Physicists Create ‘the Smallest, Crummiest Wormhole You Can Imagine'

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
18 replies · 2K views
Physics news on Phys.org

Discussion

bob012345 said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/30/science/physics-wormhole-quantum-computer.html

My question is on the scale of 0 to 100 of completely misleading hype (zero) vs. good scientific reporting (100), where does this article stand? Someone can turn this into a formal poll if desired.

Paywalled:
1669998452475.png
 
My understanding is if you go to NYT site directly there is a paywall but if you go through Google NYT lets you read up to 20 articles a month free. Also try social media feeds.
 
Leonard Susskind, director of The Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics, made a quick video about that this week. He thinks it is very significant. He also said that it not only simulates a wormhole using quantum computers but also simulates a black hole at the same time.

I don't pretend to understand.

Susskind has been giving seminars for years under the title ER=EPR. ER stands for Einstein-Rosen Wormhole, and EPR stands for Einstein-Podesky-Rosen objections to quantum theory. The talk is about wormholes connecting two or more black holes; exactly what this week's news claims to simulate. [Note simulate, not observe.]

Susskind says his institute believes that this approach may succeed in uniting quantum mechanics with general relativity, and also provide a theory for quantum gravity at the same time. His presentation also brings quantum computers and complexity theory in. That would be very big. Once again, I watched the lectures, but I don't pretend to understand.

Note that Susskind did not write the sensationalist title to this video. Nor did he personally post it.


p.s. I'm biased because I learned almost all my physics from Susskind's video courses.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: nsaspook and Borg
bob012345 said:
But the article has a different theme. I am asking to critique the NYT's article and not the work itself.
We can't read the article. It is paywalled.
 
Reply
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: TeethWhitener
NYT allows a few free reads a month for non-subscribers. I am not a subscriber and I see it. Did you go to it through a Google search, not directly?
 
OK. I read the Reuters article. It agrees with what I said in post #4.

There are no interstellar spaceships or communications implied here. The wormhole starts in a BH and ends in a BH, so no traveler no message can every exit the BHs.
 
How long have "created" and "simulated" been synonyms?
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PhDeezNutz, DennisN and bob012345
anorlunda said:
We can't read the article. It is paywalled.

As bob012345 pointed out you can see a limited number of articles for free each month.

If that doesn't work for some reason and you really need to see the article without paying for it then I will point out that their paywall uses JS to enforce the limits. So it's not difficult to scale that wall, if you choose. I am a paid subscriber and believe in keeping newspapers alive and well as long as possible. I don't condone digital theft. But it's easy to do. Your choice.
 
JT Smith said:
As bob012345 pointed out you can see a limited number of articles for free each month.

If that doesn't work for some reason and you really need to see the article without paying for it then I will point out that their paywall uses JS to enforce the limits. So it's not difficult to scale that wall, if you choose. I am a paid subscriber and believe in keeping newspapers alive and well as long as possible. I don't condone digital theft. But it's easy to do. Your choice.
Also people can check if their local library allows digital access through them.
 
bob012345 said:
Check if your local library allows digital access through them.
Is there something particularly noteworthy about the NYT article above and beyond the rest of the freely available resources others have posted here that necessitates putting in this level of effort? What specific to the NYT article would you like to discuss?
 
TeethWhitener said:
Is there something particularly noteworthy about the NYT article above and beyond the rest of the freely available resources others have posted here that necessitates putting in this level of effort? What specific to the NYT article would you like to discuss?
Probably not. I just was curious much of it is misleading hype and actually detrimental to the public's understanding of the state of physics. Is the journalist taking liberties or himself being misled by the PR of the researchers?
 
Last edited:
bob012345 said:
Probably not. I just was curious much of it is misleading hype and actually detrimental to the public's understanding of the state of physics. Is the journalist taking liberties or himself being misled by the PR of the researchers?

I haven't read the article but I can say that the author, Dennis Overbye, is a long-time science writer who frequently writes about physics. From Wikipedia I see that he has a bachelor's in physics. But of course that doesn't answer the question.

Frankly, I find a lot of what is published in the weekly NYT Science section to be junk. But there are some good nuggets to be found. I have to say that when I saw this headline recently I figured this wouldn't be one of them.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
How long have "created" and "simulated" been synonyms?

https://arstechnica.com/science/202...wormhole-what-they-did-was-still-pretty-cool/
​
"It’s not the real thing; it’s not even close to the real thing; it’s barely even a simulation of something-not-close-to-the-real-thing," physicist Matt Strassler wrote on his blog. "Could this method lead to a simulation of a real wormhole someday? Maybe in the distant future. Could it lead to making a real wormhole? Never. Don’t get me wrong. What they did is pretty cool! But the hype in the press? Wildly, spectacularly overblown."​
 
Reply
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: bob012345, nsaspook and berkeman