fits to show me any reputable physicists/cosmologist that will say that wormholes categorically do not exist. :)
 
Note the very words you used have dynamited your own argument:

claimed that wormholes do in fact exist


No, they do not "in fact" exist. They do "in fiction" exist.

Where I come from, fact and fantasy are distinct.

And, considering we're in one of the hard science sub-forums. let's keep it that way.
If you are saying that the question above is confusingly erratic and does not make much sense, I concur, and is why I'm ignoring such nonsense.
 
As you well know Engell, forums such as this are open to any Tom, Dick and Harry', most with various agendas including religious and the old god of the gaps arguments which they like to portray and suggest, albeit it ever so subtly, and we have our share of them here.
Of course you are correct, it is not impossible, although still highly theoretical, just as certain in fact that no physicists will ever say that wormholes do not categorically exist.
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?
 
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?

Good question and opens Pandora's box full of unanswerable questions. Say for example why can't they merge, what if they move ?
 
I do nothing but defend the position of a true professional in Professor Susskind and his research into a hypothetical that could lead to a QGT, as opposed to your own simple "tit for tat" and "so what" arguments.
No. You copypaste popular journalism about some ideas which you don't understand at all, and, therefore, are unable to defend at all. Simply because you have no other argument than that Susskind's speculations are mainstream but my theory not.

Of course, Susskind has the right to speculate about whatever he likes. Less fortunate is that he also has the power to spend a lot of taxpayer's money for such hopeless ideas. But, so what, there are not my money, and in the long run, it is the better approach which will win in science, not the taxpayer's money spend. And it is much better Susskind spends them for ER=EPR than Clinton for weapons for Al Qaida.
 
Sonner mapped the entangled quarks onto a four-dimensional space, considered a representation of space-time. In contrast, gravity is thought to exist in the next dimension as, according to Einstein’s laws, it acts to “bend” and shape space-time, thereby existing in the fifth dimension.
Facepalm.

A horrible example of bad science journalism. There is no fifth dimension in Einstein's GR (which seems to be what "Einstein's law" refers too).

Recommendation to paddoboy: Restrict yourself to posting good quotes from really good scientists, scientists who have been successful. Like Bohr, Feynman, Dirac. They have really reached something. And, even if their philosophy is not always unproblematic, it is at least not completely off. Moreover, their more philosophical comments are something people can understand without studying physics.

Stop copypasting bad science journalism (once you cannot distinguish, it is today almost always bad) about purely speculative things.
 
How many people have told you, Paddoboy, not to copy paste without first understanding the content ?
Just a few trolls, that's all. :)



No. You copypaste popular journalism about some ideas which you don't understand at all, and, therefore, are unable to defend at all. Simply because you have no other argument than that Susskind's speculations are mainstream but my theory not.
.
Wrong again Schmelzer and another example of your lack of professionalism.
Certainly I copy many popular journalism articles, but most are supported by scientific papers. I also make distinctions between speculative research as per Professor Susskind's article and paper, and your own mythical ether that languishes in oblivion while you play your "unprofessional" tit for tat, from the hard scientific research.
You should try it. :)
 
Last edited:
Stop copypasting bad science journalism (once you cannot distinguish, it is today almost always bad) about purely speculative things.
:D
I would not dream of copy and pasting anything about any mythical ether.
Plus as you have been told, my copy and paste articles, as per those by Plasma, are mostly supported by reputable scientific papers.
They will of course continue as I see fit, while you play your "tit for tat" game. :)
And anyone who is not aware of what I'm saying need only go to the political section and the Lawyer v's Business man thread and posts 85 and 86 in reply within that thread.
 
Last edited:
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?
Interesting question.... I'm unable to answer at this time, but I do have Thorne's excellent book, "Black Holes and Time Warps" and there is plenty of speculative stuff on worm holes there that I have forgotten.
Will see what I am able to find.
 
Back
Top