Traversable Wormholes Can Exist, But They're Not Very Useful For Space Travel, Physicists Say (phys.org) 111
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.
Tubes (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Lost in translation (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: Lost in translation (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
No it's just a Pepsi advert.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The most accurate and truthful Trump quote yet!
Where did all the nerds go? (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Nobody ever got rich telling people how stupid they are.
Re:Where did all the nerds go? (Score:5, Funny)
George Carlin?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Nobody ever got rich telling people how stupid they are.
Yeah, wrong. Obviously you've never heard of Howard Stern. He is quite literally a Professional Asshole, and makes an obscene amount of money in that profession.
And sadly, the parent is 100% right.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Where the fuck did everyone go?
Systemd destroyed their wills to live and they no longer exist on this plane.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Where did all the nerds go? (Score:2)
You definitely need a four-digit to be someone. The fives weren't even invited to the anniversary party. My life's greatest mistake was remaining AC in the early months. Oh the pain...
Re: (Score:2)
If I only had a five digit UID or better yet four, then I'd really be someone.
The only observable difference is that you're expected to make self-effacing ageist jokes. When you're old enough to have a lawn to chase people off, you'll still be a nobody.
Usually if your comments "never show" it means you're blocking one JS domain too many and it is actually just the button isn't working and you didn't submit anything. When that happens it usually means you forgot your meds, so crawl around on the floor until you find some. Living my best life on slashdot!
Re: (Score:2)
Mod this one up!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore, back in 2014 we could spell ‘Galt’s Gulch’.
Re:Where did all the nerds go? (Score:4, Informative)
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.)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Two changes of site ownership with varying agendas, the threat of slashdot beta, a soylent news spinoff, a general trend in the dumbification/twitterification of discourse, heightened political aggression, the rise of Creimerspam, and the slow, creeping decay of our minds and bodies.
Did I miss anything?
For me, the site lost about half of its good the day Athanausis Kircher (sp?) stopped posting. They had an incredible ability to summarize and encapsulate complicated arguments clearly and rationally, and I f
Damn it (Score:2)
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.
Re: Unify velocity (Score:1)
What has changed? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Ha, that doesn't surprise me.
I have my own "theory" of the universe, and I'm sure that some clever physicist has a proper name for it, thought of it 80 years ago, and can explain it in symbols and equations, but I'm happy to be embarrassed by y'all so here goes.
I suggest that not just time but spacetime and everything - every field, all matter, everything - is quantised. I think of the universe like a picture on a monitor, with the "tick" of the universe being the framerate of the monitor. The game cycle of
Re: What has changed? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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 isn't Star Trek stuff, it is Stargate.
What the Jaffa scientists discovered here is that Earthlings do not yet have the technology to build their own Stargate network, because the only wormholes they know how to create are longer paths instead of shortcuts. So we still have to either use the Ancient gate network, or else just fly.
Re: (Score:2)
The prospect of traversable wormhole configurations has long been a source of fascination. I will describe the first examples that are consistent in a UV completable theory of gravity, involving no exotic matter. The configuration involves a direct connection between the two ends of the wormhole. I will also discuss its implications for quantum information in gravity, the black hole information paradox, and its relation to quantum teleportation.
I don't know this well, but if you're looking for something new then the significant part of that was, "first examples that are consistent in a UV completable theory of gravity." That probably means he's talking about string theory, which is not new exactly but is still being actively researched. If you're willing to accept that string theory is worth spending time on, then considering how developments in string theory might relate to wormholes is not any more of a waste of time.
As for your
Re: (Score:2)
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.
If you read TFA, you know that he just gave the presentation last weekend. The paper either hasn't been published yet, or it's based on one of these [inspirehep.net].
Re: (Score:2)
Finally!! (Score:4, Funny)
The science is settled.
Re: (Score:1)
The science is settled.
Science is never settled, there is always room for improvements due to new discoveries.
Re: Finally!! (Score:2)
But if...
Science!= settled
Then
AGW=false
and
Earth=flat
It's only logical
Re: (Score:2)
Also, if science isn't settled, then vaccinations don't work, evolution is false, and over-unity devices exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Susskind lectures on youtube (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
If you're not interested you don't have to listen (Score:2)
... 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 wro
Re: (Score:2)
Why so angry? If those theories annoy you so much, why don't you just ignore them? Does it impact your life in any way when some theoretical physicists muse about black holes and quantum mechanics?
Also some people did devise new political structures to make everyone happy, only when their concepts met reality they produced a lot of unhappiness and even deaths.
Doubts (Score:3)
Weâ(TM)ve been staring at space and the stars for a while now and have seen no evidence of superluminal travel.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm curious. What possible evidence of superluminal travel could we have seen through our telescopes? I mean, other than entire solar systems moving FTL, has there been ANYTHING that we could have seen that even implies superluminal travel?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, exactly that .. a star or something zipping along faster than light?. Or a flashing in one sector of the galaxy that appears in sync or coordinated with something happening light years from it. There are many possibilities.
This is very interesting (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
A pretty huge chunk of anthropomorphism there. Mind providing a modicum of proof?
Re: (Score:2)
Can someone explain this better? (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you have the right security clearance, it just has some Jaffa's misspelled name on it.
stargates are very fast! (Score:2)
stargates are very fast!
Solution (Score:2)
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 obje
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good suggestion. Problem is, relativistic travel within the Way distorts it. On the bright side, it also seals any gates the Jarts opened.
not very useful for Space Travel (Score:2)
... In Mice.