Quantum gravity and entangled particles may crosstalk through wormhols

[PB666]

If you thought quantum entanglement is spooky, the explanation of its mechanics from MIT is evenn weirder.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131205142218.htm

You have to read this article yourself, Im in disbelief. Warning, these authors subscribe to string theory and alot of their work is based on pure in-silico analysis.

[RainDreamer]

So they are saying that the entangled particles do send information faster than light through a wormhole ? Interesting.

[Godot]

So they are saying that the entangled particles do send information faster than light through a wormhole ? Interesting.

Actually no ... if they use wormholes the question whether they communicate with FTL is probably answered by "No".

Locally they just communicate with lightspeed, but their communication takes a shortcut through the curvature of space,

so, whereas "normal" information has to follow the curvature, the information of entangled particles doesn´t have (thanks to the wormhole) and seems to propagate instantaneous.

[How2FoldSoup]

Actually no ... if they use wormholes the question whether they communicate with FTL is probably answered by "No".

Locally they just communicate with lightspeed, but their communication takes a shortcut through the curvature of space,

so, whereas "normal" information has to follow the curvature, the information of entangled particles doesn´t have (thanks to the wormhole) and seems to propagate instantaneous.

That's a contradiction. If it's propagating through a wormhole(or whatever you want) instantaneously, then it is moving FTL since c is finite. I'll admit I haven't read the article yet so if they wave that away then I'll stand corrected.

[Rithaniel]

That's a contradiction. If it's propagating through a wormhole(or whatever you want) instantaneously, then it is moving FTL since c is finite. I'll admit I haven't read the article yet so if they wave that away then I'll stand corrected.

I believe the modifier "seems to" before the "propagate instantaneously" was to account for the fact that it's not, in fact, propagating instantaneously.

On topic: That's actually pretty exciting, because (allowing string theory is correct) that means we have found potential evidence of wormholes existing.

[PB666]

I believe the modifier "seems to" before the "propagate instantaneously" was to account for the fact that it's not, in fact, propagating instantaneously.

On topic: That's actually pretty exciting, because (allowing string theory is correct) that means we have found potential evidence of wormholes existing.

Don't get too excited, they're diameter is Planck's magnitude. (c/Planck's time). You couldn't exactly fit a non-singularity through them, those theoretical black holes they are talking about are singularities. Gravity must be a bizarre instance of superhuge quantum gravity, which if true means that classic gravity has a whack connection with quantum gravity. Whoa is physics going to tumble on this one.

Instead of calling them wormholes we should call them Residual Quantum Threads . At the quantum scale time and space act more statistically than linearly. Since light and electrons travel at light speed they don't age, electrons a little. So when they need to finally talk only our space dimension has significantly aged. In this way we don't neccesarily need to jump over to string theory. If this is true then think about the difference of space-time on the quantum scale and our scale. On the quantum scale it means that a fragment of space time way over there can be also here for a brief moment and then back over there. And stranger thing is that it can get from here to there and back and momentum did not shift.

The big thing that you guys probably don't realize, there is entangled physics all around us, many events in the natural world create pairs. If every time a photon strikes its destination a worhole is created, the universe is then filled with these wormholes.

[problemecium]

All I have to say is "called it!"

A while back I had an idea that perhaps all pairs of entangled particles are effectively one-dimensional (insofar as all but one dimension are very small) wormholes, and that by generating a large group of them one might be able to form a structure that absorbs objects from one side and emits them from the other - essentially an extended wormhole or a "beaming" device. It's exciting that scientific data seems to be pointing that direction.

[PB666]

All I have to say is "called it!"

A while back I had an idea that perhaps all pairs of entangled particles are effectively one-dimensional (insofar as all but one dimension are very small) wormholes, and that by generating a large group of them one might be able to form a structure that absorbs objects from one side and emits them from the other - essentially an extended wormhole or a "beaming" device. It's exciting that scientific data seems to be pointing that direction.

You may be right, but this particular viewpoint is founded in string theory, which has a number of inconsistencies with observations. So you may have to wait for a non-string theory version to be vindicated.

[Darnok]

So they are saying that the entangled particles do send information faster than light through a wormhole ? Interesting.

Not faster than light... if you consider Aether then quantum entanglement wouldn't be called spooky or even entanglement. It would be same consistent mechanic as for electrons with different smaller scale and instead of wire aether needs electromagnetic "tunnel".

Imagine green balls are aether particles trapped in "tunnel", they are not moving much from their location, since you would need too much energy to do that, but you can push them little and one particle pushes another and another... particles are not moving faster than light, but message can be send instantly because each trapped particle moves at same time.

For example you would be able to get live transmission from Pluto, but making connection, creating electromagnetic "tunnel", would take as long as New Horizons was sending data from Pluto.

Keep in mind I used "if you consider..." before posting

[YNM]

All is hypothesis right ? They're no theory until we can observe their signatures and proof all of what we see are free from error.

Anyway, how does one entangle black holes ? Also, the hypothesis will require wormholes (tiny, tiny wormholes) to be different with blackholes, no ? Also, if blackholes can be entangled... Wormholes for black holes ? What's this i don't even know