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

In summary, the NY Times article claims that physicists have created a holographic wormhole that simulates a black hole at the same time. However, the article is paywalled and does not provide any evidence that this is actually true.
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
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
 
  • #3
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.
 
  • #4
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.
 
  • Like
Likes nsaspook and Borg
  • #7
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.
 
  • #9
  • Informative
Likes TeethWhitener
  • #10
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?
 
  • #11
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.
 
  • #13
How long have "created" and "simulated" been synonyms?
 
  • Like
Likes PhDeezNutz, DennisN and bob012345
  • #14
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.
 
  • #15
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.
 
  • #16
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?
 
  • #17
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:
  • #18
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.
 
  • Like
Likes bob012345
  • #19
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."​
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes bob012345, nsaspook and berkeman

1. What is a wormhole?

A wormhole is a hypothetical tunnel-like structure that connects two distant points in space-time. It is a concept in theoretical physics that has not yet been proven to exist.

2. How did physicists create the smallest wormhole?

The physicists used quantum entanglement, a phenomenon in which two particles become connected and can affect each other's states even when separated by great distances. They were able to create a microscopic wormhole by entangling two particles and then separating them by a very short distance.

3. What is the significance of creating a tiny wormhole?

Creating a tiny wormhole is significant because it provides evidence for the possibility of larger, more stable wormholes. It also helps scientists further understand the concept of quantum entanglement and its potential applications in the future.

4. Can this tiny wormhole be used for time travel?

No, this tiny wormhole is not large or stable enough to be used for time travel. The concept of time travel through wormholes is still purely theoretical and has not been proven to be possible.

5. What are the potential implications of this discovery?

This discovery could potentially lead to further advancements in quantum entanglement and the study of wormholes. It could also have applications in fields such as telecommunications and quantum computing.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
650
  • General Discussion
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top