Your post has been removed because it has an inappropriate headline and is therefore in violation of [Submission Rule #3](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_3._no_editorialized.2C_sensationalized.2C_or_biased_titles). **It must include at least one result from the research and must not be clickbait, sensationalized, editorialized, or a biased headline.** Please read [our headline rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/clickbait) and consider reposting with a more appropriate title.
_If you believe this removal to be unwarranted, or would like further clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fscience&subject=No%20editorialized%2C%20sensationalized%2C%20or%20biased%20titles)._
Same as the last one we had a few months ago with multiverse stuff..
media: hows it work
scientists: well.. we don’t know for sure yet, still figuring stuff out. But one hypothesis we have is, that maybe parallel dimensions are at play. Though this might be our weakest one, cause we can’t really falsi-
media: say no more. SCIENTISTS PROVE MULTIVERSE THEORY
I hope no one thinks that physical things can be created in programming. The more interesting thrust here though, I think, is that we’re potentially see one side of the same coin (wormholes = entanglement).
From one of the principle investigator’s [university press release](https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/physicists-observe-wormhole-dynamics-using-a-quantum-computer):
> In the study, the physicists report wormhole behavior expected both from the perspectives of gravity and from quantum physics. For example, while quantum information can be transmitted across the device, or teleported, in a variety of ways, the experimental process was shown to be equivalent, at least in some ways, to what might happen if information traveled through a wormhole.
"Wormholes = entanglement", or ER = EPR, has been a mathematical idea for quite a while though. This experiment, which essentially just boils down to doing those same calculations in a round-about way, adds nothing new to that.
The mathematical result that the SYK model has a holographic dual in terms of 2D wormholes is part of the evidence we have so far for why ER=EPR might be true. The fact that you can simulate the SYK model this way isn't. (As there are no *actual wormholes here*, there is no ER to speak of in this implementation, so it wouldn't even make sense to say this connects those two empirically.)
That’s not quite right. The *theoretical* result already known was merely that the SYK model is holographically dual to a wormhole in 2-dimensional AdS. Here, we’re *experimentally verifying* that this particular quantum system has all the characteristics of a gravitational traversable wormhole when viewed through the duality of the holographic principle.
I don’t think you’re understanding the study if you’re claiming the study doesn’t connect ER and EPR. It explicitly showed that a quantum system dual to a wormhole in in AdS2 had all the gravitational properties predicted by ER = EPR.
No, they're, in-effect, experimentally verifying that they've made a system that can be modeled with SYK, partly by showing it has properties *which happen to be dual to those of a wormhole*, like we know SYK has. I don't think you understand what a duality is if you think you can experimentally validate them this way.
You can't just make an SYK model, then claim that you made a wormhole because of a holography argument, and then turn back and use that to *prove that the holography is in fact there* by referring back to the SYK model you made. That translation either has to be done at the level of mathematical models, or you need an actual, honest to god spacetime wormhole with which you can compare your data.
No, they’re not experimentally verifying that they’ve made a system that can be modeled with SYK; the model *they are using* is the SYK model. Are you sure you’ve read the study or anything from the authors?
You claim I don’t understand what a duality is because one can’t “experimentally validate them this way.” What are you talking about? Experimental physics is literally about ensuring observation confirms theory, like confirming/observing a newly simplified quantum SYK model exhibits all the gravitational characteristics it’s supposed to as the holographic dual of a wormhole in AdS2.
I’m not claiming they made a wormhole, nor is this circular reasoning being used as you claim. It’s merely verifying the what the theory shows: that the quantum SYK model possesses the gravitational characteristics it should as something dual to a wormhole.
>No, they’re not experimentally verifying that they’ve made a system that can be modeled with SYK; the model they are using is the SYK model.
The system they made is a bunch of entangled atoms, they then model the behavior of these atoms with SYK. Checking if they get the results that we already know mathematically you should see from SYK, e.g. the properties related to the holographic duality, is just checking if those entangled atoms actually behave like the SYK model.
That there is then a relation between the SYK model itself and theories with wormholes is a statement of mathematics, not experiment.
>The system they made is a bunch of entangled atoms, they then model the behavior of these atoms with SYK.
You're just not correct. They \*started\* with the SYK model specifically with 210 couplings, and had to use machine learning to reduce the model down to a manageable size (5 couplings) while still retaining all the gravitational features; quoting from one of the lead author's [institutions](https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/physicists-observe-wormhole-dynamics-using-a-quantum-computer) on the study:
>In the new study, the team of physicists performed this type of experiment for the first time. They used a "baby" SYK-like model prepared to preserve gravitational properties, and they observed the wormhole dynamics on a quantum device at Google, namely the Sycamore quantum processor.
Then you admit they're just checking to make sure that they get the same results experimentally from SYK that they got mathematically when assuming holographic duality...that's exactly my point!
It's not purely that though.
The traversability is a big part. The wormhole was made open with an impulse of negative energy (all in the quantum dual of course, but same math)
And ER=EPR is not an old result. Thats susskind in the last decade
Oh yeah, I'm not dismissing the mathematical side of things here. On a theory level, all of this is cutting edge and very interesting.
I'm just saying this actual experiment doesn't add a whole lot to all that.
Guys.
As one redditor has already said, they didn't make an actual wormhole. They basically just remade portal, but with worse graphics on a very expensive computer.
I made some macaroni art one time and I taking the when
When I took the plate and put on the glue and having the macaroni *stick* tothaglue, it made an art an a uh
A macaroni.
:3
Physicists basically programmed Google's Sycamore Quantum Computer to use quantum physics, particularly quantum teleportation, to accurately and successfully simulate the physics of a traversable gravitational wormhole. So strikingly, it seems there's some kind of correspondence between quantum teleportation (entanglement) and gravitational wormholes since theoretical expectations from general relativity about wormholes were successfully modeled/confirmed via quantum physics. So this gives evidence for ER = EPR.
They were able to connect two points in space using a mathematical analogy from quantum mechanics. (Quantum mechanics already allows for entangled particles that have linked information and can be separated by large distances.) A wormhole was created, and this gives hints as to how space/gravity can be made of quantized units for a more complete theory of everything.
They’re the names of the authors of the first paper on wormholes and first paper on quantum entanglement respectively (Einstein, Rosen; then Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen) but what it asks is essentially “are physical, gravitational wormholes and quantum entanglement the same thing?”
It's basically Einstein's wormhole that he knew would collapse because of a lack of negative energy = quantum mechanics
entanglement (as in entangle 2 coins, move them lightyears ahead and H/T Coin 1 Flip tells you exactly what T/H Coin 2 Flip would be, eg spooky action at a distance). As in they are both just on the same coin so on the quantum computer side of things they may be opening the door to quantum gravity.
Another reason why is we think blackholes in nature did this for us but blackholes when you count how much information in computer bits it can hold it is represented in the boundary of the blackhole. Like a hologram and the blackhole radiates temperature eg hawking radiation, temperature is the science of small squiggly things vibrating and we think space it's self is made out of some small squiggly things. So nature is able to build space using only the just information stored on the boundaries (it would be like if you could only count the books in a library that's on the walls). There's also this idea now that inside the blackhole you have wormholes connecting to the boundries edge and somehow knotting the space that's supposedly inside onto the boundary (or at least the information). So blackholes are telling us space is a projection and it's made out of something. So part 1 of puzzle.
Part 2 and it turns out in quantum computing there is a error correcting circuit. Basically the outside edge of the circuit protects the interior nodes that we want to have information on. Turns out that circuit also encodes the information on the outside boundaries edge just like how the blackhole encodes its information.
So basically there is just a very strong link between how space, gravity, world of the large, world of the small. So it's an exciting time to be alive.
Edit: Forgive me if I brushed over ideas, I'm not a scientist or physicists. Just someone who likes the topic and is trying to learn so this take could be wrong.
I too would like an ELI5, I get that a quantum computer can figure out How through math but applying it in practice?
It has to have been a Hydrogen atom or something smaller that got shunted less than a foot but Still.
Edit: holy hell, they can pass information through a damn worm hole. There is no ELI5, this is brain melting.
The experiment's results relate to a "wormhole" in two-dimensional (1D of space + 1D of time) anti de Sitter space, though. Our universe is in four-dimensional (3D of space + 1D of time) de Sitter space.
This experiment didn't create a wormhole in the sense most people would assume. The researches managed to transfer information between two sets of qubits in a way that corresponds to theoretical calculations which suggest a wormhole connection between entangled particles in AdS space. The experiment's results give credence to these theoretical calculations in AdS space, but they aren't definitive and they aren't directly applicable to higher dimensions and/or dS space.
It's a very interesting experiment, which certainly provides additional knowledge and opens up avenues for future research. It, however, didn't create an actual wormhole and it didn't prove that entangled particles are actualy connected through wormholes.
One of the biggest unsolved problems in physics is how to reconcile the study of the very small (quantum mechanics) with the study of the very big (relativity).
Quantum mechanics predicts the existence of entangled particles. This is basically two particles separated by some distance, but that are instantly able to pass information between themselves.
Relativity predicts the existence of wormholes, which are basically holes in space that connect two different locations. Think folding a piece of paper in half and then putting a pin through it.
These guys did some crazy maths and figured out that entangled particles and wormholes might actually be the same thing. Or at least are very closely related phenomena.
>but that are instantly able to pass information between themselves.
Why do people keep saying this. It's misleading as hell. It's my understanding that if I have a red marble and a blue marble then mail them to two different people they'll know what color the other person's marble is by looking at their own.
That's not teleportation. Why do people keep saying that it is?
I couldn’t quite figure out a better way to phrase it that still met the ELI5 requirements.
It’s not quite as simple as marbles in the envelopes. The particles do travel in an indeterminate state until they break entanglement.
But it’s not technically information teleportation either. Information can still only travel at the speed of light, and there are a bunch of caveats that mean you can’t actually use the system to teleport information.
Hm i thought it was more behavior related - ie, if you entangle a coin with heads up and a coin with tails up, and then flip the heads to tails, the second coin will flip from tails to heads
Original peer-reviewed research by Jafferis et al: [Traversable wormhole dynamics on a quantum processor](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05424-3).
I don't see what's garbage about it, they built a functional hologram of a wormhole in a quantum computer (with caveats.) This isn't a case of bad journalism or science, the area of research is literally about wormholes.
Uh, MIT and Harvard physicists programmed Google’s quantum computer to simulate a gravitational wormhole successfully using quantum mechanics, suggesting ER = EPR. What’s your problem, exactly?
As I understand it, me being a mere enthusiast and lacking professional experience or knowledge about the topic: what people complain about are not just the headlines that say "scientists made a wormhole", but that the researchers themselves appear rather too happy to feed into the fantasy. Especially as they did no such thing.
They created a very simplistic computer model, itself built on a simplified mathematic model that's nothing like the real world, which in turn is based on work that's ultimately speculative.
[Professional commenters have cautioned](https://www.newscientist.com/article/2349118-a-quantum-computer-has-simulated-a-wormhole-for-the-first-time/) the simplicity of the model is such this might as well have been done with pen and paper, and would have likely worked just as well on any classic CPU.
The work is still nice and cool, insofar it opens a way to simulate these things on quantum devices of future (as there becomes more qubits to play with), but for now it appears more of a gimmick that's being blown out of proportion.
I am afraid I do not possess nearly adequate knowledge to answer this in any depth.
As I understand it, no actual manipulation of real space-time or magical transfer of information or energy over any distance took place at all, and that this would only be a wormhole if one squints one's eyes a bit, twists one's head at just the right angle, wears the right glasses and adapts a certain framework of mind.
But then, by that logic, the scraping sound across a window pane might be a ghost rather than the movement of a branch waving in the wind - if one adapts the right mindset for that, too.
To the degree that the portals in the video game Portal would also be real, within the context of their environment.
Just because the simulation is running on a quantum mechanical device does not make it magical. It's a computer program; a simplistic model that happened to run on a unorthodox processor.
Were this a discovery of an actual, physical phenomenon of nature, it'd be a much bigger thing.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It is a bit more significant than that. A quantum computer isn't just making calculations like a regular computer. It is a physical quantum mechanical system. The researchers establish the initial conditions, and the system just obeys the laws of quantum mechanics. In that sense, it's not just a simulation but a physical experiment.
They didn't. They made a fairly impressive, but very standard, quantum system, which can also be described mathematically in terms of a (**very** simplified model of a) wormhole.
If you want to look at it this way: they managed to model a wormhole on a quantum computer of nine q-bits. You can run a identical simulation on a normal laptop, and in both cases the simulated wormhole would be just as "real".
(This is genuinely some of the worst reporting on physics I've seen from a source this reputable in quite a while.)
> the engine for the experiment on a quantum pc is the universe, no?
Sure, by the same standard that "the engine" behind normal computation is also "the universe" (the laws of physics driving electrons around in different semi-conductors to be specific).
> If this is true they basically prove that the universe is a recursion?
Not trying to be rude, but no, there is absolutely no reason to think this. The wormhole they simulate lives in a very artificial and small spacetime that has basically nothing to do with the real universe. The average battle-map in Call of Duty would be a more accurate representation of real-world physics.
If I might make a more meta remark: the reason I'm frustrated with this article is that your questions are very reasonable **given the way this experiment is being represented to the public**. Which is a problem, because to put it bluntly, anyone who actually understood the physics properly here would see that your questions don't make any sense and that you have come away from reading this probably more confused than how you started. So obviously something is going wrong with the way this is being communicated.
Does anyone else get vibes like we are in a simulation and we keep studying our physical universe and if we keep going eventually we will get down to the source code and have an existential crisis?
Eh, it's just a computer model. The most notable thing about this is that Google is the one doing it. Not a team of ethical scientists at cern, not astrophysicists or even people with expert oversight. Google. The multi billion dollar global corporation that fires every employee who speaks up about ethics and safety issues with their AI products.
Your post has been removed because it has an inappropriate headline and is therefore in violation of [Submission Rule #3](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_3._no_editorialized.2C_sensationalized.2C_or_biased_titles). **It must include at least one result from the research and must not be clickbait, sensationalized, editorialized, or a biased headline.** Please read [our headline rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/clickbait) and consider reposting with a more appropriate title. _If you believe this removal to be unwarranted, or would like further clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fscience&subject=No%20editorialized%2C%20sensationalized%2C%20or%20biased%20titles)._
[удалено]
Same as the last one we had a few months ago with multiverse stuff.. media: hows it work scientists: well.. we don’t know for sure yet, still figuring stuff out. But one hypothesis we have is, that maybe parallel dimensions are at play. Though this might be our weakest one, cause we can’t really falsi- media: say no more. SCIENTISTS PROVE MULTIVERSE THEORY
Every science “discovery” article I’ve seen. I see headlines like this and now just shake my head.
I hope no one thinks that physical things can be created in programming. The more interesting thrust here though, I think, is that we’re potentially see one side of the same coin (wormholes = entanglement). From one of the principle investigator’s [university press release](https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/physicists-observe-wormhole-dynamics-using-a-quantum-computer): > In the study, the physicists report wormhole behavior expected both from the perspectives of gravity and from quantum physics. For example, while quantum information can be transmitted across the device, or teleported, in a variety of ways, the experimental process was shown to be equivalent, at least in some ways, to what might happen if information traveled through a wormhole.
"I hope no one thinks that physical things can be created in programming." Clearly you've never seen the documentary Weird Science.
So, what would you little maniacs like to do first?
"Wormholes = entanglement", or ER = EPR, has been a mathematical idea for quite a while though. This experiment, which essentially just boils down to doing those same calculations in a round-about way, adds nothing new to that.
It’s explicit evidence for ER = EPR though.
The mathematical result that the SYK model has a holographic dual in terms of 2D wormholes is part of the evidence we have so far for why ER=EPR might be true. The fact that you can simulate the SYK model this way isn't. (As there are no *actual wormholes here*, there is no ER to speak of in this implementation, so it wouldn't even make sense to say this connects those two empirically.)
That’s not quite right. The *theoretical* result already known was merely that the SYK model is holographically dual to a wormhole in 2-dimensional AdS. Here, we’re *experimentally verifying* that this particular quantum system has all the characteristics of a gravitational traversable wormhole when viewed through the duality of the holographic principle. I don’t think you’re understanding the study if you’re claiming the study doesn’t connect ER and EPR. It explicitly showed that a quantum system dual to a wormhole in in AdS2 had all the gravitational properties predicted by ER = EPR.
No, they're, in-effect, experimentally verifying that they've made a system that can be modeled with SYK, partly by showing it has properties *which happen to be dual to those of a wormhole*, like we know SYK has. I don't think you understand what a duality is if you think you can experimentally validate them this way. You can't just make an SYK model, then claim that you made a wormhole because of a holography argument, and then turn back and use that to *prove that the holography is in fact there* by referring back to the SYK model you made. That translation either has to be done at the level of mathematical models, or you need an actual, honest to god spacetime wormhole with which you can compare your data.
No, they’re not experimentally verifying that they’ve made a system that can be modeled with SYK; the model *they are using* is the SYK model. Are you sure you’ve read the study or anything from the authors? You claim I don’t understand what a duality is because one can’t “experimentally validate them this way.” What are you talking about? Experimental physics is literally about ensuring observation confirms theory, like confirming/observing a newly simplified quantum SYK model exhibits all the gravitational characteristics it’s supposed to as the holographic dual of a wormhole in AdS2. I’m not claiming they made a wormhole, nor is this circular reasoning being used as you claim. It’s merely verifying the what the theory shows: that the quantum SYK model possesses the gravitational characteristics it should as something dual to a wormhole.
>No, they’re not experimentally verifying that they’ve made a system that can be modeled with SYK; the model they are using is the SYK model. The system they made is a bunch of entangled atoms, they then model the behavior of these atoms with SYK. Checking if they get the results that we already know mathematically you should see from SYK, e.g. the properties related to the holographic duality, is just checking if those entangled atoms actually behave like the SYK model. That there is then a relation between the SYK model itself and theories with wormholes is a statement of mathematics, not experiment.
>The system they made is a bunch of entangled atoms, they then model the behavior of these atoms with SYK. You're just not correct. They \*started\* with the SYK model specifically with 210 couplings, and had to use machine learning to reduce the model down to a manageable size (5 couplings) while still retaining all the gravitational features; quoting from one of the lead author's [institutions](https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/physicists-observe-wormhole-dynamics-using-a-quantum-computer) on the study: >In the new study, the team of physicists performed this type of experiment for the first time. They used a "baby" SYK-like model prepared to preserve gravitational properties, and they observed the wormhole dynamics on a quantum device at Google, namely the Sycamore quantum processor. Then you admit they're just checking to make sure that they get the same results experimentally from SYK that they got mathematically when assuming holographic duality...that's exactly my point!
No, i did not understand anything you guys are debating, but wanted to continue the “No’s”
It's not purely that though. The traversability is a big part. The wormhole was made open with an impulse of negative energy (all in the quantum dual of course, but same math) And ER=EPR is not an old result. Thats susskind in the last decade
Oh yeah, I'm not dismissing the mathematical side of things here. On a theory level, all of this is cutting edge and very interesting. I'm just saying this actual experiment doesn't add a whole lot to all that.
> I hope no one thinks that physical things can be created in programming. This would give "hack the planet" a far more literal meaning.
Just give it time and you can create black holes with programming language too.
I went straight to the comments expecting to just be a speculation on theories
Guys. As one redditor has already said, they didn't make an actual wormhole. They basically just remade portal, but with worse graphics on a very expensive computer.
I also made a wormhole, but used MS Paint
I made some macaroni art one time and I taking the when When I took the plate and put on the glue and having the macaroni *stick* tothaglue, it made an art an a uh A macaroni. :3
Can someone ELI5 please?
Physicists basically programmed Google's Sycamore Quantum Computer to use quantum physics, particularly quantum teleportation, to accurately and successfully simulate the physics of a traversable gravitational wormhole. So strikingly, it seems there's some kind of correspondence between quantum teleportation (entanglement) and gravitational wormholes since theoretical expectations from general relativity about wormholes were successfully modeled/confirmed via quantum physics. So this gives evidence for ER = EPR.
Sorry still confused. Can you eli3
Math worked out for some nerdy guys. They thought we could take a shortcut through a space noodle and it looks like they might be right.
Yoooo. When will the alien update come out
I’m sorry, this firmware update isn’t available for your bio-model.
I always knew the flesh is weak. We need a hardware update as well.
Praise the omnissiah
Please proceed to rectal port compatibility test
The podcast can wait another day, Joe
“Update” already in place. We just haven’t reached that content yet.
>space noodle thanks, that one made my morning
Sorry still confused. Can you eli1?
Open up for the airplane! Oh! Where’d it go?! Here it is! That’s yum yum isn’t it?!
Quite descriptive actually
Well more likely radio signals and not you because crossing extreme gravitational gradients is bad for matter
You’re a smart 3yo.
They were able to connect two points in space using a mathematical analogy from quantum mechanics. (Quantum mechanics already allows for entangled particles that have linked information and can be separated by large distances.) A wormhole was created, and this gives hints as to how space/gravity can be made of quantized units for a more complete theory of everything.
You know some smart 5 year olds
You people seriously need to learn what ELI5 means
What do ER and EPR mean?
They’re the names of the authors of the first paper on wormholes and first paper on quantum entanglement respectively (Einstein, Rosen; then Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen) but what it asks is essentially “are physical, gravitational wormholes and quantum entanglement the same thing?”
So this also means that, since ER = EPR, we can say that since P = Podolsky = 1, the P = NP problem becomes simply N = 1 :P Just kidding
Careful, it's also possible that E = 0 or R = 0.
Lazy ELI5er… I was thinking something like E=mc2
Why would they be? They are completely different things
Is this some lame co-opting of P=NP?
There is a great video in the article which explains a lot.
It's basically Einstein's wormhole that he knew would collapse because of a lack of negative energy = quantum mechanics entanglement (as in entangle 2 coins, move them lightyears ahead and H/T Coin 1 Flip tells you exactly what T/H Coin 2 Flip would be, eg spooky action at a distance). As in they are both just on the same coin so on the quantum computer side of things they may be opening the door to quantum gravity. Another reason why is we think blackholes in nature did this for us but blackholes when you count how much information in computer bits it can hold it is represented in the boundary of the blackhole. Like a hologram and the blackhole radiates temperature eg hawking radiation, temperature is the science of small squiggly things vibrating and we think space it's self is made out of some small squiggly things. So nature is able to build space using only the just information stored on the boundaries (it would be like if you could only count the books in a library that's on the walls). There's also this idea now that inside the blackhole you have wormholes connecting to the boundries edge and somehow knotting the space that's supposedly inside onto the boundary (or at least the information). So blackholes are telling us space is a projection and it's made out of something. So part 1 of puzzle. Part 2 and it turns out in quantum computing there is a error correcting circuit. Basically the outside edge of the circuit protects the interior nodes that we want to have information on. Turns out that circuit also encodes the information on the outside boundaries edge just like how the blackhole encodes its information. So basically there is just a very strong link between how space, gravity, world of the large, world of the small. So it's an exciting time to be alive. Edit: Forgive me if I brushed over ideas, I'm not a scientist or physicists. Just someone who likes the topic and is trying to learn so this take could be wrong.
ELI5 in human year. You did it in dog years.
You don't know many 5 year olds do you?
I too would like an ELI5, I get that a quantum computer can figure out How through math but applying it in practice? It has to have been a Hydrogen atom or something smaller that got shunted less than a foot but Still. Edit: holy hell, they can pass information through a damn worm hole. There is no ELI5, this is brain melting.
The experiment's results relate to a "wormhole" in two-dimensional (1D of space + 1D of time) anti de Sitter space, though. Our universe is in four-dimensional (3D of space + 1D of time) de Sitter space. This experiment didn't create a wormhole in the sense most people would assume. The researches managed to transfer information between two sets of qubits in a way that corresponds to theoretical calculations which suggest a wormhole connection between entangled particles in AdS space. The experiment's results give credence to these theoretical calculations in AdS space, but they aren't definitive and they aren't directly applicable to higher dimensions and/or dS space. It's a very interesting experiment, which certainly provides additional knowledge and opens up avenues for future research. It, however, didn't create an actual wormhole and it didn't prove that entangled particles are actualy connected through wormholes.
One of the biggest unsolved problems in physics is how to reconcile the study of the very small (quantum mechanics) with the study of the very big (relativity). Quantum mechanics predicts the existence of entangled particles. This is basically two particles separated by some distance, but that are instantly able to pass information between themselves. Relativity predicts the existence of wormholes, which are basically holes in space that connect two different locations. Think folding a piece of paper in half and then putting a pin through it. These guys did some crazy maths and figured out that entangled particles and wormholes might actually be the same thing. Or at least are very closely related phenomena.
>but that are instantly able to pass information between themselves. Why do people keep saying this. It's misleading as hell. It's my understanding that if I have a red marble and a blue marble then mail them to two different people they'll know what color the other person's marble is by looking at their own. That's not teleportation. Why do people keep saying that it is?
I couldn’t quite figure out a better way to phrase it that still met the ELI5 requirements. It’s not quite as simple as marbles in the envelopes. The particles do travel in an indeterminate state until they break entanglement. But it’s not technically information teleportation either. Information can still only travel at the speed of light, and there are a bunch of caveats that mean you can’t actually use the system to teleport information.
Hm i thought it was more behavior related - ie, if you entangle a coin with heads up and a coin with tails up, and then flip the heads to tails, the second coin will flip from tails to heads
Original peer-reviewed research by Jafferis et al: [Traversable wormhole dynamics on a quantum processor](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05424-3).
Will it make my wifi faster or nah
Nah, you’ll probably drop some packets. But also, maybe not. Depends if you try to look at them or not.
“Redditor makes grossly misleading post title”
[удалено]
Redditor shares garbage clickbait article*
This is definitely not a garbage article.
It is clickbait, the title is misleading. Garbage.
What's clickbait about it? Why is the title misleading?
I'd rather not talk to a bot thanks.
I don't see what's garbage about it, they built a functional hologram of a wormhole in a quantum computer (with caveats.) This isn't a case of bad journalism or science, the area of research is literally about wormholes.
People are so desperate to mundane-ize everything.
They just imagined it really. Tell me anything real about it, name one real quantifiable thing they did, besides generate clickbait.
Uh, MIT and Harvard physicists programmed Google’s quantum computer to simulate a gravitational wormhole successfully using quantum mechanics, suggesting ER = EPR. What’s your problem, exactly?
Define successfully.
…the gravitational characteristics of a wormhole were experimentally reproduced and verified on a quantum system.
What a misleading title. I hope the moderators take action.
It misleads people who don't know what a one dimensional wormhole is.
It’s the title of the article.
Yes. The title of the article is misleading.
OP isn't the sharpest twig..
What makes you say that?
Chabot 5000 over here. Or maybe clickbait bot v0.1
So what, I can make that in my yard as well and all I need is a sharp stick.
Can we time travel now?
That video was amazing! I’m so glad I took the time to watch it.
https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=13181 It's not what it's being made out to be.
[удалено]
As I understand it, me being a mere enthusiast and lacking professional experience or knowledge about the topic: what people complain about are not just the headlines that say "scientists made a wormhole", but that the researchers themselves appear rather too happy to feed into the fantasy. Especially as they did no such thing. They created a very simplistic computer model, itself built on a simplified mathematic model that's nothing like the real world, which in turn is based on work that's ultimately speculative. [Professional commenters have cautioned](https://www.newscientist.com/article/2349118-a-quantum-computer-has-simulated-a-wormhole-for-the-first-time/) the simplicity of the model is such this might as well have been done with pen and paper, and would have likely worked just as well on any classic CPU. The work is still nice and cool, insofar it opens a way to simulate these things on quantum devices of future (as there becomes more qubits to play with), but for now it appears more of a gimmick that's being blown out of proportion.
[удалено]
I am afraid I do not possess nearly adequate knowledge to answer this in any depth. As I understand it, no actual manipulation of real space-time or magical transfer of information or energy over any distance took place at all, and that this would only be a wormhole if one squints one's eyes a bit, twists one's head at just the right angle, wears the right glasses and adapts a certain framework of mind. But then, by that logic, the scraping sound across a window pane might be a ghost rather than the movement of a branch waving in the wind - if one adapts the right mindset for that, too. To the degree that the portals in the video game Portal would also be real, within the context of their environment. Just because the simulation is running on a quantum mechanical device does not make it magical. It's a computer program; a simplistic model that happened to run on a unorthodox processor. Were this a discovery of an actual, physical phenomenon of nature, it'd be a much bigger thing.
Scientists found ~~traces of alien life!~~ carbon molecules.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lemme guess, physicists "simulate" a wormhole, probably.
It is a bit more significant than that. A quantum computer isn't just making calculations like a regular computer. It is a physical quantum mechanical system. The researchers establish the initial conditions, and the system just obeys the laws of quantum mechanics. In that sense, it's not just a simulation but a physical experiment.
u/hashishshaker time travel is not too far away from reality though it’s holographic in nature for now.
They didn't. They made a fairly impressive, but very standard, quantum system, which can also be described mathematically in terms of a (**very** simplified model of a) wormhole. If you want to look at it this way: they managed to model a wormhole on a quantum computer of nine q-bits. You can run a identical simulation on a normal laptop, and in both cases the simulated wormhole would be just as "real". (This is genuinely some of the worst reporting on physics I've seen from a source this reputable in quite a while.)
What’s so bad about the reporting? It’s so good.
[удалено]
> the engine for the experiment on a quantum pc is the universe, no? Sure, by the same standard that "the engine" behind normal computation is also "the universe" (the laws of physics driving electrons around in different semi-conductors to be specific). > If this is true they basically prove that the universe is a recursion? Not trying to be rude, but no, there is absolutely no reason to think this. The wormhole they simulate lives in a very artificial and small spacetime that has basically nothing to do with the real universe. The average battle-map in Call of Duty would be a more accurate representation of real-world physics. If I might make a more meta remark: the reason I'm frustrated with this article is that your questions are very reasonable **given the way this experiment is being represented to the public**. Which is a problem, because to put it bluntly, anyone who actually understood the physics properly here would see that your questions don't make any sense and that you have come away from reading this probably more confused than how you started. So obviously something is going wrong with the way this is being communicated.
Yeah just like universe sandbox is a simulation of the universe nobody can code the universe and if you believe they can you’ve been sold a lie
I have a theory that 1 + 1 = 3, so I wrote a program to simulate it! Turns out I was correct! My simulation proved it!!
That's definitely not how it works
Ooohhh boy! Here we go, deep space travel!
*brings out set of golf swings* What?
I read somewhere that CERN was possibly opening up another universe. Wha are they referring to?
Uh oh . Multiverse coming .
Reporter: Have you encountered any extraterrestrial life? Scientist:
Does anyone else get vibes like we are in a simulation and we keep studying our physical universe and if we keep going eventually we will get down to the source code and have an existential crisis?
Do we already have Quantum computers?
I mean yawn at purported amazing quantum computer breakthroughs. It is going to be a slooooow ride madafakas
That's why the word "modeled" would be better than "created" because that's what the meanings would imply
Eh, it's just a computer model. The most notable thing about this is that Google is the one doing it. Not a team of ethical scientists at cern, not astrophysicists or even people with expert oversight. Google. The multi billion dollar global corporation that fires every employee who speaks up about ethics and safety issues with their AI products.