I Einstein's 1935 Paper on Wormholes & Modern Physics

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter dsaun777
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bridges Einstein
Click For Summary
Einstein's 1935 paper briefly introduced the concept of wormholes, specifically addressing singularities through the idea of bridges in spacetime. Despite its potential implications, Einstein did not further develop this concept in subsequent works. The recent proposal of ER=EPR by Susskind and Maldacena suggests a connection between entanglement and wormholes, indicating a modern interpretation of Einstein's original ideas. However, the original spacetime model discussed still contains singularities, raising questions about its compatibility with current theories like string theory. The discussion highlights the ongoing relevance of Einstein's work in contemporary physics debates.
dsaun777
Messages
296
Reaction score
39
TL;DR
Einstein Rosen Bridges
Does anybody know why Einstein never pursued the idea of wormholes beyond his very short 1935 paper? If he did does anybody know of any of his papers that go into this idea in more detail. I know recently there was the proposal of EPR=ER mainly put forth by Susskind and Maldecena. The ER=EPR seems like an implied result of Einstein's original work, to begin with. The paper was titled "the particle problem in the General Theory of Relativity" and addressed the avoidance of singularities by bridges. How does this paper pan out with modern physics like string theory and so forth?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
dsaun777 said:
the avoidance of singularities by bridges

I'm not sure what this means, since the spacetime that contains the Einstein-Rosen bridge, maximally extended Schwarzschild spacetime, has singularities (two of them).

Do you have a link to the paper you refer to?
 

Thread 'Is using r as a coordinate in Birkhoff's theorem a limitation?'

In Birkhoff’s theorem, doesn’t assuming we can use r (defined as circumference divided by ## 2 \pi ## for any given sphere) as a coordinate across the spacetime implicitly assume that the spheres must always be getting bigger in some specific direction? Is there a version of the proof that doesn’t have this limitation? I’m thinking about if we made a similar move on 2-dimensional manifolds that ought to exhibit infinite order rotational symmetry. A cylinder would clearly fit, but if we...
View full post »

Similar threads

Reporting my own post to bring this to the attention of a moderator.
Replies
39
Views
4K
A Can the geodesic equation be derived from the EFE in a certain limit?
Replies
40
Views
7K
I Can Black Holes Create a Path for Lovers to Meet?
Replies
7
Views
2K
I How to bridge the gap between these approaches to SR?
Replies
27
Views
3K
I Is the fork in the Einstein Podolsky Rosen argument correct?
Replies
45
Views
2K
I Einstein's purely algebraic physics and "my entire castle in the air"
Replies
5
Views
2K
Can Physicists Unravel the Mysteries of Einstein-Rosen Bridges and Wormholes?
Replies
12
Views
4K
I Some questions about Coleman's Baby Universe model
Replies
1
Views
3K
Does quantum entanglement in fact equal a wormhole?
Replies
4
Views
2K
I ER=EPR baby steps: causation or not?
Replies
3
Views
3K