## A Link Between Wormholes and Quantum Entanglement 186

Posted
by
Soulskill

from the and-maybe-a-trip-to-the-gamma-quadrant dept.

from the and-maybe-a-trip-to-the-gamma-quadrant dept.

sciencehabit writes

*"Theoretical physicists have forged a connection between the concept of entanglement — itself a mysterious quantum mechanical connection between two widely separated particles — and that of a wormhole — a hypothetical connection between black holes that serves as a shortcut through space (first abstract, second abstract). The insight could help physicists reconcile quantum mechanics and Einstein's general theory of relativity, perhaps the grandest goal in theoretical physics."*
## Mysterious quantum mechanical connection? (Score:1, Interesting)

I am not a physicist.

But I keep hearing that there is actually nothing mysterious about entanglement at all... Something along the lines of:

You post 2 envelopes containing cards in opposite directions, one with a printed letter A, the other card with the letter B.

At one destination, the envelope is opened to reveal the letter A. ... then through some mysterious quantum mechanical connection.... you know that the envelope at the remote destination contains the letter B.

And that's about all there is to entang

## Re: (Score:1)

I can confirm that it is weirder than that.

## it's like that and that's the way it is (Score:3)

To expand on your reply, here's a different letter game.

you mail two letters with magic XY cards inside. When the first letter is sliced open the probability it shows and X or a Y is equal. If the first letter is sliced open left to right then the other letter will match the contents of this letter. If you open it right to left then the other letter will show the opposite letter.

There's no way the contents of the letters can predetermine the outcome. (i.e. No hidden variables can explain all the possib

## Another way to think about QM and Waves (Score:5, Interesting)

Something that's a little bothersome is that when you are designing a video game that portrays a classical world, the physical limits of the computer end up imposing many of the physical laws we are used to.

for example, consider diffraction limited resolution. Basically the further away something is, the less resolved it becomes. The bigger the eye or telescope you look through the more you can resolve at a distance. In the real world we call this diffraction limited resolution. In a computer game we call it pixels, and the bigger the monitor (in pixels) the better the resolution.

To object oriented variables cannot simultaneously know each other's state. One of them has to be updated first. There's a finite limit on how fast the computer can alter the memory locations and it can't change both at the same time. So there's a kind of speed of light limit on how fast the world can change. If were doing this on distributed architectures or iterating serially over the objects then that limit actually shows up in the connectivity of objects with distance: nearer objects can influence each other sooner than remote objects.

Finally, there is an exception to that rule. Two objects can communicate instantly if they share the same class variables. This is spooky action at a distance. While it's often claimed that quantum mechanics does not allow hidden variable theories , this is a mis-interpretation of Bell's theorem. In fact it only disallows local hidden variable theories. Global hidden variable theories are what QM says do exist. That's exactly how you get entanglement.

So QM emerges because of the class variables, diffraction emerges because of memory limits and the speed of light comes out from serial processing at the CPU or memory access level.

Thus you can't actually create a simmulation of reality that didn't have the characteristics of our weird world even if you wanted to.

## Re: (Score:3)

I have noticed this also.... For example, how would a programmer of a games physics engine, allow particles within that engine to move at any velocity. A computer only has a finite amount of power, its really difficult to make a particle move through infinite space, if it is going to have to render that particle at every position as it travels along.

What happens if the particle's speed approaches that of the limits of the computers CPU. Dont want to end up skipping frames.... Well, one way would be to slow

## Re:Another way to think about QM and Waves (Score:4, Insightful)

there's no speed limit when the next frame is calculated based on the last frame into a new dataset, making reactions happen simultaneously for all purposes(heck, since it's just a simulaton you can do things like make the current frame to be affected by something that would happen in the future, because you can calculate that it would happen). when reviewing the output things happen at the same time.

and that's why it's a "simulation"!

## Re: (Score:2)

## Re: (Score:2)

I've never understood why they rule out hidden variables. Hidden variables are *hidden* how can you rule them out? I'm not a particle physicist but I'm sure there is no such thing as entanglement, it must be just an illusion.

## Re: (Score:2)

Thanks, that is a nice one!

One thing still bothers me with this: What if the second envelope had equal content to the first the whole time, but it just flips depending on the way you slice it open? That way, you can never prove that there is some entanglement, the association was made when the envelopes were created, and the flip (or not) to opposite is made only with local information.

## Re: (Score:2)

Thanks, that is a nice one!

One thing still bothers me with this: What if the second envelope had equal content to the first the whole time, but it just flips depending on the way you slice it open? That way, you can never prove that there is some entanglement, the association was made when the envelopes were created, and the flip (or not) to opposite is made only with local information.

You prove this by delayed choice. You don't decide which envelope to open first till the envelops are far apart.

## Re: (Score:2)

He was saying that recently, they have been doing tests where the used 3 photons, Photon A, B, and C. Photon A and B were entangled and quantum, then A was sent off a long ways away. Now, when one photon is entangled with

## Re: (Score:2)

How do you entangle one photon with another when at least one of those photons existed prior to the entanglement process?

## Re: (Score:2)

Explain me again why hidden variables are ruled out.

## Re: (Score:2)

Explain me again why hidden variables are ruled out.

because slice left-to-right rules out seeing X-Y from happening. Local hidden variables (i.e. it was X all along) can't create that ourcome (GLobal hidden variables due but these require spooky action at a distance to change B based on A's letter).

Finally you can't have letter A changing it's state in response to the slice as a local variable explanation, because, I have a free choice if I open letter A first (and thus determine B's outcome) or I open letter B first and thus determine letter A's outcome.

## Re: (Score:2)

slice left-to-right? You are not making this easier...

## Re: (Score:2)

Hidden variables can always explain all possible outcomes. Bell only showed that some types of hidden variables don't work. Whether you think that's definitive depends on how reasonable you find other kinds of hidden variables, compared to how reasonable you find non-local effects. The universe doesn't care how reasonable you find it, of course, and uses whatever mechanism it uses. We don't know what that is.

Right. no Local Hidden varaibles

There's no way the contents of the letters can predetermine the outcome. (i.e. No hidden variables can explain all the possible outcomes).Your example can be modelled using a hidden variable A that says "show X if opened left-to-right, show Y if opened right-to-left" and a hidden variable B that always shows X. Can you refine your example so it really can't be solved using hidden variables?

Simple. I did not say which envelope I opened first. I can delay that choice till the envelops are well separated.

I didn't say which envelope I opened first.

## Re: (Score:1)

## Re:Mysterious quantum mechanical connection? (Score:5, Informative)

## Re: (Score:2)

Please moderate this up, it's the correct answer (and yes, I hold a physics degree).

## Re:Mysterious quantum mechanical connection? (Score:4, Funny)

I'm not a physicist, but I've played

PortalandPortal 2, and I also concur. I plan to playQuantum Conundrumtonight, to make more detailed observations of the phenomenon. I will publish my findings.My PhD is in Literary Theory, so I can likewise confirm the "weirder than that" part, because that was kinda my specialty.

## Re:Mysterious quantum mechanical connection? (Score:4, Funny)

that made milk come out my nose... and I'm not even drinking milk.

That seems a good example of entanglement (quantum or not) weirdness.

## Re: (Score:2)

If I wanted a job, I'd have studied something boring like computer science.

I worked for 25 years to get to the point where I could not have a job. That was the goal all along.

## Re: (Score:2)

This was an answer to the envelope example, and my intent was mostly to not have this stand unrefuted at a certain filter level.

I am well aware that non-local hidden variables are not ruled out, nor do I find this idea particularly unattractive. But if they were in play QM would still be plenty strange.

## Re: (Score:2)

To be fair, special relativity rules out travel faster than light, since it would lead to the travelling object having more than infinite mass and having a more than infinite time dilation.

But it doesn't rule out instantaneous movement, since this doesn't really involve any motion - in the EPR paradox example, is anything moving at all, relative or otherwise, when the spins are measured?

## Re: (Score:1)

Alternatively, superdeterminism.

But scientists HATE that because it raises questions about the validity of science - surely the universe can't be like that?

Of course, scientists also felt uneasy about rejecting the idea that FSM does not play dice.- surely the universe can't be like that?

## Re: (Score:2, Informative)

Alternatively, superdeterminism.

Well, it doesn't match what we actually observe. And I'm not discounting here that there could be the possibility of an observer, say one external to our universe, for who superdeterminism is observed and for which there could be local hidden variables. But we're not in that chair and so that theory would not apply to us.

## Re: (Score:2)

## Re: (Score:2)

There has never been any evidence that present events are not determined by the past.

Except that there are simple two state change events which we haven't been able to predict.

## Heisenberg's horror (Score:2)

## Re: (Score:2)

## Re: (Score:2)

Non-locality is at least as weird.

## Re:Mysterious quantum mechanical connection? (Score:5, Interesting)

That's too simplified (as is this reply).

It is not that one is A and the other B when posted; rather that they are each an AB, which, when revealed, resolves to an A or B. That resolution then also resolves the other, but, that information must be communicated "faster than light", which is currently not supposed to be possible (if FTL information transfer really worked, all sorts of wierd stuff ensues, incuding the possible destruction of the universe).

By proposing a sort of "worm hole" which, in effect, creates a single particle string with just the endpoints noticable by us as distinct particles, the entangled endpoint-tunnel-endpoint can transfer information outside the four-dimensional universe' ligh-speed limitation.

## Re: (Score:3)

The key here, is "resolves to".

That phrase means: "when we're trying to compute the state (A or B), we can't work out the formula until it arrives. (because we don't have enough information) - and when they arrive, bam! do the math, and the result is, A or B."

Math works that way. It's a model for a physical process in nature. The actual mechanism for that physical process? We don't know. And all theories are impossible. (involve FTL travel).

## Re: (Score:1)

I'm Nnot sure

all## Re: (Score:2)

## Re: (Score:2)

Pink?

## Re: (Score:2)

## Re: (Score:2)

I have no way of telling whether or not I'm a physicist unless I observe myself.

## Re: (Score:2)

> And all theories are impossible.

Incorrect. If it the SAME photon being effected then that would explain Einstein's "Spooky Action at a Distance"

> (involve FTL travel).

That is a possibility; no one (yet) is able to confirm or deny that.

## Re: (Score:3)

By proposing a sort of "worm hole" which, in effect, creates a single particle string with just the endpoints noticable by us as distinct particles, the entangled endpoint-tunnel-endpoint can transfer information outside the four-dimensional universe' ligh-speed limitation.It seems like they're getting closer, but isn't it still harder to think of an infinitely long wormhole connecting the two ends than to consider that the topology we experience isn't the fundamental one and those ends are still local in t

## Re: (Score:2)

Special Relativity doesn't rule out FTL effects, just some possible ways of achieving it. It does mean that FTL is logically equivalent to time travel, which IMNSHO does count as weird stuff.

## Re: (Score:1)

A more accurate analogy is:

You post 2 envelopes containing cards in opposite directions, both blank.

At one destination, the envelope is opened and the letter A printed on it. ... then through some mysterious quantum mechanical connection.... the envelope at the remote destination is opened and contains a card printed with the letter A.

## good call (Score:2)

see, ^^^this is how you talk about physics in common language!

how many times do we scientists alienate people by trying to sound smart instead of making a connection to **their** a priori knowledge?

## Re: (Score:2)

## tachyonic anti-telephone (Score:2)

yes, it indeed **does** mean that, if *non-locally* entangled, we could have **faster than light communications**

maybe you're the one who should read up...the layman has one up on you using their logic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_antitelephone [wikipedia.org]

read it and weep...you're wrong and the layman was right

## they have reason to think that (Score:3)

this is about a condescending phrase you tossed off about laymen and how analogies give them wild notions...

and that is ***exactly*** how the tachyon anti-telephone works

someone with a fucking PhD saw the same behavior as the layman, and made a theoretical faster-than-light telephone desi

## Re: (Score:2)

I appreciate that you're celebrating the wild ideas that laymen can have, but analogies are bad if they mis-represent what is happening as they're supposed to make things clearer, not murkier.

## they reason think that (Score:2)

that's like saying a person who makes a particular analogy that describes a real behavior theorized in reality is making harmful assumptions because your myopic understanding of physics term

## Re: (Score:2)

## Re:Mysterious quantum mechanical connection? (Score:5, Funny)

## Re: (Score:1)

I was about to complain about using "effects" instead of "affects", but I believe "effects" (brings about) actually works here, too.

## Re:Mysterious quantum mechanical connection? (Score:5, Interesting)

## Re:Mysterious quantum mechanical connection? (Score:5, Funny)

I think the real riddle here is to parse your riddle.

## Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

## Re: (Score:2)

## Re: (Score:2)

After playing with the problem for a bit, I can prove that if the three people base their answer solely on the X or Y shown to them, they cannot produce a set of answers that is certain to produce the desired product. I am not a quantum physicist though, so it is not clear to me how quantum mechanics could help them in surviving.

## Re: (Score:1)

a couple of others explained it closer to physics but lets take your example and run with it.

You have two cards one with an A the other with a B .

You insert each card into an envelope.

You mail each in separate directions.

at one destination you open to envelope and you have an A face up and facing towards you.

You know that there is a B in the other evenlope but you don't know which way the card is facing in regards to opening the even lope.(facing you, upside down, backwards or some combination of those trai

## Re: (Score:1)

Close... but it does get a bit weirder.

You open the envelope and see letter A in it, and conclude that letter B is in the remote envelope. Then, you close your envelope and re-open it, and find letter B in it - which means letter A is in the remote envelope.

If you are on the phone with the person who has the remote envelope, you will also discover that sometimes when both of you open the envelopes at the same time occasionally you both get letter A. In that case, what happened to the letter B? And how ca

## non-physicist non-confirmation (Score:1)

call me cynical, but knowing academics (and those who pose as such) I'm sure that no matter how good your analogy is, they will take the areas where the analogy fails and tell you that you are wrong because of it...

all analogies have huge holes...the Scrodinger Cat analogy for example...

nitpicks aside, I agree that the idea that "Quantum" behavior is somehow mysterious, opaque and difficult for laymen to understand is bound in failings in academia (too much competition, not enough

## Re: (Score:1)

I feel sorry for the fields of CS and IT Engineering then. I don't know anyone who go their PhD without doing new research, with about the worst you could say being it was menial or lacks general implications. I also know a large number of coworkers who put considerable effort in outreach, both related and unrelated to their particular research. This ranges from building demos so people can see and play with things first hand to teaching free seminars and courses on things.

I'm not even sure how it make

## then what makes you qualified... (Score:2)

to speak on this topic if you don't have experience as an admin or teaching professor or researcher?

have you been a lab tech for 10 years?

either you are some kind of prof., be it adjunct, post-doc, research only, teaching, admin, etc or you've just been spitballing bullshit about academia this whole time from your imagination

either way...you just backtracked completely then tried to make a deformed version of the point you were trying to make before...

## listen to Feynman then... (Score:2)

I know I'm exhibiting the same passive/aggressive pissing-contest bullshit I have been deploring when I do this....but how about let's settle down a bit? let's find some 'middle ground'

(doesn't that sound like what a dept. chair says right before 'budget cuts' are announced?)

to the myriad AC's who are apparently employed in academia, YES I sympathize greatly with the plight of how faculty are treated. Very much so in fact.

i'm not going to list my resume...but I've been an adjunct & worked on post-doc pr

## Re: (Score:2)

Note: I am not a physicist.

Analyzing conflicting reports from other physicists on the true nature of Quantum Entanglement, I can confirm for you that a good percentage of them really want it to be this simple, and for nothing "spooky" to be happening at a distance, and will just about always fucking wig out on you if you point out the other physicists' views that it is in fact much weirder than that, and spooky stuff IS in fact happening at a distance.

## Re:Mysterious quantum mechanical connection? (Score:5, Interesting)

I am not a physicist.

But I keep hearing that there is actually nothing mysterious about entanglement at all... Something along the lines of:

You post 2 envelopes containing cards in opposite directions, one with a printed letter A, the other card with the letter B.

At one destination, the envelope is opened to reveal the letter A. ... then through some mysterious quantum mechanical connection.... you know that the envelope at the remote destination contains the letter B.

And that's about all there is to entanglement....

Can any physicist confirm?

I'm not a physicist, just a well-read layman, but...

It

ismore mysterious than that, but if you go with the Many Worlds interpretation it's notmuchmore mysterious.Basically, if you entangle letters A and B and send them in opposite directions, you're really creating two universes corresponding to the two possibilities: universe P (A here, B there) and universe Q (B here, A there). If you open the envelope to reveal A, for instance, then that copy of you in universe P now knows they exists in universe P, and likewise for B and Q. But unlike in classical physics, universe P is not

completelyseparated from universe Q. P and Q still exist as a single mathematical object, P-plus-Q, and you can manipulate that mathematical object in ways that don't make sense from a classical standpoint.Basically, it all comes down to one small thing with big consequences. The real world is NOT described by classical probability (real numbers in the range

[0,1]). Instead, the real world is described by quantum probability [scottaaronson.com] (complex numbers obeyingRe[x]^2 + Im[x]^2 = 1).As it turns out, "system P-plus-Q has a 50% chance of P and a 50% chance of Q" is really saying "system P-plus-Q lies at a 45deg angle between the P axis and the Q axis". Starting from P-plus-Q, you can rotate 45deg in one direction to get orthogonal P (A always here), or you can rotate 45deg in the opposite direction to get orthogonal Q (B always here), thus deleting the history of whether A or B was "originally" here. (If P and Q were independent universes, this would decrease entropy and thus break the laws of physics.) Even more counterintuitively, you can even rotate P-plus-Q by 15deg to get a 75% chance A is here and a 25% chance B is here (or vice versa, depending on which quadrant the starting angle was in). Circular rotations in 2-dimensional probability space are the thing that makes quantum probability different from classical probability, and thus the thing that makes quantum physics from classical physics.

Classically, A is either

definitelyhere ordefinitelythere, and until we open the envelope and look we are merely ignorant of which is the case. Classical physics is time-symmetric, and it therefore forbids randomness from being created or destroyed; classical probability actually measuresignorance of starting conditions. In a classical world obeying classical rules, you can't start from "50% A-here, 50% B-here" and transform it into "75% A-here, 25% B-here" without cheating. The required operation would be "flip a coin; if B is here and the coin lands heads, swap envelopes", and you can't carry that out without opening the envelope to check if B is here or not. Quantum physics isalsotime-symmetric andalsoforbids the creation and destruction of randomness, but quantum probability (also called "amplitude") isnota mere measure of ignorance. In the Many Worlds way of thinking, physics makes many copies of each possible universe, and the quantum amplitude determines how many copies of each universe to make. At 30deg off the P axis,cos(30deg)^2= 75% of the copies are copies of universe P, and you experience this as a 75% probability of finding yourself in a universe with "A here, B there".(Or something like that. It'll pr

## Re: (Score:2)

## Re:Mysterious quantum mechanical connection? (Score:5, Interesting)

A little insight from the experts should help to clarify:

* Quantum mechanics is magic.- Daniel Greenberger.

* Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. - Niels Bohr.

* Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it. - Niels Bohr.

* If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it. - John Wheeler.

* It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. - Richard Feynman.

* If [quantum theory] is correct, it signifies the end of physics as a science. - Albert Einstein.

* I do not like [quantum mechanics], and I am sorry I ever had anything to do with it. - Erwin Schrödinger.

* Quantum mechanics makes absolutely no sense. - Roger Penrose.

## Re: (Score:2)

Here's a link to a nice series on explaining quantum physics that doesn't try to make it seem "magical", but instead is just the basis for how stuff works in the real world: http://lesswrong.com/lw/pc/quantum_explanations/ [lesswrong.com]

## Re:Mysterious quantum mechanical connection? (Score:5, Interesting)

Imagine 2 envelopes, A and B. Inside both envelopes is a hidden binary code, just printed on a card.

01001101000101101011011011.

These envelopes are sent to Alice and Bob. However, Alice doesn't read the code directly. She first generates her own pseudo random stream of random 0's and '1's. She can control the ratio of 1's and 0's, by initially choosing an angle, and the Generator will spew out a sequence that all '0's if the angle is 0degrees, or all '1's if the angle is 90degrees, and any angle between 0 and 90 will adjust the ratio accordingly.

Alice then X'ORs her stream of 0's and 1's with that printed on her card, in the envelope, to give a result.

At the other envelope, BOB does exactly the same. He also has a pseudo random number generator, (using the same seed as Alice). When he sets his angle to 0, and Alice sets her's to 0, they will BOTH end up with the same sequence on the PRNG, and so XORing the number on the card will result in the same message. In fact when Alice and Bob set their PRNG to the same angle, they always will get the same sequence, and so their message will always match. Nothing spooky going on here.

The spooky thing happens when Alice and Bob choose different angles. Lets say that Alice sets her angle to 0 degrees, and Bob chooses 30 degrees. They do the calculation, and it appears the final sequences correlate 3 out of 4 times.... or 25% of the time there is a difference between Bobs and Alices code. Bob then changes his angle back to 0, and Alice sets hers to -30 Degrees. Again, after doing the calculation, they work out that 25% of the time the codes differ.

If alice sets hers to -30 and Bob sets his to 30, it would be common sense to say that there could be no more than 50%, the codes will differ. Except this is not the case. In the real world, using real entangled particles the result comes out to be 75%. What *must* be happening for this result, is the original hidden code printed on Alices and Bob's card MUST some how change, when the other party changes their angle.... OR, that there is no hidden code, but something else is going on... No hidden fixed sequence of numbers can explain the experimental results. This is 'Spooky' action at a distance, and can't be explained using traditional physics on its own.

## Re:Mysterious quantum mechanical connection? (Score:4, Insightful)

> You post 2 envelopes containing cards in opposite directions,

> one with a printed letter A, the other card with the letter B.

BZZZZT.

You have 2 envelopes, one contains an "AB" and the other contains a second "AB". When you open the first envelop, the AB *turns into an A*, and the other envelope *instantly turns into a B*.

What you are describing, where the contents have actual values before measurement, is known as "hidden variables". Einstein liked it. However, Alain Aspect demonstrated the universe simply doesn't work that way.

## Re: (Score:2)

This is not a satisfactory explanation. We know that spin is conserved, so we know that each particle will have one of those values. If one particle has spin

## Re: (Score:2)

IANAP, but I always thought it was more like keeping one blank card, and sending another blank card, and then once the card arrived, you took your card and wrote either an A or a B on it, and the same letter would appear instantly on the other card. If you later erased the A and wrote a B, the other card would then also instantly begin to show a B. However if either of you looked at the cards to see the letter, it may change both of them, or erase them both completely.

Again... IANAP!

## Re: (Score:2)

No, that's not how it works.

Your model would allow FTL communication, which quantum entanglement by itself does not. (Note that "instantly", as used to describe events separated by space, really doesn't have a meaning, and IMNSHO simultaneity is the first thing you need to unlearn when studying Special Relativity.)

A better analogy is two envelopes, and when you open one you get A or B, depending on the direction you opened the envelope in. If you opened it up-down or left-right, that tells you that s

## Re: (Score:2)

Thanks for the explanation! I always thought that Quantum entanglement was the one thing that MAY be able to transmit data FTL. Is there some other quantum phenomenon that may offer the possibility to send information FTL that I have it confused with? Or is FTL (or instantaneous) quantum communication just a common misconception?

Cheers!

## Synonym fun (Score:3)

Since it is physics, perhaps we could trust it better if it was 'LaForged'.

## Re:Synonym fun (Score:4, Funny)

If the work is 'forged' how can we trust it?

With an even temper.

## Spooky Action (Score:4, Funny)

At a certain point quantum physics causes a spooky action in the space between my ears leading to a "Duh, what the heck/" experience.

## Re: (Score:2)

(Einstein coined the term "Spooky action at a distance" for any muggles who don't get the reference

## Maybe it's the same particle (Score:2, Insightful)

It just looks like it's in 2 seperate places at once. This would solve the whole "faster than light speed communication" problem pretty easily if they could come up with a theory utilising extra dinensions to explain it.

## Re: (Score:3, Funny)

## I'm the first to admit... (Score:3)

I'm the first to admit that anything quantum blows a wormhole through my head. I struggle to find anything that will allow me to grasp it. I'm a programmer, dammit.

"God doesn't play dice with the Universe"

OK, whatever.

Maybe, just maybe, "God doesn't waste CPU cycles rendering windows that are trivially culled from the scene graph".

So. When you observe the particle its window comes to the top and The Program has to do all the rendering calculations.

Cue attempt by actual physicists to explain why this attempt to grasp the concept is totally inadequate or the more enjoyable funny bits about how the Universe is written in either Lisp or Perl.

## Here... XKCD (Score:1)

http://xkcd.com/224/

That said, I have no fucking clue what you were trying to say.

## Re:I'm the first to admit... (Score:5, Interesting)

I went to a local physics lecture a while back and a bunch of physicists tried to explain some things to people that were interested. They all took questions and such, it was a lot of fun. I asked one of them "But what do I have to do to 'get' relativity. I believe in it, I think it's been scientifically proven. I've read LOTS of books on the subject but I still just can't make my brain do it!" and he gave about the best reply I've ever gotten to a question. Paraphrasing he said "We don't get it either. I have study mathematics my entire life. I have 3 PhDs. I've designed machines that take advantage of many of Special relativities theories. I've proven those theories in hundreds of lab experiments. But I cannot make my brain understand it either. What I can do is prove it with math. Numbers cannot lie. We take very careful measurements, we use near savant like theories and prove them scientifically. In the whole of human history I'm willing to bet the number of people that could actually picture how relativity, special relativity, and higher level dimensions work in their mind could be counted on 2 hands. So don't feel bad, we're all in the same boat."

I guess he could have been just trying to make me feel better. But I believed him.

## Re: (Score:2)

He totally gets it. He just didn't want you to feel bad.

## Re: (Score:2)

Special Relativity: you can get an intuitive understanding of this. I did. It takes a lot of unlearning of basic concepts. Simultaneity is a killer, and creeps in everywhere.

General Relativity: every description I've ever seen either includes a lot of handwaving and generality, or is based on tensors, which I personally just don't get intuitively. I know what they are, and something of how to use them, and what they represent, but the intuition just isn't there.

Higher level dimensions: the only

## Re: (Score:3)

I'm the first to admit that anything quantum blows a wormhole through my head. I struggle to find anything that will allow me to grasp it. I'm a programmer, dammit.

Perhaps a close mental computer analogue is the transaction.

s/entanglement/transaction/

s/collapse/commit/

Software is not allowed to peer into a transaction and act on details while open or consistency could not be guaranteed. Only outcomes are exposed to the system when transaction is committed. Various interactions force existing transactions to commit and resulting outcome to be known.

So. When you observe the particle its window comes to the top

In scalable systems "reading" or "observing" is often a liability to be carefully minimized. Anything read out stands a

## Wormholes gopherholes and unicornholes (Score:1)

imagined entangling the quantum states of two black holes. They then imagined pulling the black holes apart. When that happens, they argued, a bona fide wormhole forms between the two black holes.

Yet back in the real world we don't even know what the gravitational influence of a single photon propagating thru space looks like.

âoeThe wormhole and entangled pair don't live in the same space,â Karch says. But, he adds, mathematically they are equivalent.

Or could it be yet another instance of mathematicians fooling themselves into believing their own delusion? Or flying unicorns? Wake me up when you have made a useful testable prediction. Until then what is the point of advertising your work?

Wormholes are regions of less density than surrounding space. Entanglement is rules enabling coherent interaction of all that interact

## This action at a distance (Score:2)

This action at a distance nonsense just has to end someday. This is no such thing implied by Bells theorem or entanglement experiments such as those by Aspect. Just let it go. Entanglement just explores the non-classical nature of quantum probability. The outcome of experiments with entangled particles is predicted by the standard Dirac notation and no mysterious action is needed.

## Re: (Score:3)

> This is no such thing implied by Bells theorem or entanglement experiments such as those by Aspect

In QM, sure. In classical mechanics or relativistic treatments, there most definitely is.

That's the beauty of Bell. You are forced to choose between accepting the weirdness of QM, or demanding FTL information transfer. The relativists consider the later to be even worse than the former.

## Split Infinity (Score:2)

## Wormholes may explain entanglement. (Score:2)

If two entangled particles are connected with a wormhole, then it makes total sense that the state of one affects the state of the other, because if these two points in spacetime are connected via a wormhole, then communication between them is instant.

## A New Zelda Game!? (Score:2)

I thought the title was suggesting a new Zelda game before I reread it. "The Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Wormholes"

## Yes but... (Score:2)

Are we talking Star Trek wormhole, or Stargate wormhole, or Farscape wormhole...

## Wow. (Score:2)

The insight could help physicists reconcile quantum mechanics and Einstein's general theory of relativity

What? QM is COMPLETELY in line with relativity. If you had FTL communication, it wouldn't, but that doesn't exist- quantum teleportation requires a classical channel to relay information (namely, which state Bob's particle collapsed into). I admit I haven't read the linked articles yet, but I doubt the authors made any such claim (and that was input by the submitter/editor)

Source: I am a PhD student in Quantum Computer Science.

## Re:Still won't work. (Score:5, Interesting)

Relativity has little to do with dark matter or dark energy -- the matter content is irrelevant, since relativity only really dictates the geometry; basically you have an equation G=T, where G is the geometry and T the matter; what that matter *is* is something for someone else to worry about. It has absolutely damn all to do with the Higgs. The Higgs field is a part of the standard model of particle physics that gives fundamental particles their mass. It has absolutely nothing to do with relativity at all; if it did, we would already have a quantum field theory that was general relativistic in nature, and we'd all be laughing. Or crying, since many of us would now be out of a job.

Quantum electrodynamics throws out infinities as a matter of course. This worried a lot of people, and then "renormalisation" was invented. It basically says "if you see a number multiplying an infinity, just write it as another number". The best example is the electron mass. What we see is actually m_electron * infinity. So we "renormalise it", and say that m_electron is actually m_bare electron * infinity.

It was either Feynman or Schwinger - probably both - who expressed serious doubts about the mathematical validity of renormalisation. Thing is, as they also acknowledged, it works. QED is the most accurate theory we currently possess, so despite the air of bullshit that surrounds renormalisation something's obviously working fine.

The issue comes when you have theories that are non-renormalisable, so you can't ditch the infinities this way. Quantising general relativity typically leads to a non-renormalisable theory. That's where all our problems have been for the last sixty years...

## Re: (Score:2)

Note that infinities and singularities can be a feature of the mathematical description rather than reality. For example, any mapping of a sphere to a plane will have at least one singularity (the usual latitude and longitude has singularities at the 180th meridian, including North and South Poles), but the ground or water or ice or whatever there doesn't have any special properties).

## Re: (Score:2)

Relativity at the very fundamental limits is absolutely broken simply because it is missing huge amounts of information. (namely dark matter and energy ...

Dark matter/energy are the consequence of assuming time/space being homogenous/isotropic - given that we haven't got out from the near neighborhood of the Sun (thus we haven't tested these assumption at larger scales), isn't it possible that these assumption don't hold true?

## Re: (Score:1)

Black-holes are not wormholes and wormholes are not black holes... Black-holes are a collection of phenomena that surround a singularity.

While they are not identical, in the sense there are versions of worm holes distinct from black holes and certainly black holes that are not worm holes, the two are still well connected concepts. One of the "phenomena" that is part of that collection related to singularities is trying to deal with coordinate problems instead of the event horizon when trying to solve the Einstein field equations, and there are versions that include world lines entering then leaving into a space-time distinct from that which

## Re: (Score:2)

## Re: (Score:2)

## Re: (Score:2)