Slashdot Mirror
Traversable Wormholes Can Exist, But They're Not Very Useful For Space Travel, Physicists Say (phys.org)
A new study from physicists at Harvard and Stanford says that wormholes can exist but they're not very useful for humans to travel through. "It takes longer to get through these wormholes than to go directly, so they are not very useful for space travel," said the author of the study, Daniel Jafferis. From the report: Despite his pessimism for pan-galactic travel, he said that finding a way to construct a wormhole through which light could travel was a boost in the quest to develop a theory of quantum gravity. The new theory was inspired when Jafferis began thinking about two black holes that were entangled on a quantum level, as formulated in the ER=EPR correspondence by Juan Maldacena from the Institute for Advanced Study and Lenny Susskind from Stanford. Although this means the direct connection between the black holes is shorter than the wormhole connection -- and therefore the wormhole travel is not a shortcut -- the theory gives new insights into quantum mechanics.
"From the outside perspective, travel through the wormhole is equivalent to quantum teleportation using entangled black holes," Jafferis said. Jafferis based his theory on a setup first devised by Einstein and Rosen in 1935, consisting of a connection between two black holes (the term wormhole was coined in 1957). Because the wormhole is traversable, Jafferis said, it was a special case in which information could be extracted from a black hole. "It gives a causal probe of regions that would otherwise have been behind a horizon, a window to the experience of an observer inside a spacetime, that is accessible from the outside," said Jafferis. The physicists presented their results at the 2019 American Physical Society April Meeting in Denver, Colorado.
"From the outside perspective, travel through the wormhole is equivalent to quantum teleportation using entangled black holes," Jafferis said. Jafferis based his theory on a setup first devised by Einstein and Rosen in 1935, consisting of a connection between two black holes (the term wormhole was coined in 1957). Because the wormhole is traversable, Jafferis said, it was a special case in which information could be extracted from a black hole. "It gives a causal probe of regions that would otherwise have been behind a horizon, a window to the experience of an observer inside a spacetime, that is accessible from the outside," said Jafferis. The physicists presented their results at the 2019 American Physical Society April Meeting in Denver, Colorado.
It takes longer to get through these wormholes than to go directly, so they are not very useful for space travel," said the author of the study, Daniel Jafferis
These worm holes are better known as Jafferis' tubes.
As usual, the journey from "Actual Scientists" to "University PR Department" to "Idiot Journalists" to "News Aggregator Snippet" destroys half of the actual important information and context.
This *specific* wormhole configuration isn't helpful for space travel. They say nothing about the chances of finding a better one later.
Why are most people on the internet so fucking dumb now? Nobody has enough knowledge on literally any subject to make an intelligent post. It's all pseudoscience and conspiracy tards everywhere there's a public interface.
I was reading slashdot comments from 2014 today. They weren't bad, and were exceptional quality compared to today. Even the trolls and spam were of a higher standard, no joke.
Where the fuck did everyone go? Are they in Gault's gulch?
Did they give up on technology, abandoning the internet to iphone users who don't know their asshole from a 3.5mm jack?
Did they just decided to end it all, because they could see nothing would be good ever again?
But don't pack your bags for a trip to other side of the galaxy yet; although it's theoretically possible, it's not useful for humans to travel through ...
I had my bags packed.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Think a little harder, will ya. We needs us some efficient space travel, not useless slow wormholes!
So we have three models of velocity:
Quantum.... stuff moves randomly when you turn your back and don't look.
Relativity.... light has its own time context
Newtonian..... mass has some unexplained property momentum which somehow causes stuff to move....
This is the problem here, you have multiple models of velocity and selectively switch between them based on the situation. Here adding a "wormhole" between "blackholes", another type of motion, if only you can derive it from Quantum Mechanics...
So something is wrong here, and that means crossing out bad science.... i.e. Schrodinger.
Do electrons move randomly according to a probability model? No, they demonstrably do not. You even have experiments showing the electron returning to the same place at interval, if only you cool the system far enough.... i.e. Schrodinger is false so already you know where to start crossing out.
You can extend that experiment if you want, get it cool enough, find the interval and it will keep returning at multiples of the interval to the same place.
https://science.slashdot.org/story/19/03/13/2131241/physicists-reverse-time-using-quantum-computer
It's motion is more "dancing in an oscillating field" than that ridiculous "everywhere and nowehere, ninja particle". Unify velocity and start with a big red pen to cross out the crap science.
C'est la Vie
"So something is wrong here" = You have nearly no idea what you're yawning on about, but I do love watching your train of thought crash and you blame the track for curving too much for your speed and lack of specific concern.
Crap science > Your understanding of it Reality, giving zero fucks
Oh and on this.
From the above, you have already observed the electron returning back to the same place after an interval.
So (by observation) matter is in some sort of complex repeating oscillation, as observed with this electron experiment.
So photons interacting with that matter derive their properties from that repeating pattern in matter.
So photon X1 at t=1 and photon X2 at t=2, are not getting properties teleported between them.... you measure these properties (wavelength, polarization, etc.) by interacting these with matter and so their state must be the result of that oscillatory mode.
i.e. "Quantum teleportation" is false, because Schroginer is false.
When you observed the electron returning to the same place, when in probability by Schrodinger it would take on average 13.8 billion years to do that, you also gave a new model for the cause of entanglement like effects. i.e. matter is oscillating and in resonance.
---------
See the electron? See the charge dance around seemingly randomly?
If you create an electric field with these, those charges will even out because they are random according to Schrodinger.... except they're not.... so the electric field you create isn't a flat field, it's oscillating too. So what you think is an electric field, must really be an oscillating electric field.
i.e. With Schrodinger proved false, an oscillating matter must generate fields that oscillate.
-------
But the charge inside an electron dances around, seemingly randomly, and its position is seemingly random, and yet an electron has a velocity. That velocity relates somehow to its magnetic field, and to its electric fields.
So you already knew that the electron didn't fit Schrodinger model, the fixup was to imagine a quasi particle formed between it an imaginary hole in space it was moving towards..... which didn't really make sense.
i.e. If electric field isn't what you think it is, then magnetic field isn't what you think it is either.
I decided to try my best to understand what's being proposed here. So I RTFA, then I read the linked articles, then I read the articles supporting those, essentially in an attempt to get to the underlying "proof" or "theory" on which this "new" proposal is built.
Absolutely every single one, without exception, ended up at a wikipedia page that explained [such and such] was a conjecture. No real-world experiments, no measurements, no ACTUAL mathematical theories that ACTUALLY proved anything, just absolute pure conjecture.
Conjecture is, of course, just another word for "guess". Sure, maybe a good guess, and one supported by logic, but a guess nonetheless.
So here's my question. For years, thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people have suggested that wormhole travel is possible, and many of them have "conjectured" that it involves the quantum entanglement of two black holes. Perhaps the smartest of them has even suggested that the method of travel resolves itself so there is no "entanglement overhead". But for sure the "conjecture" that wormhole travel is possible has got to be at least 50 years old.
So.... just because someone who calls themself a physicist makes exactly the same guess - still with absolutely no experimental nor mathematical proof (in the sense of resolvable equations) we're now supposed to say "Oh wow, well done, it must be true!"?
Can anyone with more knowledge than me explain (perhaps in layman's terms) what's actually NEW about this latest guess? And why it has any more weight than the physics of Star Trek, of Interstellar, or even of your average 1950s B Movie?
This is me playing with a friction and heat simulation in resonant electric simulation..... In the same thread I covered mass like property, gravity, relativistic effects.
Friction seems to be trivial to understand.
1. Heat is any oscillation that takes an oscillating dipole away from resonance point.
2. Velocity is also a component of oscillation that shifts it from resonance too, described in Postulate V1. e.g. in single axis consider an oscillation that's perfectly in resonance, each 1F oscillation it returns to the same place and it sits stationary cancelling the oscillating field underneath it. Now suppose a component of oscillation is pushed into another axis, each 1F oscillation it also processes around another axis, and is now out of phase by a small delta. Each oscillation it shifts across to the nearest point in resonance it and matches. So it processes across the field.
3. More complex motions involve oscillations across the direction of motion too.
4. So heat is motion and motion is heat.
Friction
5. Consider two blocks of matter touching each other but not in motion.
6. You start moving one against the other, you are pushing a component of oscillation into the direction of travel, the top block slide over the lower block as you transfer energy into it. Tha initial energy is the energy of static friction.
7. Each block was in 1F resonance together, when the top and bottom blocks were stationary, they were resonant and cancelling out.
8. As you move the top block, you put in energy needed for the velocity in the top component (i.e. the static friction), and once you've overcome that static friction, at the interface between the top and bottom blocks you have a field oscillating with a component that is the difference of the top and bottom fields.
8b. That electric oscillation is heat, it's an oscillation out of resonance. It propagates through the block shifting other dipoles out of their 1F resonance and they in turn shift others oscillations and so on. i.e. the block gets hot.
Light EM energy is also heat
1. Light is trying for the 1W per oscillation resonant point. It's also in resonance, but traveling the field 1W for each oscillation.
2. Its EM frequency is the difference between the 1F oscillation of the matter it hits and its own oscillation. (described in Postulate V2).
3. Since heat is any component of oscillation that takes an oscillating dipole away from resonance....The energy of light is also heat.
4. Literally, take 2 resonant wavelengths of this light, wrap it around into a donut shape, the difference in resonance due to the slight sub 1W per oscillation velocity that was the EM wavelength becomes the difference in resonance due to the slight sub 1W per oscillation that is heat. THEY ARE THE SAME.
5. i.e. Electromagnetic photon energy doesn't magically change to heat when absorbed into matter, it is heat, its the same energy.
The energy in an electron is heat too
1. Electron is an F2 donut / -ve monopole / F2 anti-donut (a donut is a strip of resonant oscillations forming a close loop of n wavelengths... see Postulate N).
2. The donut is propagating a resonant wave, if you think of light travelling 0W,1W,2W,3,4,5.... across the field, that F2 donut is doing 0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1... the oscillation on the left swaps with the one on the right, and back again. This electron is 'stationary' in that resonance mode.
3. Slice the donut in section and consider the velocity along the plane of the donut. If you have a component of oscillation into the cut surface, then the donut no longer returns to the same resonance point each time. The point in the resonance field it matches is shifted along.... so the electron processes across the resonance field. i.e. velocity/heat.
Add more heat to this electron
4. Add more heat to this electron. Lets suppose there is enough heat that the F2 donut splits in two. The nearest resonant point for one F part is to the left, the nearest resonance point for the other
Quantum entanglement and quantum teleportation both have about as much scientific basis as perpetual motion machines. The primary benefit of all three technologies is fraud.
It isn't clear whether this particular theory about wormholes relies on them or not, since the article was vague and there doesn't seem to be a paper to go along with the presentation.
The science is settled.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
I wouldn't be surprised if the size or mass of the objects described here, or the fact the object is a black hole, breaks the entanglement somehow. Something has to give somewhere.
I'll just point out that a "complex repeating oscillation" is exactly what a standing wave is.
Some of what you said is reasonable, but not the "Schrodinger proved false" part.
For many people the journey is the destination. e.g. I would love to go from Europe to Autralia by car (and some boats) instead of by plane. And to Africa. And the America's.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
There are a lot of lectures by Leonard Susskind on youtube (just search the name), also on the ER=EPR subject. Some lectures are from Stanford, but there are also other talks by him.
I think he is a really good lecturer, and there are various lectures addressing different audiences from him.
If you are interested in what theoretical physicists are up to in the field of combining gravitation / general relativity with quantum mechanics i'd recommend at least having a look at his lectures / talks.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
Weâ(TM)ve been staring at space and the stars for a while now and have seen no evidence of superluminal travel.
"I use a tractor beam to fill in the worm holes."
Thanks, I'll be here all week, enjoy the veal!
This is very interesting to me, but now only because it helps me to think about the evolved human motivation array (HMA) and the human mind's "thought vectors" that must come from the physical laws of the Universe, because everything must. In short, why is it important and necessary to discover these things? Why does physics itself cause the consideration of such things, of physics? Why is physics itself a set of laws that are conscious, aware, and curious?
E Proelio Veritas.
Thinking the "turn your back and random happens" was a reference to "Shrodinger's Cat", the thing Shrodinger claimed impossible.
So rather than it being something that proved Shrodinger false, it was something Shrodinger was attempting to prove to be false with his "Shrodinger's Cat" argument.
But not being well versed on the rest of the subject, I don't have time to study the rest of the conversation and identify what may be a valid criticism about Shrodinger's model and what is a bad understanding of Shrodinger's model.
I think they forgot to fold the paper before they poked the pencil through it.
I guess you didn't get the memo.
Why does black-hole to black-hole travel being faster mean that wormholes are too slow to be useful?
Why should I believe a paper on wormhole physics that wasn't written by Col. Samantha Carter of the SGC?
(Okay, that one was a joke)
stargates are very fast!
And even more people believed him. So no, 1 anecdote all. Your move.
... you do know, that you have a choice of watching those youtube videos or not?
Sure, if you want a storyline that is nicely resolved at the end of the book or film, read or watch some scifi, and i sure do that a lot, currently i'm reading "The Algebraist" by Iain M. Banks. But i also find all kinds of science fascinating, including math, cosmology and theoretical physics. I'm aware, that many don't share that interest, but some do (and on slashdot the quota might be higher than average), and for them i wrote my post.
Also the theoretical concepts Susskind and others discuss are less about science fiction and more about bridging the gap between quantum mechanics and general relativity, and of course they are speculation.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
OK, so they fond a worm hole that lets you travel with a longer subjective time but an 'objective' (objective referring to an outside observer) time of almost nil. Call this a long-cut worm hole.
The solution is obvious - travel through the long-cut worm hole at a speed approaching that of light. Say 99.999% C. As per Einstein, traveling at such a speed causes you to age less than someone in comparison to a twin back on Earth. In other words, it reduces your subjective time, but does not affect the objective time.
Net Net, you can now travel via the long-cut worm hole, taking close to nil observer time and also close to nil subjective time.
Now your long-cut worm hole acts like a short-cut worm hole.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
It takes longer to get through these wormholes than to go directly, so they are not very useful for space travel," said the author of the study, Daniel Jafferis
That's what THEY want us to think. There is no surer sign that THEY have now successfully created and traveled though a wormhole and it was fast, and now want to keep anyone else from pursuing this tech...
How are these guys scientists at all? They have no proof of worm holes, nor do they have any way to measure one or point at one or shake a stick and say it’s right there, nor any way to move it or poke it or pour stuff on it or cut it or widen it or anything. Everything they are saying is purely a work of fiction and wonder. They have nothing at all but yet they as experts want to tell you how these fictional things work, how they behave, how they could be made, or expanded, or that they can’t be expanded. What a bunch of bologna! And people swallow it hook line and sinker and pay these guys a salary to make up this nonsense! Please do show us your evidence or proof of anything regarding a real wormhole - yeah put it on youtube for us!
Oops, my bad. I assumed he was disagreeing with the wave equation, not the cat. Yes, my understanding is the cat was meant as an argument against some models of physics.
All we have to do is to link the wormhole toobz to the internet toobz, and shazam! Warp speed for all humanity!
... In Mice.