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.
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?
Where the fuck did everyone go?
Systemd destroyed their wills to live and they no longer exist on this plane.
The science is settled.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
George Carlin?
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
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.
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.
This can be explained pretty easily with statistics. When a new technology comes into existence, assuming it is sufficiently unpolished, only smart people can figure out how to use it. So the median intelligence of users is high. As they make it easier for the masses to use, the median intelligence of users falls. Eventually, most of the smart people move on to something else, and what is left are the average people plus the folks who are just too stubborn to bother changing. :-)
That's the same reason I'm always horrified when someone releases a new app framework or language in an attempt to make it easier to write software. The end result is invariably more software, but written by people who genuinely shouldn't be doing so, with predictably bad results. (Case in point, PHP.)
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.