How Scientists Created a "Wormhole" in a LAB? Full Explanation

[@MrBendybruce]

I think you are one of those rare breed of people, who has a very strong understanding of a lot of complex scientific theories, but also has the ability to translate and explain it, in a way that is far more accessible to a general audience. I can't say for sure but it seems to me that you are able to do this with minimal or no damage to the integrity of the original concept.

[@ArvinAsh]

"No damage to the integrity of the original concept" - that's a great way to put i. That's is indeed my goal in all my videos. Thank you for the acknowledgement! Much appreciated.

[@TheCBScott7]

@Arvin Ash I disagree, entangled particles are not a wormhole and do not break any laws of physics since no information can be sent using them.

[@MrBendybruce]

@@TheCBScott7 maybe you should watch the actual video, because he never actually said any such thing.

[@TheCBScott7]

@@MrBendybruce I watched the entire video prior to commenting kiddo, try again.

[@MrBendybruce]

@@TheCBScott7 Which only makes your original comment even worse. Try try again kiddio

[@TWaveform]

I finished my engineering studies some 15 years ago. If I’d had these videos as a kid, I would have become a physicist. Looking forward to what the new generations of physicists come up with, inspired by contents like these. Awesome work Arvin!

[@ArvinAsh]

Thanks. And I probably would have followed those same footsteps.

[@jeanjohnson2743]

You can, Jordy or Scotty engineer Scotty beam me up

[@andythompson2009]

When I did my PhD in little physics, 20 years ago, all the maths was 'custom' made - 90% of the maths I knew didn't 'apply'! And there's a lot of maths... But nothing chatGPT couldn't help with these days... who knows where we'll be in 5 years... Probably hunter gatherers again after a massive solar flare takes out every chip on the planet!!

[@tibofordeyn1529]

You still could go back to school and become a physicist

[@brokeandtired]

Stargate beat them decades ago.

[@absolutmauser]

I, for one, welcome our new Delta Quadrant overlords

[@Yuhugg]

😂

[@uninspired3583]

They *have to be better than what happens when we govern ourselves.

[@wolfgangdali1036]

Dental plan

[@talkadelics]

Hahahahahah ! #ZRN

[@Robert_McGarry_Poems]

Nice

[@cybernaut001]

The way you explain such a complex concept in such an easy way is really mind blowing. Hats off to you sir.

[@Create-The-Imaginable]

Keep doing videos of theoretical concepts, theories, and experiments, they are extremely inspiring!

[@smlanka4u]

Prof. Albert Einstein didn't explain Quantum gravity. Creationists try to prove all the solutions to Einstein's equation to prove gravitational singularity in order to prove creationism. Quantum wormholes are different, and they don't represent quantum gravity. Also, White Holes and Gravitational singularities don't exist in reality. Scientists shouldn't use General Relativity to start space and time. The Truth is time and the universe started way more than 13.8 billion years ago. Neutrinos make Gravity, increasing the density of space near massive objects. General Relativity is only a classical theory. Gravitational wormholes doesn't exist in reality.

[@Nobody2989]

I think it's pretty ironic how EPR used Spooky Action at a Distance to suggest that quantum mechanics was flawed, but now that same spooky action is being used to show how General Relativity and QM can be linked lol

[@ArvinAsh]

I think if Einstein were alive today, he would want to take that phrase back.

[@ScientificReview]

Since EPR is false; ER must be false too! Worm hole should not be two black holes, but a black hole and a white hole!

[@ScientificReview]

This is not ironic, but it shows how weak the present 'scientists' are. Thanks to Google!

[@ideasoutside6086]

No Sir It may be possible.

[@neverusingthisagain2]

@@ArvinAsh you think he would still be looking for missing variables?

[@glenlarwill4326]

Has anyone ever tried to determine if entangled particles are just connected in one or more of the extra dimensions discussed in string theory scenarios? Perhaps they are actually two manifestations of the same particle in our limited 3/4 dimensions… that would no longer be “spooky action at a distance”.

[@lsauce45]

Perhaps...

[@FingerThatO]

​@@lsauce45 perhaps not

[@johndawson6057]

​@@FingerThatOand all the possible states between "perhaps" and "perhaps not"

[@erickguessford4984]

Awesome video! I love the combination of clear exposition and legible visuals. You've earned yourself a new subscriber, my friend.

[@RickClark58]

This makes a lot of sense to me. I have thought this for some time myself. The only way that entangled particles could behave the way they do is to bypass spacetime. The only complaint I have about these analogies is that the wormholes are always shown as a tube. In fact, there wouldn't be any distance between the "opening" and the "exit". It would be like two sides of an infinitely thin window. Lee Smolin talks about spacetime emerging from causality and that outside of interactions, spacetime doesn't really exist. He makes the point that if you moved the universe 10 meters to the "right" it would make no difference whatsoever. This shows that spacetime emerges from the interactions of objects in spacetime and not the other way around. General relativity shows this as well. GR is all about interactions and the effect those interactions have on spacetime and not the other way around. This idea matches up nicely with this idea of entagled particles "bridging" through spacetime because of the nature of the interaction. The hard limit in our universe is the speed of light, and since entangled particles ignore the speed of light they must have found a loophole to exploit. If spacetime doesn't exist outside of particle interactions then the type of interactions would inform spacetime on how to form. Entagled particles would form spacetime to meet the specific criteria necessary for the particles to behave the way they do. Just because we see the particles at different locations doesn't mean they are actually at different locations in their frame of reference. The conceptual problem here is the terminology. We simply don't have the words to describe what is going on and therefore it seems spooky and unreal. These ideas are described quite nicely in the mathematics but don't translate well into other languages.

[@therealDannyVasquez]

The two singularities would essentially be the exact same space

[@Carl20054]

"their frame of reference", very good description. it is everything exists across infinity, and their interaction is not the particle interaction, but the infinity fields interaction, could happen anywhere, so, no time needed. that is entanglement

[@vanng.7493]

What a comment. If there is a Nobel price for KZbin comments. It should be it.

[@snikrepak]

Look up m-brane

[@TheCBScott7]

It's all BS... entangled particles don't transfer any information faster than light and they are not a wormhole

[@dejamike88]

Technology advancement is such an amazing topic. I’m 42 years old and I remembered my first summer job was working as a delivery boy at a Chinese restaurant. We had to use something called the “Key Map” to find the customer’s house and it sucks because I am bad at reading maps lol… I think anyone that is 30 or younger never seen/used the Key Maps before.

[@Abster1213]

I was seeing another video where a physicist made the following comment on this experiment…”Claiming that this experiment is a proof that wormholes not only exist but can be created is like saying I create a wormhole every time I draw one on a piece of paper”😄

[@MrlegendOr]

Where can we watch this video?

[@ArvinAsh]

Well that's a lot of hyperbole. I don't know of anyone that claims this experiment is "proof" of a wormhole in spacetime, except maybe journalists who don't understand the science. The researchers who wrote the paper were very careful about the words they used, and even cautioned not to take this analogy too far.

[@kallianpublico7517]

When I was studying advanced engineering math we went through "mapping". Where one form could be "mapped" onto another. I remember commenting to my teacher that we had solved an ancient puzzle called "squaring the circle". He immediately shot back to me that the puzzle was originally meant for resolving with compass and ruler, not by these techniques. I was immediately deflated. Today I'm skeptical of computer modeling techniques. Not because they're invalid but because they're missing something...essential. There's a missing link somewhere that can't be explained away. It can be ignored, in light of the practical results, but it can't be understood. I mean if lines are really made of points then it should be no problem to match every point on a circle to every point on lines making up a square. Unless circles aren't made of points. When we look at the question through algebra we can immediately see that the equations for circles are definitely different from the equations of lines. Circles always involve exponents whereas lines do not. Why? Well what do exponents do? 2nd degree exponents as in the measurement of g, the acceleration due to gravity, lead to...well acceleration. It seems to me that every mathematical equation from general relativity to Dirac's equation to Schrodinger's equation is a mapping technique to isolate a best fit, giving the expected results derived from repeated experiments. As such they are all a form of exponentiation, of acceleration, of entangling spacetime in order to best match experimental outcomes. In my opinion these equations are a kind of narrator. If you've ever watched these channels dealing with crimes, all these cases where they've caught or imprisoned a suspect; the show always makes it seem as if the motives and evidence they produce are the ONLY and incontrovertible way the crime occurred. Without a reliable eyewitness circumstantial evidence is just that - circumstancial. Just like science the criminal justice system doesn't like second guessing. Unless new evidence is exposed they continue with their same old story. Whether or not they've framed some innocent character they stick to the narrative. Equations aren't objects. Equations are supposed to show the relationships between objects. When they become a means to assert the presence of an object, then they run the risk of becoming a narrator instead of an observer.

[@abheceshabemuskk3531]

do you mean all theories just describe an aproximate reality but doesn't represent the reality itself?

[@flambambam]

​@@abheceshabemuskk3531 An infinitely precise approximation is reality itself, but that would require an infinite amount of knowledge for our models to converge toward it. It's like the whole .9999999... = 1 thing. 1 is reality, and every additional 9 we map out brings us closer. It will only reflect the true nature of reality in the limit as the number of terms approaches infinity.

[@kallianpublico7517]

@@abheceshabemuskk3531 I am not a scientist, though I was trained in physics. Your question about meaning is right to the point. I wrote equations are not "objects", so then what are the equations of circles and lines? Aren't circles and lines "objects"? No. When I say objects I mean matter. Circles and lines are shapes, forms. Like numbers, they are "abstract objects", but they have no empirical foundation. The moon in the night sky sometimes has the shape of a circle, so then all circles are moons? No. Excluding objects from "abstract objects" then, what's the difference between narration and observation? Teleology - purpose or intention. In the Japanese movie "Rashomon" by Akira Kurasawa three witnesses attempt to give testimony, narration, about the same event. Depending on their personal biases they all tell different stories. Same general data but different interpretations. These equations act as a narrator, as the sole narrator they tell a consistent story: a consistent interpretation. One wonders however if the same data can be processed thru a different narrator, a different interpreter. If the same data has another meaning.

[@abheceshabemuskk3531]

@@kallianpublico7517 In some way is like saying numbers aren't real, only a human abstract invention, we don't even know if space-time is continuous or discrete, analog or digital. All this is a philosophycal debate or metaphysic..and I like it

[@kallianpublico7517]

@@abheceshabemuskk3531 Numbers aren't objects either, matter, so they don't really exist. Exist as matter or energy. But I think I'm really questioning scientific modeling. There are experimental results that aren't "completely" understood. Yet we have formulas that predict those results pretty well. Using the formula to interpret what's going on is perfectly reasonable. But then using those interpretations to model other results...I don't know. Somewhere along the way the meaning gets lost. You're no longer correlating the context to a pretext, you're correlating pretext to pretext.

[@CallMeMasterBabo]

imagining how in the year 2100, we still don't have flying cars but do have portals or even a portal gun lmao

[@samuelthecamel]

It is also good to point out that no information really went faster than the speed of light here. I am assuming that it traveled through the electrical pulse that you mentioned?

[@jnonymous]

Even if there was faster-than-light information transfer of the Probe, wouldn't we still need the Reference to determine what that information was? And that Reference would not be able to travel faster than the speed of light. Not sure if I understand correctly.

[@simbaensolo3466]

Since it was made using a quantum computer and entanglement, yes the information did travel faster than the speed of light. Reading the information is limited by the speed of light because for now we have no way to know if the other read it first or we did. Regardless, this is rather promising. The major issue is we’d need to figure a way to find out a way to figure out how to determine if the transmission was a real one or not. Because sure, reading the information might be limited by the speed of light, but if we can figure out a way to use it without needing to directly contact the other person, it means that we can communicate at any distances with the speed of light only coming into play when you read the data. It would means that if we went to a nearby star system that’s like 4 light years away we would skip these 4 years of data travel to send a message. For us to become a successful space faring civilization we need a way to achieve FTL data communication at the very least.

[@Italianjedi7]

Loved this video. I did hear about the holographic wormhole so I was super excited you were going to cover it. My question to you is "If we ever want to make a real transversable wormhole, is the first and foremost requirement, a working theory of quantum gravity?" Thanks!

[@ArvinAsh]

Such a theory would be helpful, but a traversable wormhole is theoretically possible with known physics. The only problem is that one needs a lot of negative mass/energy, which although theorized is not something that is thought to be producible.

[@Italianjedi7]

@@ArvinAsh I see. Thank you Arvin!

[@CaptainPeterRMiller]

That's a great discourse on the "creation of the quantum wormhole." Arvin, your topics keep moving further into the unknown, for my reference but they help me expand my understanding of the interesting work which contniues to expand our knowledge. A great new video. Very well done.

[@imperomaratona]

I think that this people that do this type of video should have an Oscar for making so detailed and intelligent videos

[@vvtor]

Amazing explanation, thank you for clearing up things that interest me a lot.

[@byamboy]

Awesome as usual! Difficult subject tho, gonna have to rewatch a couple of times.

[@kittredge5167]

I can save you some time. No "wormhole" was ever created. This is all based on flowery language supposed scientists used, so that they could draw attention to themselves. They were being intentionally misleading. Their claims have already been debunked and they've been discredited.

[@byamboy]

@@kittredge5167 Thank you. It was a tough call anyway.

[@BorchikYes]

Its important to understand that this is waaay simplified but it gives a great view at theese things to people that have not studdied physics for their entire life. Great vid!

[@jasonsoto5273]

I really really really want this to be able to transfer information. Unfortunately all other quantum experiments before it make me doubtful. I bet you still need to compare it to the reference particle though so you probably have to take that particle and move it to the other wormhole or send info about it via normal methods to make the measurement right? Please someone tell me I'm wrong.

[@bradleygarrett5099]

While ER=EPR is an amazing & powerful realization, I am genuinely curious how that doesn’t mean GR=EPR or GR=QFD/QED if we, for example see GR as QFD but at a higher scale and also where a black hole = proton/nucleus, stars = electrons and within black hole space>time time>space, light (c) = time and therefore gravitational waves are the light of a larger scale… not explained well at all, but hope the main point comes thru, thanks for great work/vids love the channel thanks!

[@EthanolTailor]

All this paper did was put a bubble of semantics around a physics of information experiment and called it a wormhole, its incredibly weakly justified nomenclature and nothing more. Physics papers do this often, its bait for popsci journalists which boosts an article's referencing. Its Search Engine Optimisation for scientific journals.

[@Mentaculus42]

Great video! Outstanding graphics that definitely improved the explanation. But, kinda danced around the criticisms of the Quanta Magazine article and video of the quantum computer simulation being over simplified (and possibly over hyped)! Keep up the great work, great start for 2023!

[@Thunder_Monarch]

Don't mind me an average intelligent human watching

[@Lauderdizzle]

This was damn cool. And the points you make at the end about "crazy ideas" are excellent. Skeptical and open minded.. I think that's the perfect way to say it.

[@KineticSymphony]

Sort of similar to the concept of acceleration vs gravity. From a theoretical standpoint, mathematical standpoint, they're indistinguishable. Of course, in practice, something else must be going on, right? A wormhole as described can't be formed and permanent, as micro blackholes would dissipate almost instantly. Another question, regarding the display of this stabilizing force to keep the wormhole from collapsing, in the video it's represented as traveling outside of the wormhole, through normal spacetime. So, does this mean the stabilizing force has to travel conventionally, at the speed of light?

[@terry_j99]

I think this is a great step forward to the invention of instant communication. It'll be great for space missions so we don't have to wait hours to get information. It'd just be instant

[@tidepool5400]

Unfortunately that is likely impossible as it massively complicates causality.

[@cortster12]

Information transfer is still delayed, even if the action is instant. It's weird, but it's true, and ftl information transfer cannot be achieved I believe.

[@crazieeez]

@@cortster12 There's a concept called retrocasuality. It will be proven correct that faster than light communication is possible.

[@channel4me434]

A bit off-topic, but now that you mentioned entanglement, I remember another video of yours in which you explained how one can measure the spin (let's say up) of an electron on a specific angle (e.q. horizontal) and then when its counterpart is measured at horizontally, it will 100% be down, but if it is measure vertically, change of measuring down is 50%. I was thinking about using this fact for communications faster than light: Digital information is processed and transferred in streams of bits, 1 and 0. The sender uses the angle of the measurement to "transfer" the information. If it is a 1 that has to be transmitted, the spin will be measured horizontal. For a zero (0), the spin of the photon will be measured vertically. The receiver will measure each photon 10 times in a row, the first 5 horizontal, the last 5 in vertical position. For a 1, the receiver will measure the same spin direction for the first 5 measurements, and mixed directions for the other 5. (e.g. up,up,up,up,up, up,down,down,up,up) For a 0, the receiver will measure mixed spin directions for the first 5 measurements, and the same direction for the other 5. (e.g. up,up,up,up,down, up,up,up,up,up) So the block of 5 (first or last one) that has all same spin directions corresponds with the value of the bit. The beauty of this solution is that the information to be transferred is not based on the spin direction itself, because that is fully random, but on the measurement angle (horizontal or vertical). If the measurement angle is the same on both sides, the spin is 100% the same, if the angles differ 90 degrees, the change is 50%. OK, there is a change that spin directions of the "wrong angle" are all the same. The change is ½^4 = 6,25% based on 10 measurements. So it is important to adjust the number of measurements to the importance and accuracy of the information to be transferred.

[@cosmicwakes6443]

This simulation is profound on another level, it could be the next step in scientific experimentation wherein hypotheses might be refined or verified by quantum computational methods. A truly remarkable achievement.

[@Jezee213]

It's an elegant solution because if they are equivalent then, we don't need massive amounts of energy and matter to test some theories, if the quantum simulation shows it works then we know physically it would work.

[@stevelenores5637]

@@Jezee213 No you don't anymore than a simulated elf inside a video game proves elves exist.

[@flambambam]

@@stevelenores5637 I wouldn't be so sure considering that this simulation uses the "physics engine" of reality and not an arbitrary artificial one. As long as the mathematics modelling the simulation is consistent with the true nature of reality, then we know reality will do what the math tells us. If it doesn't, then our math is wrong. This experiment showed that we are at least on the right track.

[@kittredge5167]

@@stevelenores5637 Bingo. I understand people get over excited because flowery pseudo scientific words are used, but it's all BS. "I turned on my computer and saw a picture of another place, this is proof that there's a universe in my computer!" Good god people, seriously?

[@stevelenores5637]

@@flambambam Not everything is solvable. Often in quantum physics it's a roll of the dice.

[@bnjm8868]

Another great video Arvin. I'm open minded and not skeptical at all. I truly think that there is a natural wormhole network throughout all extra dimensions of space. We just have to discover them and learn how to use them safely. 😊

[@jakecheyne4966]

so theoretically with this technology could we have FTL communication?

[@ArvinAsh]

I don't think that is the case, at least that's not what this experiment showed.

[@rayiskander]

Elegantly simple!! Thank you for creating this video!

[@crazieeez]

Thank you for bringing QM and GR to the masses. You did a wonderful job with pictures and animation.

[@elmolewis9123]

I almost skipped this video based on the thumbnail title... but then I saw it was an Arvin Ash video. Very interesting and well-explained.

[@stevelenores5637]

Just because the BS is higher and deeper doesn't mean it's true.

[@ArvinAsh]

Where did you see any BS? Wait, maybe you didn't even watch the video?

[@stevelenores5637]

@@ArvinAsh Because it's a simulation. I did watch the video. All computers including quantum computers approximate the real world in an idealized fashion. Therefore it can never represent the real thing no more than a football video game is a true representation of football. It's fun but can never represent reality because no computer has the resources to take all factors into account including supercomputers.

[@ArvinAsh]

@@stevelenores5637 Correct. And that's exactly what I said at the conclusion of the video. This is not a wormhole in spacetime but a mathematical simulation. But the results are still important. Maybe you have argument against that last point. But that's ok, scientists are allowed to disagree.

[@stevelenores5637]

@@ArvinAsh Then we are in agreement. Too many people take computer simulations as an oracle of infallibility. We don't put simulated airplanes into production. We build models and fly them in wind tunnels. Then prototypes are built sometimes killing test pilots. Even when the testing is done and the planes are sold they still fall out of the sky because something was still overlooked. I wonder if the public at large will ever understand the true cost and uncertainty that comes with cutting edge science.

[@jmcsquared18]

I learned general relativity in high school by watching Leonard Susskind's continuing studies videos on Stanford's KZbin channel. He is one of a kind, both as a revolutionary scientific thinker, and as a communicator of science at levels anyone can understand.

[@SECONDQUEST]

I don't wanna be that guy but I am that guy. Watching stuff and "understanding" it isn't the same as learning the mechanics and how to use the math. I learned quantum mechanics in high school if we're talking about lectures we watched.

[@jmcsquared18]

@@SECONDQUEST "I don't wanna be that guy but I am that guy." So you don't wanna be yourself? I guess I... feel sorry for you? If you think that my entire educational history consists of watching KZbin videos before I turned 20, you really need to reevaluate your evaluation abilities.

[@jmcsquared18]

@@SECONDQUEST My point in commenting wasn't to claim that you can get online physics degrees from KZbin. My point in commenting was to highlight how inspiring of a teacher Leonard Susskind has been.

[@wanpakudanpu]

I loved those Standford videos also. I felt they bridged a nice gap between the physics information shown to the general public and the real hard core papers and things. I emailed Mr. Susskind telling him how much I enjoyed them and he sent a thank you reply XD

[@kittredge5167]

@@jmcsquared18 He's not wrong though, and if videos like this impress you, then you get impressed by pseudo science and really have no idea what you're looking at, let alone talking about.

[@MrElvis1971]

This is a good video given the choice of topic. Very well written and presented.

[@MarshmallowRadiation]

So it's not an actual wormhole, BUT they were able to reconstruct information about a distant particle using quantum entanglement, which effectively means FTL communication is possible if the information can be reliably reconstructed across any arbitrary distance? Isn't that a potentially much bigger discovery than "just" simulating a wormhole??

[@KungFuKeni]

FTL is impossible and has been shown to be impossible countless times. Read over what you wrote and find where your logic is flawed

[@ApostleOfCats]

@@KungFuKeni bro the whole video is about wormholes, which would theoretically make ftl possible 💀

[@prismrefractrb4691]

Also, there is things like black holes where stuff that gets pulled to them go faster than light.

[@tcarr349]

Thanks!

[@ArvinAsh]

many thanks.

[@DKonigsbach]

Great video, as usual, Arvin! Could you help me understand how what this experiment accomplished go beyond quantum teleportation?

[@ArvinAsh]

The experiment appears to support, or at at least provides one data point suggesting that the ER=EPR conjecture may be correct. In addition, it supports the idea that wormholes may be traversable.

[@kittredge5167]

@@ArvinAsh The things that don't exist? They can be traversed? There is no proof that wormholes exist, they're constructs created by science fiction writers.

[@DKonigsbach]

@@ArvinAsh Thank you!

[@olitrax]

My understanding of quantum mechanics is very limited but of what i have understood of this, is that there was no real information transfer. Since the entanglemant of the particle gets lost as soon as you check the state of the particle you need someone to tell you when to to check the state (you only have one try). And this information when to check the state can only travel with lightspeed. So for me this experiment seems to promise more than it can provide.

[@Kim-e4g4w]

If practical then we might have a way to create an internet with almost 0 ping time anywhere on Earth or the Sol system. Also another possible direction is to create a body scanner that utilizes the entanglement phenome, a small step toward making the Ultimate Healing Machine. No need for hospitals or medicines if we have UHMs.

[@Italian_Isaac_Clarke]

Entangling particles means that their spin will be one opposite to the other. To say that their measurement is "spooky action at a distance" is exactly like saying that "ripping a piece of paper in two, sealing the parts in envelopes and then giving them to another dude to measure what piece of paper is in one envelope, so that he now know what's in the other envelope" is something unexplainable by whatever part of science that we already know or whatever. If two particles are entangled one will be A and the other B, always. To measure A and therefore the other is B is not sorcery, it's basic elementary school Logic by deduction. It does not break the speed of light, it's an attribute the particle already had and we didn't know up to the measurement of one of the two.

[@GlorifiedGremlin]

Could you do a video on the lab that's currently trying to recreate the fabric of spacetime using quantum particles and entanglement? Seems to tie in to this video quite a bit

[@tooflyable]

Where did you see this at?

[@pallll12r]

Can i have the name of the lab?

[@eveeseki9677]

This is my fifth video on the subject. This is the only video that made sense to me. Thank you.

[@kx7500]

This was debunked as not an actual wormhole but just a simulation by actual scientists.

[@syntaxed2]

Good video, as always :D Just out of curiousity, what are your thoughts about the type-changing neutrino, do you have any suspicions it could be dark matter?

[@calebpoemoceah3087]

Interesting idea could be. The gravity should be equal then , dark matter and nutreinos , both should produce gravity so they might be closely related even if not exactly the same . It would be nice to know if more gravity is produce as the nutreinos oscillate

[@SECONDQUEST]

@@calebpoemoceah3087 thats some nonsense you got there buddy

[@calebpoemoceah3087]

@@SECONDQUEST reply to your own questions troll scumbag

[@calebpoemoceah3087]

@@SECONDQUEST your a fake and a time servant

[@mindblown42069]

Sometimes i feel like i am nodding along understand everything we are talking about, and then two seconds later im saying "wait, what" out loud and am very perplexed XD

[@99dudette]

Thank you so much for explaining the experiment in an easy to understand way! I think you are correct; the experiment is not to be dismissed because it will do much for the future of communication.

[@Bassotronics]

Now.. on a macro scale… If a *Black* Hole were to be like a drain or tunnel then yes the bridge could be possible. But knowing that a *Black* hole is a compressor and compresses matter into a single point (hence singularity), there is no “other side”. The 2D drawing of *Black* holes is misleading. A *Black* hole squeezes matter from all directions. A spinning *Black* hole squeezes matter from one direction due to the nature of spin and from what coordinate the object was located before being compressed.

[@ronaldkemp3952]

Only special relativity can be linked to quantum theory. General relativity cannot because it assumes light information takes time to travel great distances when it does not. According to Special relativity when something accelerates up to the speed of light, time occurring to the body comes to an abrupt stop. This is why wormholes were proposed. Think about it. If a light particle is traveling at c then the light particle no longer exists in our reference frame of space, mass and time. The light particle is without mass, and time. Because it travels without mass and time it can go from here to the other side of the universe in an instant. When time is zero, distance and mass are zero too. When traveling at c light no longer exists in our slow mass time universe. It exists as a potential in our spacetime. This is why the information pertaining to one light particle can traverse the entire universe in an instant. Spooky action at a distance. Light information doesn't exist in our reference frame until it is measured. The act of observing creates the light particles from a sea of all possibilities when referencing our frame of motion, mass and time. From what I understand about quantum mechanics, special relativity, and James Clerk Maxwell's field equations, light information doesn't takes time to travel great distances. One reason why I predicted future telescopes would eventually measure supermassive galaxies larger than the Milky Way but further than 14 billion light years away. Light information happens in a quantum instant when the observer or measuring device is contained inside the EM field they are measuring. Believing you can use a telescope to look into the past is as silly as believing you can use a microscope to look into the future. Silly indeed.

[@gunjanjain7274]

Wow!! Clear, crisp explanation!

[@williejohnson487]

I see two problems: 1) If ER is true, it would mean there's infinitely many tiny wormholes (and, black holes) around us all the time ( we just can't feel them, [but would the cumulative of them add to something noticeable?] ); (2) their experiment uses a simulated negative energy (isn't it convenient that no one, including Arvin Ash, questions the accuracy of the "The Simulation" algorithm?): simulation equals imagination, imagination equals fantasy, hence, simulation equals fantasy. Wormholes can be created from fantasy, but the created wormhole is fantasy, only fantasy, and nothing more. I think their experiment should be the basis of the next Star Trek movie.

[@Alkis05]

You are strawmaning. They never said Wormholes exist. What they said is that, assuming ER=EPR conjecture is right, they made a simulation of how a wormhole would behave if it was right. They never claimed this was an experiment. It is a simulation done with certain assumptions. Maybe it makes some new predictions from the result that astronomers might be able to look for, for example. Very much like when they made simulations of blackholes coliding and then made observations of gravitational waves that later corroborated their suppositions. That is a normal course in science.

[@williejohnson487]

@@Alkis05 I got all that from the video too. But all that is giving scientists too much elbow room. Way too much.

[@Alkis05]

@@williejohnson487 What do you mean by "giving scientists too much elbow room"?

[@williejohnson487]

@@Alkis05 I mean you are not pinning them down to science. You're letting them forward anything they want, and because it's them saying it you allow it. Let them police themselves, only they have enough intelligence to do so: What a lie! Sometimes scientist intentionally lie just to publish a paper and thereby keep their University (or research institution job). There is unwritten agreement among them to not investigate when this appears to be the case.

[@Platinum199]

1:59 scared the hell outta me thought my house was haunted and my laundry basket moved

[@Tsety1]

It’s cool to think that this could be used in the future for instant transmission of information.

[@512Squared]

Does the negative energy pulse create a reversal of time from one end of the worm hole relative to the other end, thus providing a basis for the unscrambling of the cubit information?

[@ArvinAsh]

There is no theoretical basis for time reversal in this experiment, so that is unlikely.

[@512Squared]

@@ArvinAsh okay, thanks. What is the prominent reasoning for the unscrambling and how unexpected was it?

[@mikkel715]

Has the "No-communication theorem" been broken? . My guess is, any unscrambled information was limited to the speed of light..

[@silkwurm]

Correct, observation of a wormhole would violate causality. no new science was discovered in the making of this paper, and I think it’s reasonable to expect a science communicator to have made this point very clear

[@mikkel715]

@@silkwurm Agree then. Arvin Ash should have pointed that out.

[@Yal_Rathol]

so, if i'm understanding correctly, what they demonstrated is that you can send information through a wormhole-like structure in spacetime. meaning that if we manage to advance this technology, we could build instant communication arrays that beam info between planets. no time-delay or lag when trying to talk with someone on mars.

[@ThePaulv12]

I've been intentionally avoiding this wormhole creation business until all the BS hype has calmed down, so someone like yourself can can have a calm circumspect discussion with us.

[@hugegamer5988]

Saying each person has a trillion trillion wormholes in them and so did everyone that ever lived, but also all other living things also all non-living things too, they are everywhere and ubiquitous just doesn’t have the same ring as “scientists create wormhole in lab”

[@w花b]

@@hugegamer5988 "A theory of everything? These scientists created a wormhole to prove it, and you will not believe their results! (number 4 will surprise you)"

[@EthanolTailor]

this entire paper is bullshit journal SEO optimisation and nothing more.* (saying nothing more is a vast understatement, it is about entanglement and information theory but hardly anything to do with ER bridges.)

[@jameskilrain9350]

@@EthanolTailor Agreed.However,this may not be the scientists at fault.It may be the journalists who was trying to blow it all out of proportion to get a sensational story.Not saying there are really no wormholes.They are actually part of the theory of relativity.However,they are still presently unproven.Am not knocking this video,however.It is the sensational reporting of the journalism.They gave persons the completely wrong idea.Maybe,on purpose?To sell papers and get ratings?

[@EthanolTailor]

@@jameskilrain9350 Nah I'm well aware of how this goes. paper's often get passed over and edited a lot for appeal, and to draw in pop sci journalists, It's an actual job people get paid for though I cant remember the name of it, IK its rarely the listed authors direct work you see in the final paper. Personally I don't much respect the practice but some great scientists can't spell or write for shit so I get it. Another great example of papers written like this is the "panic at the disks" astrophysics paper. Whoever edited that knew what the title would end up doing. lol One of the senior authors on that paper is my Astrophysics prof. and he explained all about the process and how edited it was for sensationalism. This paper is very interesting for the field quantum computing entanglement techniques and such, but the title and "wormhole" naming is hardly an accurate description of it.

[@rodylermglez]

Many are throwing this out just because certain science influencers are saying so, never mentioning the Susskind-Maldacena conjecture, but if I understood the press release and the paper's abstract correctly I'm now here wondering if there is any difference to "quantum teleportation", quantum entanglement and this kind of "wormhole". More research is definitely needed.

[@Adrian-kr8lx]

Even if this doesn't lead to worm holes, being able to transmit information using entanglement has ground breaking prospects.

[@jessekarn]

Lag free gaming ftw.

[@AlteryxGaming]

Literal instant communication unlike current texting

[@tidepool5400]

That is likely impossible, it has never been done in a lab and Lorentz invariance theory suggests it cannot be done.

[@cortster12]

It still won't be instant communication, sadly. The speed of causality hasn't been cracked, and remains true.

[@Adrian-kr8lx]

@@cortster12 well that’s alright it’s still interesting none the less, and it opens gateways to understanding the theory of quantum entanglement!

[@someguy-k2h]

Bravo for the video and the explanation. You just got my subscription. My question is, if the "message" is smeared across the qubits at the entrance and then is transported to the qubits at the exit, then where did the energy come from to unscramble the message? It seems like this breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If you analogy with the drop of ink is correct, then there needs to be some work done (energy) to reassemble the diffuse cloud back into a drop of ink. Maybe I'm taking the analogy to litterally.

[@ArvinAsh]

2nd law need not have been violated if net entropy remains unchanged. In this case, from what I read in the paper, it appears to me that there was an overall slight increase in entropy because the level of entanglement between the reference and exit particles , while existing, was slightly less than the level between the starting probe and reference qubits.

[@someguy-k2h]

@@ArvinAsh Thank you so much for your input. I will look for the original papers and try to understand it as well as you explain it.

[@erkdoc5]

This might be good for sending information between a base on another planet and earth. Idk how well it would move matter through what most people see as a wormhole without changing a lot

[@LQhristian]

Good summary! If masslessness was an attribute that could be conveyed/transferred to objects, then it should be possible to have an object, rendered massless, pass through a worm hole without causing it to gravitationally collapse!!??

[@leesweets4110]

"Holographic" and "in a computer" kind of delegitimizes everything. The video games have been doing wormholes for decades. Not sure what the difference is here. Quantum computers rely on entanglement; its essential, as we know. Quantum computers have been in use for a while now, in some capacity or another. So why would all of the sudden, out of the blue, a new paper be published that talks about these "holographic wormholes", when they know full well what they mean is they are just making use of entanglement, innately by using a quantum computer? Is it because they are desperate for click baiting for publicity, ultimately for more funding?

[@ArvinAsh]

It was not an image of a wormhole created in a computer, if that's what you are thinking. These were systems of qubits (actual objects) that mathematically were equivalent to a wormhole.

[@leesweets4110]

@@ArvinAsh Its funny how all your comments to me over the months seem to suggest that I didnt watch your video. I did. Can you give your viewers the benefit of the doubt? All you read was the first sentence before deciding to comment.

[@clarenceorozco5300]

​@@leesweets4110I mean it looks like you watched like, a quarter of the video.

[@ScientificReview]

Since EPR is false; ER must be false too! Worm hole should not be two black holes, but a black hole and a white hole!

[@dj-kq4fz]

Thanks Arvin, always a good explanation of difficult concepts. Dave J

[@cardboardmannequin4069]

So how strongly does the analogy hold? Is the information actually being transmitted through some shortcut in spacetime? I.E. would this theoretically enable FTL communications? Or is it still limited by speed of light?

[@TamberCave]

Exactly what I want to know. I suspect it wouldn't, but I wish he had addressed it!

[@Mic_Glow]

If it simulated the behavior of a wormhole does it mean it could also perform FTL communication?

[@wobbleton5551]

I understand this better than my math teacher explaining algebra

[@ploppyploppy]

So they didn't make a physical wormhole :) Next.

[@seanmostert4213]

To keep a wormhole open you could use negative energy (which is using a solution that does not exist) or you can use rotation like what naturally keeps a vortex from collapsing as water flows down a drain.

[@shadowoffire4307]

Arvin. In reality, they are purely theoretical. Unlike black holes-also once thought to be purely theoretical-no evidence for an actual wormhole has ever been found, although they are fascinating from an abstract theoretical physics perceptive. Today's technology is insufficient to enlarge or stabilize wormholes, even if they could be found. However, scientists continue to explore the concept as a method of space travel with the hope that technology will eventually be able to utilize them.

[@pinnacleexpress420]

around 8:50 i heard that entangled particles just start off that way and once you change the spin of just one of the entangled particles, theyre basically no longer entangled. that was wrong? changing one changes the other?

[@luchang2148]

It's not a wormhole! It's a simulation using Google's quantum computer.

[@ArvinAsh]

It's a wormhole, a QUANTUM wormhole. It's important to distinguish this from a wormhole in spacetime, which it is not.

[@darenmiller2218]

@@ArvinAshok so if it isn’t in spacetime, wouldn’t that mean it’s simulated? I’m genuinely trying to understand.

[@sulner9997]

We all live in spacetime, we know we all create gravity, but so minuscule its negligible so entanglement is manipulating a insignificant incalculable part of spacetime

[@seanmcdonough8815]

@@darenmiller2218 ha! Now you're getting to locality which we now know doesn't exist!

[@ArvinAsh]

@@darenmiller2218 It's simulating a wormhole in spacetime. Juan Maldecena showed that the mathematics of a spacetime wormhole is the same as quantum entangled particles. The object created in this experiment was mathematically equivalent to a spacetime wormhole. The researchers showed that information could be transferred through it. The skepticism stems from scientists warning not to take this mathematical analogy between a quantum wormhole and a spacetime wormhole too far. The latter is still not possible, but our understanding of it is a bit closer.

[@Capu57]

@9:31 in your example those 2 quantum computers are practically next ot each other. For the one off California it would have made more sense to place the second one approx south east of Madigascar not just off the coast Japan. Based on where you show them in reference to the center of the quantum computers they are probably at best 1000 miles apart.

[@michak8029]

till now I believed you have a science channel, seeing title of this video I know I was wrong, you have sudo science channel and lure viewers with clickbaiting title, not content

[@ArvinAsh]

lol. Sounds like someone who didn't actually see the video.

[@michak8029]

@@ArvinAsh ofc I didn't watch it - I never watch videos with clickbaiting titles, especially if I know to which paper that "wormhole" reffers to and it's not about wormhole

[@santamariajorge]

Excellent!. The best explanation I´ve heard. Clear and to the point

[@patternnoticing]

saint Einstein is overrated

[@jamthespace1]

Yes because he has changed the physics what we know today. Mostly visual physics which one experience. While quantum mechanics scientists are not so much celebrated because for common person it can be experienced. We will have to believe what science journal tells just like string theory 😂

[@MrlegendOr]

@@jamthespace1 Actually you are using Quantum Mechanics to do this comment

[@itzakehrenberg3449]

3:43 I understood that Einstein, Podolsky & Rosen argued that since action/communication greater than the speed of light in a vacuum is impossible, it follows that if the predictions of QM are true with regard to entangled particles, then 'hidden variables" must actually be present that determine the necessarily correlated results of measurements of spatially separated entangled particles. Since none of these hidden variables are modeled in QM, it follows that QM is an incomplete theory. Thus the title of their paper, "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?"

[@rheffner3]

Nobody created a wormhole in a lab. How stupid.

[@scorchgardenultrahothotsau7919]

Have you ever taken a single magnifying lens held it close to your eye and the object and it magnifies yet the further away you get from the object and the lens the image flips upside down. So where is the distance in granular terms for where it flips? Is that instance the unification of quantum and classical?

[@User87_]

They didn’t though

[@michaelblacktree]

The Media: Scientists made a wormhole! Reality: Scientists used a computer to simulate an analogy of a wormhole.

[@diegoalejandrosanchezherre4788]

I have the following question: Is the tranfer of information betwen the entrance and exit of the quamtum wormhole instantáneous? No matter the distances??

[@ArvinAsh]

Theoretically, it should be, but I don't believe any measurement of this was made in this experiment.

[@wulphstein]

I wish physicists would talk about how the acceleration of a black hole is similar/different to the acceleration of a centrifuge. Is the acceleration of a black hole really strong enough to contract matter into a singularity (as we are told)? Or at least something as dense or more dense than neutronium (like a neutron star). Can a centrifuge be built that can spin fast enough to produce an acceleration that is equivalent to a black hole? If we centrifuged an atomic clock, would it experience an equivalent to gravitational time dilation?

[@Digital.Snorlax]

My issue is that if it was truly entangled the new particle could be introduced after the transfer and have some kind of affect on the original system, the experiment makes it seem like the initial electron was changed and the output electron that was entangled didn’t matter.

[@Regularsshorts]

Finally a video on ER=EPR I'm glad you made it.

[@Tob108]

If this is true we could send Information faster than the speed of light which breaks causality, if I understand correctly. Causality is as fundamentale as conservation of energy. This would be like inventing a Perpetual motion machine in the macroscopic world.

[@justinreschke3642]

The only wormhole Google created in this scenario is from investor wallets to Google's bank account.

[@silaskuira9124]

I saw black holes and toroids in the same schematic and immediately thought of quarks inside atoms. The flux between two or three quarks could definitely pass for wormholes.

[@sergiikram6239]

So does it mean the “entanglement” was transferred form one particle to a different particle?

[@darshgupta7682]

Does this mean that every particle in this universe is wormehol ly connected to its entangled particle ? Does this also mean that the no. Of wormholes is half the number of particles in the universe?

[@ArvinAsh]

The conjecture is that entangled particles are connected via a wormhole, but this needs more evidence. The current experiment shows that the conjecture cannot be ruled out.

[@darshgupta7682]

@@ArvinAsh damn.

[@Milo_Estobar]

By using "spooky action" we can send data without any medium? (wire, cables)

[@DrSlipperyFist]

The ink in water analogy is good. Seems like going through a wormhole would entail first being completely obliterated into your atom (or quark?) constituent components, and then being reassembled on the other end. Raises some interesting philosophical and ethical questions. Seems fine for a spaceship or ink blot, but a person....? How sure could you be the person coming out is exactly the same person that went in?

[@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475]

10:47 correction: Heliocentric model is NOT that the "Sun orbits Earth". Kopernikus would have something to say on that.

[@ArvinAsh]

Correct. We made a boo boo there. Thank you.

[@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475]

@@ArvinAsh I know graphics get reused a lot, which is the only reason i mentioned it. Good video here- I've been going back-and-forth on this computational worm hole myself. I think it may be one of those things that gets ignored at first, like Bell's inequalities. Good video topic.

[@younessebti7764]

This is beautifully presented, but the title is much more exciting.

[@vlogarithm9886]

I would like to know why wormholes are depicted in one direction, when spacetime fabric is omni present and curving of spacetime is equal on each side of the object. Then how come a hole in one direction possiblle?

[@balasubr2252]

It sounds great to have a conjecture and then produce a simulation to test that conjecture. Since spacetime is a single entity simultaneity is built in without any travel/movement through a wormhole, in my view. Building a mathematical model to prove something that doesn’t need a proof, might be a different topic altogether and independent of the spacetime fabric. The mathematical logic, used in this context like our natural language might be a different medium independent of the spacetime fabric. Perhaps they all might influence each other, unlike the dark matter and the dark energy that doesn’t seem to interact with matter at all, through electromagnetic fields perhaps because they all make a single closed system.

[@davidclark682]

“A flute without a hole is not a flute. A donut without a hole is a Danish.” A universe without a wormhole will not unify relativity and quantum theories.

[@michaelkaliski7651]

The problem I have with entangled particles is that we can know nothing about the particles until one is measured. We can then know the state of another remote particle, no matter how far away it has travelled. This does not violate the speed of light since the particles can only move apart at the speed of light and we know nothing about the state of either particle until one is measured. The logical conclusion is that the particles’ state is set at the moment of creation, we just don’t have any information at that point, so the process is essential random, at least from our point of view. No information is transferred between the particles and there is no violation of the speed of light.

[@flambambam]

This is exactly what I was thinking! If we have a red marble and a yellow marble in a box, pulling the red one out and concluding the other must be yellow doesn't violate any physical laws. But I guess that's just me clinging to determinism and classical logic. I'm not sure how we could even test this.

[@sergeiburtsev5712]

You say that negative energy is not possible, but Feynman diagram uses it quite well. It creates positive and negative energy particles and annihilates them.

[@ArvinAsh]

It's particles and antiparticles. Antiparticles are not negative energy.

[@Jezee213]

As virtual particles.

[@sergeiburtsev5712]

@@ArvinAsh a photon in your example does not have energy to create a pair of 2 tau particles. It uses the negative energy to do so. This negative energy is described as "borrowed energy". But how you describe a negative money balance on your bank account? A borrowed money!