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. . . .
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?
The science is settled.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
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.
All of the properties, some aspect of water-filled meat-sack's perception. How cute.
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!
A pretty huge chunk of anthropomorphism there. Mind providing a modicum of proof?
... 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
... In Mice.
A salient example of a thought vector is Albert Einstein's thinking history from youth. He did not just decide to obsess on that subject; it was part of his makeup - a thought vector in his genetic makeup.
E Proelio Veritas.