Creating of Wormhole during entanglement

[San K]

Creation of Wormhole during entanglement

Does entanglement work via a wormhole (in space-time)?

How does time emerge from entanglement via comparison of an entangled state with a non-entangled one?

 

[audioloop]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4500361&postcount=9

or conected epr pairs on space time continuum, epr pairs conected by einstein rosen bridges.

Suskind, Maldacena.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0533

Ramsdonck.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.2939

Jensen, Karch.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.1132

 

[bhobba]

Does entanglement work via a wormhole (in space-time)?

Entanglement doesn't work by anything - its a nonsense question within QM. A sub-quantum theory may explain it - but since its integral to QM, QM within and of itself can't and doesn't explain it.

Entanglement is simply what the vector space formalism requires.

Thanks
Bill

 

[K^2]

There was an article in popular publication recently that mentioned a wormhole-entanglement duality. As usual with such articles, it was written in a very confusing manner, so there are probably going to be some silly questions like that on the topic for a while. Just a heads up.

 

[San K]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4500361&postcount=9

Good links audioloop.

especially http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.1132

The paper says -- This gives a simple example supporting the recent claim by Maldacena and Susskind that EPR pairs and non-traversable wormholes are equivalent descriptions of the same physics.

The interesting part, in my mind, is that:

It links/bridges general relativity to quantum mechanics!

 

[audioloop]

Indeed !

 

[MikeGroovy]

I have a few silly questions on the same subject. Google doesn't seem to answer them. :D
This is my first post, so please be gentle :D

----------------------
As far as communication through entangled particles, we can already observe states without changing them "very much".
http://www.livescience.com/15024-quantum-mechanics-particle-measurement-action-disturbance.html
http://phys.org/news/2012-10-gently-cubit-superposition.html

So why are so many experts still saying that there can never be communication via entangled particles?

----------------------
Threshold?
Since we don't really know where the threshold of a potential wormhole exists within an entangled pair, would entangled BECs (bose-einstein condensates) being larger and posibly easier to observe help to this end? What about making Super Macro BECs, a hefty microgram weighted BEC? Is there an upper limit to the size of the BEC?

I know these are only computer models, but maybe the threshold would be easier to identify with coreless BECs.
http://phys.org/news/2013-12-scientists-coreless-vortex-ultracold-atoms.html

Or is a BEC really just an extension of the quantum state of a "parent" quark. Where the threshold really only exists between entangled quarks. (So larger BECs might be a hamper to identifying the threshold of a wormhole.)

Or are there any theories about the threshold not existing in our universe, but merely connecting "strings" that are in a higher level dimension?
----------------------
If entangled particles can keep their entanglement over vast distances in space, can they keep their entanglement over distances in time? Basically if we kept one entangled particle relatively stationary, and spun another one around in a particle accelerator (and managed to keep the delicate entanglement intact) at relativistic velocities for an extended period of time so that there is a 24hour time dialation, would they be "sync'd" with a day apart for observable changes to occur?

----------------------
Are there any theories as to how these wormholes would interact with each other in whatever realm/dimension they exist? If we were to mass produce entangled pairs of something realitively long lived and robust and keep half here on Earth and launched half in all directions of our solar system(via some fancy cubesats or something), would we be able to potentially map our local neighborhood of this higher dimension?

----------------------
Is there anything sensitive enough to measure if gravity itself can be "communicated" through entangled particles? Maybe dark matter really doesn't exist, there could simply be some natural process for entangled particles to exist and spread throughout a galaxy causing the pull of gravity of a galaxy's central black hole to have a much more even strength. Basically the wormholes would potentially have a scattering effect on gravity. Likewise if it did communicate gravity, would putting billions of entangled particles at the front of a space ship, and the other half of those billions as close to the sun as possible (while maintaining entanglement) create a warp field? If so would there be a way to turn it off? I guess moving them to the center or spreading them out evenly?

 

[San K]

Welcome to the forum MikeGroovy.

I'll try to answer what I know.

Communication via entanglement is possible, just that it cannot be FTL.

The frequently asked questions are about FTL communication via entanglement.

Faster than light (FTL) communication via entanglement is not possible.

I have a few silly questions on the same subject. Google doesn't seem to answer them. :D
This is my first post, so please be gentle :D

----------------------
As far as communication through entangled particles, we can already observe states without changing them "very much".
http://www.livescience.com/15024-quantum-mechanics-particle-measurement-action-disturbance.html
http://phys.org/news/2012-10-gently-cubit-superposition.html

So why are so many experts still saying that there can never be communication via entangled particles?

 

[Nugatory]

Communication via entanglement is possible, just that it cannot be FTL.

Not possible at all, makes no difference whether it's faster than light or not.

 

[San K]

Not possible at all, makes no difference whether it's faster than light or not.

I thought communication, via entanglement, was possible i.e. by use of co-incidence counters.

For example - I thought quantum ghost imaging process transferred information via entanglement.

Maybe you are right (I am not a physicist) or maybe its a matter of semantics.

Also take a look at the below:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3915

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...gs-us-one-step-closer-to-quantum-cryptography

 

[San K]

----------------------
If entangled particles can keep their entanglement over vast distances in space, can they keep their entanglement over distances in time?

the answer is Yes.

Seems like entanglement can be made to work across both spatial and temporal

See...

http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.4191

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...ntanglement-of-photons-through-space-and-time

 

[Jilang]

Not possible at all, makes no difference whether it's faster than light or not.

If there is no communication and no hidden variables what is the other option? My earlier view was that they just shared the same bit of a large holographic program, but now I'm not so sure.

 

[audioloop]

the answer is Yes.

Seems like entanglement can be made to work across both spatial and temporal

See...

http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.4191

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...ntanglement-of-photons-through-space-and-time

Timelike entanglement and Spacelike entanglement.

 

[audioloop]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4053118&postcount=32

and there are Timlike Entanglement , i.e. entanglements in time.Physical Review A 85, 012306 (2012)
...entangled between timelike separated regions of spacetime...
...non-separability across time...----
and an experiment proposed:

Physical Review Letters 109, 033602 (2012)
...We propose a realistic circuit QED experiment to test the extraction of past-future vacuum entanglement to a pair of superconducting qubits...
...We show that this experiment can be realized with current technology and discuss its utility as a possible implementation of a quantum memory...

i have the complete papers if somebody wish it.

 

[audioloop]

MITnews
You can’t get entangled without a wormhole
MIT physicist finds the creation of entanglement simultaneously gives rise to a wormhole.
Jennifer Chu, MIT News Office.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/you-cant-get-entangled-without-a-wormhole-1205.html

 

[TumblingDice]

MITnews
You can’t get entangled without a wormhole
MIT physicist finds the creation of entanglement simultaneously gives rise to a wormhole.
Jennifer Chu, MIT News Office.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/you-cant-get-entangled-without-a-wormhole-1205.html

I think this is the article K^2 was referring to back in post #4, and I agree, it's written in a confusing manner.

Also, it includes:

Now an MIT physicist has found that, looked at through the lens of string theory, the creation of two entangled quarks — the building blocks of matter — simultaneously gives rise to a wormhole connecting the pair.

So does this mean it's all founded/based in string theory?

 

[audioloop]

that is a divulgation info from the massachuset institute of technology.

and not, k2 sugested article is from a popular mag, we have to ask to him which is.

the original work come from maldacena and suskind.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0533

"General relativity contains solutions in which two distant black holes are connected through the interior via a wormhole, or Einstein-Rosen bridge. These solutions can be interpreted as maximally entangled states of two black holes that form a complex EPR pair. We suggest that similar bridges might be present for more general entangled states"

 

[San K]

that is a divulgation info from the massachuset institute of technology.

and not, k2 sugested article is from a popular mag, we have to ask to him which is.

Thanks audioloop and agreed.

I had read from the MIT one as well, however K2 has mentioned, a confusing article, in some magazine.

and also waiting for Nugatory to respond to post 10 in this thread.