Scientists Build 'Baby' Wormhole (reuters.com) 117
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Scientists have long pursued a deeper understanding of wormholes and now appear to be making progress. Researchers announced on Wednesday that they forged two miniscule simulated black holes -- those extraordinarily dense celestial objects with gravity so powerful that not even light can escape -- in a quantum computer and transmitted a message between them through what amounted to a tunnel in space-time. It was a "baby wormhole," according to Caltech physicist Maria Spiropulu, a co-author of the research published in the journal Nature. But scientists are a long way from being able to send people or other living beings through such a portal, she said.
"Experimentally, for me, I will tell you that it's very, very far away. People come to me and they ask me, 'Can you put your dog in the wormhole?' So, no," Spiropulu told reporters during a video briefing. "...That's a huge leap." [...] Spiropulu said the researchers found a quantum system that exhibits key properties of a gravitational wormhole but was small enough to implement on existing quantum hardware. The researchers said no rupture of space and time was created in physical space in the experiment, though a traversable wormhole appeared to have emerged based on quantum information teleported using quantum codes on the quantum processor. "There's a difference between something being possible in principle and possible in reality," added physicist and study co-author Joseph Lykken of Fermilab, America's particle physics and accelerator laboratory. "So don't hold your breath about sending your dog through the wormhole. But you have to start somewhere. And I think to me it's just exciting that we're able to get our hands on this at all."
"It looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck. So that's what we can say at this point -- that we have something that in terms of the properties we look at, it looks like a wormhole," Lykken said.
"Experimentally, for me, I will tell you that it's very, very far away. People come to me and they ask me, 'Can you put your dog in the wormhole?' So, no," Spiropulu told reporters during a video briefing. "...That's a huge leap." [...] Spiropulu said the researchers found a quantum system that exhibits key properties of a gravitational wormhole but was small enough to implement on existing quantum hardware. The researchers said no rupture of space and time was created in physical space in the experiment, though a traversable wormhole appeared to have emerged based on quantum information teleported using quantum codes on the quantum processor. "There's a difference between something being possible in principle and possible in reality," added physicist and study co-author Joseph Lykken of Fermilab, America's particle physics and accelerator laboratory. "So don't hold your breath about sending your dog through the wormhole. But you have to start somewhere. And I think to me it's just exciting that we're able to get our hands on this at all."
"It looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck. So that's what we can say at this point -- that we have something that in terms of the properties we look at, it looks like a wormhole," Lykken said.
This is the plot of... (Score:2)
Just like in the book, I can't imagine it being a good idea...
Re: This is the plot of... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Black hole != Worm hole
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, that is the very least of the correspondences they assume.
Re: (Score:2)
It's black holes that form a wormhole between them to my understanding. Which is about as important as the fact that this is all theoretical simulation, and has nothing at all to do with reality. Still an interesting experiment.
Re: (Score:2)
I write sci-fi for funsies in my freetime, so I'm all for the sci-fi possibilities. Just not seeing the practicality of simulating something we're not sure exists in a simulation that may, or may not, sorta/kinda resemble reality. Maybe. Quantumly maybe. Possibly. Kinda.
Lost the Plot (Score:5, Insightful)
If computers had been around in the late 19th century they could have been used to simulate the observable effects of the aether. That would not have made the aether real though.
Re: Lost the Plot (Score:2)
Yep. This. Underrated.
Re: Lost the Plot (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But why do they think their SIMULATION has any remote possibility of being able to actually transfer stuff across spacetime like a real wormhole?
That's like Flight Simulator taking passengers on trips.
We must be missing something.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I had a look at the abstract for the LOLs, This what the is says they did. I don't think it will help :(
The holographic principle, theorized to be a property of quantum gravity, postulates that the description of a volume of space can be encoded on a lower-dimensional boundary. The anti-de Sitter (AdS)/conformal field theory correspondence or duality is the principal example of holography. The Sachdev–Ye–Kitaev (SYK) model of N>>1 Majorana fermions has features suggesting the existence of a gravitational dual in AdS, and is a new realization of holography.
We invoke the holographic correspondence of the SYK many-body system and gravity to probe the conjectured ER=EPR relation between entanglement and spacetime geometry through the traversable wormhole mechanism as implemented in the SYK model. A qubit can be used to probe the SYK traversable wormhole dynamics through the corresponding teleportation protoco. This can be realized as a quantum circuit, equivalent to the gravitational picture in the semiclassical limit of an infinite number of qubits. Here we use learning techniques to construct a sparsified SYK model that we experimentally realize with 164 two-qubit gates on a nine-qubit circuit and observe the corresponding traversable wormhole dynamics.
Despite its approximate nature, the sparsified SYK model preserves key properties of the traversable wormhole physics: perfect size winding, coupling on either side of the wormhole that is consistent with a negative energy shockwave, a Shapiro time delay, causal time-order of signals emerging from the wormhole, and scrambling and thermalization dynamics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Summary: they used machine learning (a new field), to design a black hole / worm hole set up (something we only theorize), using a quantum computer (very new field).
I guess maybe this is interesting if you're heavily steeped in the physics side, maybe, but I doubt there was any quality science going in here. Looks more like they needed to produce a paper with lots of buzzwords to get funding for next cycle.
Physical Simulation (Score:4, Informative)
We often see patterns of behaviour repeat in physics. For example, if you collide electrons and positrons you can see a so-called resonance around 91 GeV in energy due to production of the Z boson. This has the same mathematical properties as a driven mechanical harmonic oscillator (which is why we call it a resonance) but that does not mean you can attach a small motor to a mass-spring system, observe its behaviour and then claim you have created a Z boson!
Re: (Score:2)
They watched an episode of Stargate played off a quantum computer.
Re: (Score:2)
you need an point of origin to make it work! (Score:5, Funny)
you need an point of origin to make it work!
Cold Tunneling (Score:3)
These guys are great. "We created a wormhole. Prove that it isn't." Cracks me up.
This sounds like the equivalent to cold fusion.
--
When I hear 'fusion,' I think of Tricky-Dick stuff - really hairy melodies played in unison. It's like, 'Why?' - Allan Holdsworth
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The string theory people convinced Natalie Wolchover that AdS/CFT is a theorem, not a conjecture and that "A" at the beginning is of no matter, and those are sufficient assumptions for a remarkable amount of nonsense to follow.
So the current theory predicts wormholes (Score:5, Informative)
This is a simulation based on current theories. So what it implies is that if the theories are correct, then wormholes are possible.
The problem, of course, is that we know the current theories are wrong, and we don't know how. Perhaps wormholes are possible, but this is just checking that the current theories predict them. (Of course, there's been a lot of argument about that, so it's probably worthwhile, but don't overread what is being claimed.)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a simulation based on current theories. So what it implies is that if the theories are correct, then wormholes are possible.
Not even that. This is a simulation based on a conjecture as to how to extend current theories.
The conjecture is known as "ER=EPR". More at google, or here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Not even that. It's a (shitty, because their computer is too small) simulation based on a conjecture about how things would work in a universe that is not ours.
The conjecture is AdS/CFT, and the AdS stands for anti-deSitter space. Ours doesn't have the anti-, so this only (maybe) works in the mirror universe.
Praise the Empire!
Re: (Score:2)
This is a simulation based on current theories. So what it implies is that if the theories are correct, then wormholes are possible. The problem, of course, is that we know the current theories are wrong, and we don't know how.
Not even that. This is a simulation based on a conjecture as to how to extend current theories.
Not even that. It's a (shitty, because their computer is too small) simulation based on a conjecture about how things would work in a universe that is not ours.
Winsor, Frederick. "This is the Theory Jack Built." [theatlantic.com] In The Space Child's Mother Goose. Simon and Schuster, 1956
Re: (Score:2)
Lol. That was pretty good.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for replying. It also reminded me to link the second page. [theatlantic.com]
(Slashdot: I understand the rationale behind the lack of an edit button, but sometimes it'd be nice.)
Re: (Score:2)
Ha, even better.
I do think he's missing a step back at the beginning though: the press release.
Re: (Score:2)
I do think he's missing a step back at the beginning though: the press release.
Nice. Maybe things were different in the fifties. Or maybe "the summary based on the mummery" is the press release.
Re: (Score:2)
The two physicists involved in this experiment do indeed seem to be rather accomplished mummers.
https://www.math.columbia.edu/... [columbia.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
+1 Most informative commentary I've seen on the topic. Excellent excerpt:
I just saw that the New York Times also has a big story about this: Physicists Create ‘the Smallest, Crummiest Wormhole You Can Imagine’. [nytimes.com] At least this article has some sensible skeptical quotes, including:
“The most important thing I’d want New York Times readers to understand is this,” Scott Aaronson, a quantum computing expert at the University of Texas in Austin, wrote in an email. “If this experiment has brought a wormhole into actual physical existence, then a strong case could be made that you, too, bring a wormhole into actual physical existence every time you sketch one with pen and paper.”
Neo and Morpheus destroyed a dojo doing showy martial arts. Oh wait, no they didn't. They imagined doing it in VR.
escape (Score:3)
> those extraordinarily dense celestial objects with gravity so powerful that not even light can escape -- in a quantum computer and transmitted a message between them
No light can escape but a wormhole message can escape?
Re: (Score:1)
Re:escape (Score:5, Insightful)
To say gravity escapes a black hole, would be like saying a paper airplane escapes the paper.
Re: (Score:3)
> To say gravity escapes a black hole, would be like saying a paper airplane escapes the paper.
This is exceptionally insightful - a great way to explain to the layman exactly what a black hole _is_. Thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
We know GR has problems.
You can say that means it's "wrong", if you like, but that's a stronger word than is warranted.
In the most successful attempts at quantizing GR (making it uhhh, not wrong, if you wish- but ignoring that QM requires renormalization to not be just as "wrong"), gravity still isn't something that goes in, or leaves a black hole.
There are certain predictions of GR that have borne out as true that make it unlikely for gravity to not be an aspect of spacetim
Re: (Score:2)
It's not quite that simple. We know GR has problems.
... or else quantum mechanics has problems.
GR has been shown to be correct in every single measurement we've been able to make.
Unfortunately, so has quantum mechanics.
As currently formulated, they are incompatible, but only in realms that we can't experimentally measure.
Re: (Score:2)
As currently formulated, they are incompatible, but only in realms that we can't experimentally measure.
That is wrong.
We can measure both. Just like double slit wave/particle experiments.
The simplest thing to explain the problems (wich do not matter in any way what is relevant for real life) between GR and QM is: in QM particles can tunnel, or be at different spot at same time. So: from where does their "gravitational field" originate?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As currently formulated, they are incompatible, but only in realms that we can't experimentally measure. That is wrong.
We can measure both.
No, not at the same time. In the measurement realms where effects of GR are large enough to mesure, quantum effects are too small to measure. In measurements where quantum effects are large rnough to measure, GR effects are vanishingly small.
The two theories are incompatible, but the places that they are incompatible is in realms that we can't experimentally measure, which is places where gravity and quantum effects are both strong.
Re: (Score:2)
The Double Slit is a perfect example of an a measurable area where QM and GR are fundamentally incompatible.
The superposition of your [whatever particles] flowing through the double splits would result in superpositional gravity. This is problematic because gravitational interactions in GR are not background independent. They are the background.
This means that superpositional gravity must violate the equivalence principle, otherwise it must caus
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gravity does not exist. There are no "gravitons". "Gravity" is merely an acceleration due to different parameters of spacetime in different locations.
A limited way to say it is that when you compare the rate of time in two separate locations and they are different, then an acceleration will be felt from the location with a faster time rate towards the location with a slower time rate.
But that is only looking at it from the perspective of time, and spacetime is not just time. You could also look at it from t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, I think the assumption isn't entirely unreasonable.
Gravity self-interacts, in GR. It's unavoidable. The Einstein Tensor is non-linear.
For GR, |p> = |a> + |b> is untrue. The superpositional spacetimes cannot be reconciled, in GR. Either the equivalence principle must yield, or Schrodinger.
Both of those seem highly unlikely.
Now thi
Re: (Score:2)
Gravity does not exist. There are no "gravitons". "Gravity" is merely an acceleration due to different parameters of spacetime in different locations.
See above:
By current theory, gravity is not something that can escape.
To say gravity escapes a black hole, would be like saying a paper airplane escapes the paper.
A limited way to say it is that when you compare the rate of time in two separate locations and they are different, then an acceleration will be felt from the location with a faster time rate towards the location with a slower time rate.
Yup.
But that is only looking at it from the perspective of time, and spacetime is not just time. You could also look at it from the perspective of space with similar results.
Yup.
However, I'm going to knock you for this one-
It is improper to say that gravity does not exist.
It is proper to say that gravity is not a real force, it is a pseudoforce. A force that you feel because you're using the wrong coordinate system.
But gravity *certainly* exists- it is the the deflection from Minkowski space- spacetimes reaction to the Stress-energy-tensor.
This of course is even still improper to say without providing caveat (like I did above)
GR has major fundamental conce
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still dubious how that argument works. Even though a wavefunction can be decomposed into |a) + |b), it's still one wavefunction. The gravitational field shouldn't care what basis you use for the source; and sensibly you have to add the various components into which you decomposed the wave function back together before you stick them in the Einstein equation and solve it, rather than solving it separately for each component and adding the solutions together.
But at the scales of any measurement we can ma
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still dubious how that argument works. Even though a wavefunction can be decomposed into |a) + |b), it's still one wavefunction. The gravitational field shouldn't care what basis you use for the source; and sensibly you have to add the various components into which you decomposed the wave function back together before you stick them in the Einstein equation and solve it, rather than solving it separately for each component and adding the solutions together.
There must be a Schrodinger operator for the full state and any individual state. However, if spacetime is indeed ruled by the Stress-energy-tensor, there can't be- they must be different.
The killing vectors for the superpositioned spacetimes are irreconcilable. You cannot make |p> = |a> + |b>.
But at the scales of any measurement we can make on a system small enough to see quantum effects, the gravity is going to be linear to well better than one part in 10^40, way beyond any possible measurement. At best we could say "in some abstract sense there has to be some incompatibility between QM and GR here, but there's no way to actually see this incompatibility."
Yes, but the abstract sense is what matters.
That it's only abstract is the reason that effective field theories for GR exist, and work just fine in that regime.
It was "common knowledge" that GR and QM were
Re: (Score:2)
I will say my formal education on the matter is decades old at this point.
I loosely keep up with modern publications, but not rigorously.
I was never terribly comfortable with QM, while GR was pretty easy to grasp.
You've argued well enough that I feel I should probably freshen up, so thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
My initial point was simply that we don't have access to any experimental regime in which we can see a difference between GR and QM Your point is that they are incompatible at a fundamental level. I'm still not sure your specific argument here is bulletproof, but I will concede the final conclusion you come to: I agree with you, they are incompatible at a very fundamental level.
With the understanding that I don't think we actually disagree, let me summarize what I th
Re: (Score:2)
I was... bold to assert that since there is some fundamental self-interaction (in GR anyway, even if it's not practically relevant at the scale) it must count for a measurement in any model that doesn't include superpositional cats... was, bold... and forcing answers to unanswered questions.
I don't think we disagree, either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is nonsense, both ways ...
QM and GR are incompatible in one simple way: QM allows basically for one particle to be at two points (in space) same time (e.g. tunnel effects), theories about gravity, don't (allow for that).
So: you measure a particle at two different spots at the same time, e.g. by a slit experiment, why does gravity not reflect that?
Of course if you dig deeper into it, you find more incompatible aspects ...
Re: (Score:2)
As currently formulated, they are incompatible, but only in realms that we can't experimentally measure.
That is nonsense, both ways ... QM and GR are incompatible in one simple way: QM allows basically for one particle to be at two points (in space) same time (e.g. tunnel effects), theories about gravity, don't (allow for that). So: you measure a particle at two different spots at the same time, e.g. by a slit experiment, why does gravity not reflect that?
I didn't say that QM and GR weren't incompatible. I said that they were incompatible but only in realms that we can't experimentally measure.
The situation you suggest is a perfect example of that. We can't measure the gravitational field of a single electron.
Of course if you dig deeper into it, you find more incompatible aspects ...
Sure. But try to name ONE aspect that occurs in a realm we can experimentally measure both the quantum and the general relativistic effects.
By the way, General Relativity has no particular problem with electrons being waves spread out across more tha
Re: (Score:2)
That's kind of cool, but how do you modulate your gravitational pull?
Re: (Score:2)
radio data can go 2 ways other matter one way (Score:3)
radio data can go 2 ways other matter one way and in most cases about 38 min max open time
But, does it float like a duck? (Score:3, Funny)
Witches burn because they are made of wood, and because wood floats like a duck .. So if the wormhole weighs as much as a duck then it's a witch!
linux pipes (Score:3)
> The researchers said no rupture of space and time was created in physical space in the experiment, though a traversable wormhole appeared to have emerged based on quantum information teleported using quantum codes on the quantum processor.
Linux pipes on a quantum computer.
no you can't put your "dog" in it, yet (Score:2)
Apparently a lot of people hate their dogs.
Either that, or they are saying "dogs" but we all know they are really speculating about something else. "Hey, honey, could you come look at this? A little closer, yeah no, closer? See?"
AHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhh..
Now I just close this end ....
And Problem Solved.
Sending a dog through a baby wormhole is silly (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously you should first send a baby worm.
Re: (Score:2)
WORM Re:Sending a dog through is silly (Score:2)
Yes I don't understand this talk about ducks and dogs when these are obviously WORMholes.
Yes, I get it now. You can only send one thing through because the hole is Write Once Read Many, and we don't want an infinite number of dogs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No they didn't (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No they didn't (Score:5, Interesting)
"No, they didn't." is really the best thing that can said about this.
I've been seeing more and more science reporting like this on QM experimentation.
Sabine Hossenfelder gives some great talks on how ridiculous it is.
What they did, was simulate how they think a wormhole works, and their simulation confirmed that how they thought it works, works in the simulation.
Which is neat. But nothing more than that.
Re: (Score:2)
And the article at the NYT said as much.
Re: (Score:3)
The post references a Reuters article, with a headline of:
Scientists build 'baby' wormhole as sci-fi moves closer to fact
Which is bullshit. No way to church it up, it's flat out fucking bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
You have restored my sanity.
Shame on the journalists and "editors" letting this NONSENSE through.
Re: No they didn't (Score:3)
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/1... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. Also a completely bullshit headline, though, so no idea what parent was talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Sabine Hossenfelder gives some great talks on how ridiculous it is.
Her YouTube channel (as well as her professional work) is excellent and I’d recommend it. If anything she is too down to earth as she attempts to disbelieve in her own two hands at least once a day to make sure none of her work is even slightly unfounded in reality. But to make progress you have to start somewhere and guess so it’s not necessary crazy to run experiments that may not have real world application, or only be interesting to mathematicians. The biggest problem is the ignorant hype
Re: (Score:2)
But no, I don't think so.
Re: (Score:2)
That is pleasant.
Re: (Score:2)
Facts?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Her latest video she describes a paper as "cute, meaning I wish I'd thought of it."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Scott Aaronson quote is the best.
Overhype is very bad for science (Score:5, Insightful)
Analogs of physics, new computation methods, using quantum computation are all great and may represent real breakthroughs, but simulating / modeling something is NOT the same as actually constructing it. Black holes and wormholes (roughly) happen under conditions where the gravitational potential is very large, and as far as is known those conditions cannot be created with masses or energies that we have any hope of ever achieving in the laboratory. A laboratory wormhole is a literally unbelievable achievement.
In a world where science is ever more complex, and the public is constantly being bombarded by fake-science, I think all legitimate scientists need to avoid making statements that they know will confuse / mislead the public.
turtles (Score:3)
Analogs of physics, new computation methods, using quantum computation are all great and may represent real breakthroughs, but simulating / modeling something is NOT the same as actually constructing it.
What if we are living in a simulation? It's simulations all the way down, I tell you!
The only thing that for some reason you can't send through a wormhole, is a turtle. Figure that one out and you'll have something!
Re: (Score:2)
The article was not hyping anything and your main point was covered in the NYT article.
Re: Overhype is very bad for science (Score:2)
NYT article is much less optimistic than Reuters
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/1... [nytimes.com]
Important line that reinforces your first sentence:
âoeThe most important thing Iâ(TM)d want New York Times readers to understand is this,â Scott Aaronson, a quantum computing expert at the University of Texas in Austin, wrote in an email. âoeIf this experiment has brought a wormhole into actual physical existence, then a strong case could be made that you, too, bring a wormhole into actual physical existence
Zero latency network links? (Score:2)
Scientists build a scale wormhole ANALOGUE (Score:2)
Oh... Wait...
Re: (Score:2)
Pfft. You need electron thermodynamics? Just fill up a tub with water and pull the plug.
I created a wormhole long ago (Score:2)
I used an apple and an insect egg
EP = EPR (Score:4, Interesting)
What the quantum experiment did was create a situation in the quantum realm that is conjectured to be equivalent to a wormhole and then demonstrate that they could send a qubit through it.
What this does is that it adds some evidence to the conjecture that Wormholes are equivalent to quantum entanglement. (Tangentially, it seems to show some evidence that "negative energy" is possible)
So while this doesn't conclusively prove that wormholes exist, it does lend credence to the conjecture that wormholes could be explained through quantum entanglement.
This takes us closer to an explanation that could unite quantum theory with general relativity.
So it is a big deal. And it opens new exciting possibilities and new ways to perform experiments as Quantum computers become more powerful.
Simulation (Score:2)
Re: Simulation (Score:2)
From what I can tell this is as if a person drew an animated cartoon (with sound) of an animal that looked, walked, and quacked like a duck. The cartoon may represent a duck, but it in itself is a cartoon, not a duck.
Hype (Score:2)
Baby Wormholes, Big Black Holes (Score:2)
"It looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck. So that's what we can say at this point -- that we have something that in terms of the properties we look at, it looks like a wormhole,"
So in other words, SPACE MILFS
"That would be a huge leap" (Score:2)
Would that be a... quantum leap? Thank you, I'll be here all week. Tip your waitresses. Try the veal.
Science in search of hype (Score:2)
I am definitely not smart enough to say for certain this is a load of BS. But this is a load of BS.
Now you're thinking with Portals! (Score:2)
ob.Stargste (Score:2)
Obviously nobody is creating actual wormholes. The hype in this article is Wormhole X-Treme!
It just hits differently (Score:2)
When you find out that it was simulated inside of minecraft...
Baby Wormhole (Score:2)