It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Equation May Unite General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics

page: 1
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   

The equation is deceptively simple: ER = EPR.

It’s not made up of numerical values, but instead represents the names of some key players in theoretical physics.

On the left side of the equation, the ER stands for Einstein and Nathan Rosen, and refers to a 1935 paper they wrote together describing wormholes, known technically as Einstein-Rosen bridges.

On the right side of the equation, EPR stands for Einstein, Rosen and Boris Podolsky, who co-wrote another paper that year describing quantum entanglement.

Back in 2013, physicist Leonard Susskind from Stanford University and Juan Maldacena from the Institute for Advance Study at Princeton suggested that the two papers could be describing pretty much the same thing - something that no one else in the field had previously considered, including Einstein himself.
...
In his new paper, Susskind proposes a scenario where hypothetical Alice and Bob each take a bunch of entangled particles - Alice takes one member of each pair, and Bob takes the other, and they fly off in opposite directions of the Universe in their hypothetical hypersonic jets [sic. Should be hyperspace spaceships].

Once in their separate positions, Alice and Bob smash their particles together with such great force, they create two separate black holes.

The result, says Susskind, is two entangled black holes on opposite sides of the Universe, linked in the middle by a giant wormhole.

"If ER = EPR is right, a wormhole will link those black holes; entanglement, therefore, can be described using the geometry of wormholes," says Tom Siegfried over at Science News.
...
Since wormholes are contortions of spacetime geometry - described by Einstein’s gravitational equations - identifying them with quantum entanglement would forge a link between gravity and quantum mechanics.

Source: ScienceAlert.com, Aug. 18, 2016 – This new equation might finally unite the two biggest theories in physics, claims physicist.

So there you have it! An answer to “what good are worm holes for”? See, you entangle some particles, fly to opposite sides of universe, create two quantum entangled black holes, easy! So gravity comes from quantum entanglement and the interaction of particles. Now, particles need not be entangled to display gravity—they just need to interact (you can entangle any particles you want at any time). And that is all before even getting to mass and the distortion of space-time.

The work is published on arXiv.org and is undergoing peer review.
 


So on with the woo! Looking at the big picture, we see that all particles from universe interact with each other and emergent is gravity. Break that interaction you break gravity’s hold. Might be a good method of floating around your black triangle ship!


[ETA: Leonard Susskind Bio Link and has some other published work. I didn't know he was friends with Feynman! Way cool now in my eyes!!]
edit on 29-8-2016 by TEOTWAWKIAIFF because: add link




posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

Really cool!! Can't wait to get home and read more about it!!! Thanks for bringing this to light!



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

Do we think this information will allow us to answer questions about black holes, or time-travel? Anti-gravity tech might already be out there, but I wonder if it was based on this information or if this information would help make improvements such tech.

My mind escapes me





posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: MamaJ

I read the 2013 paper from some place (probably phys.og)... that was some cool, outside the box thinking! Glad to see his follow up!

IF this new paper holds water there is need to rethink some ideas around space-time. Maybe consider the idea of FTL (faster than light) travel and how to make it a reality.



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Does this mean, with a large enough supply of negative energy, you could 'teleport' matter to the spacial location of the other entangled particle anywhere in the universe?

Basically open up portals with one end at each entangled particle?
edit on 8/29/16 by RedDragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   
bookmarked for when i can get a better read.

this is very significant if its what it claims. lets hope its not manipulated results to give us results we were looking for...



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: RedDragon

My mind starts to reel with possibilities! This is still a theoretical notion. But funny how those "theories" end up manifesting in devices humankind uses!

To answer your portal question: IDK! Maybe even step out of space-time itself??!!!



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

I've read some of Einsteins old papers..years ago ..and remember thinking then he was sooo close to other breakthroughs. This link between relativity and quantum mechanics may.open up the portal we need for not just time travel but traveling sppokishly outside of time itself.

A girl can dream.



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: FamCore

Here is a great read (I have gone all stalker fanboy on Dr. Susskind!) NYTimes, Aug. 12, 2013: A Black Hole Mystery Wrapped in a Firewall Paradox. Asks some even harder questions, answers some, and lays the foundation for this announcement. I like the quote, "Without [quantum] entanglement there would be no structure to space-time" (same source).

Seems there was a drawn out battle of the theoretical physicists ongoing back then! Dr. Susskind even won a bet against Dr. Hawking! The result of all that theoretical sword play is this idea of ER = EPR.



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   
The notion that quantum entanglement is caused by the formation of Einsten-Rosen wormholes between the entangled particles is pure science fiction. Quantum entanglement is a manifestation of a non-local universe. It is NOT (I repeat: NOT) the result of smooth, flat Minkowski space-time developing a wormhole between the pair of entangled particles. Firstly, quantum mechanics permits systems of many particles to become entangled simultaneously. This makes sheer nonsense of the simple scenario described in the article. Secondly, quantum mechanics tells us that no hidden, information-carrying signal can synchronise the quantum state of the second particle with that of the first because it predicts that the synchronicity is instantaneous, whereas Special Relativity predicts that no such signal can travel faster than light. Even if it were travelling down a hypothetical wormhole formed between the two particles at the speed of light, the signal to the second particle to synchronise its state according to the result of the measurement of the state of the first particle could never explain why this happens instantaneously, according to quantum mechanics. The scenario contradicts either Special Relativity by requiring the "influence" to travel at an infinite speed so as to be consistent with quantum mechanics or quantum mechanics in predicting a delay in the transmission of the outcome of the measurement/observation. In short, it explains nothing.

The supposed analogy between quantum entanglement and Einstein-Rosen bridges is entirely specious and taken out of context with the original research.



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: RedDragon
Does this mean, with a large enough supply of negative energy, you could 'teleport' matter to the spacial location of the other entangled particle anywhere in the universe?

Basically open up portals with one end at each entangled particle?


Not without orthogonal inversion, inversion in 3 dimensions. Problem is, that is how it works, whether matter or signal, everything is inverted. So you think, ok, invert twice and you get the original state, right? Wrong, because in order to maintain the wave function without collapse you can only entangle two locations, the more you entangle the more quantum fuzziness and the higher the probability of collapse. Ain't physics phun ;-)

Cheers - Dave
edit on 8/29.2016 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: micpsi

Missed the point a little. You are correct, quantum entanglement is not caused by wormholes; that was neither stated or even implied. But to combine GR with QM, a theoretical triumph if proven, does require using both entanglement and wormholes. That is the thought experiment. The article does not "prove" anything it shows a method of reconciliation to two well known, proven, aspects of physics and tries to explain to those who do not have doctorates in physics how it all works.

From there, the woo can start! Keeping gravity from reaching you, portals, FTL, etc. Which is half the fun of this post!

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

And bobs_uruncle is right, matrix math is involved, so the normal communicative property (a*b = b *a) does not apply.



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

While the idea is neat, I assume the math used to describe gravitational fields can be rewritten in terms of probability fields?

Also, what is keeping this entangled state from leaking into the environment while they hyperspace ships are moving?



In recent years, physicists have learned to exploit entanglement to communicate, compute and even teleport. But these experiments have always been hard because entanglement rapidly leaks into the environment. Blink and it’s gone.
Link

the longest entanglement last naturally is not know, but it is hard to keep particles entangled.

Also, black holes and wormholes are not the same.



The main difference would be that a wormhole is a shortcut from one part of the universe to another, while a black hole is a giant suction device. Also, wormholes' existence is only still hypothesized, while we have proof of the existence of black holes.
Link

That means either they meant that when those entangled particles collide they create a wormhole, not black hole that the article implies. But this is not what particles do.

I respect Leonard Susskind, but I am not sure where he is going with this. Would like to see more of his work on this.




posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Cool beans ... love Susskind, too. Sometimes physics just needs a decent plumber.

A philosopher friend just told me that CERN's latest findings indicate physics as we know them are wrong... or at least need a big re-working. I took it with a grain of salt, knowing him to be a slightly bitter philosopher who has been convinced that nothing exists and that physicists were jolly idiots, heh.

I looked for his info and found a couple recent articles saying CERN's findings could put modern physics in jeopardy... things expected were not found, and unexpected things were ... so not only the standard model, but string and quantum physics might be imploded, too.

But I see that as a good thing... I've experienced things I had been told were impossible, but I experienced them nevertheless and don't have classic psychosis (or at least remain free to roam the streets)... so we are, at the least, missing a huge piece of the puzzle.

Consciousness will be one of the missing pieces, I'd think.. .though that's a layman's, new-agey, quasi educated guess.



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: hubrisinxs
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

While the idea is neat, I assume the math used to describe gravitational fields can be rewritten in terms of probability fields?



Not needed! The idea, if true, entwines particles/energy from QM with space-time. Gravity is emergent as a result from that interaction (I think this where he is going. I could be wrong)




Also, what is keeping this entangled state from leaking into the environment while they hyperspace ships are moving?




Nothing really. As with any thought experiment, you assume it can be done. So you assume you can travel at the speed of light and return home to see your twin has aged.



Also, black holes and wormholes are not the same.


Exactly! It is a "quantum wormhole" due to the entanglement. The thought experiment has to create black holes to link QM to GR through the wormhole.


 


The NYT article is a must read! A problem arose when a "black hole firewall" was announced. This OP is Dr. Susskind's response to that problem. In doing so, he created a link between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. Gravity become entwined with QM and energy/particle interaction with space-time makes gravity an emergent property.

Is it true? We do not know yet!

Thanks to all the posts! I have had to read this material a couple time before I have come close to understanding. Having to try to explain some new idea can bring that idea into focus and for that I thank you!




posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Baddogma


The claim, in its most dramatic-sounding form, is that gravity (spacetime curvature caused by energy/momentum) isn’t hard to obtain in quantum mechanics - it’s automatic! Or at least, the most natural thing to expect," he says.

We'll have to wait and see if ER = EPR or something closely related bears out, but it's certainly food for thought, and Susskind for one thinks he's on to something here.

"To me it seems obvious that if ER = EPR is true, it is a very big deal, and it must affect the foundations and interpretation of quantum mechanics,"

(same ScienceAlert source)

As an idea I like this one! The neat thing is that it does not say what gravity is just how it comes into existence! And once you can describe a macro world phenomena with quantum mechanics you can figure out a way to... uh, change it (make it more, make it less, make it not happen at all).

I like the novel ideas! We seem to be lacking some thing along the line (i.e., current physics) so if you have to tear it down to rebuild, then do not be sentimental.

Mind. Hum? That brings that poor dead-alive cat discussion back again! So I wonder if I can collapse the probability wave by observing it so my particles do not interact with space-time! The will to fly!

Like MamaJ, a TEOT can dream can't he?


edit on 29-8-2016 by TEOTWAWKIAIFF because: clarity



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

Lenny Susskind really is the Sid Vicious of theoretical physics. He truly gives no f***s about convention.

Talk about an absolute lunatic. The world needs more Lennys and less deGrasse Tysons I reckon.

I could listen to him speak all day. I just wish I were capable of understanding all the complexities he touches on.

On the arrow of time:



Comedian and genius!




posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF




It is very tempting to think that any EPR correlated system is connected by some sort of ER bridge, although in general the bridge may be a highly quantum object that is yet to be independently defined. Indeed, we speculate that even the simple singlet state of two spins is connected by a (very quantum) bridge of this type.
Link

Just started reading the first paper he wrote on this and it seems to follow what you were saying. It is like ER holes open for every EPR entanglement, but I feel like string and twister theory are already saying this fact. I feel that if you use Complex Analysis to show that the complex manifolds of space-time are connected to manifolds that predict quantum spin states, then we would see that Susskind is right.

Now that I have had some time to read and see where he is going with this, I feel he is like so many others, very close to a major breakthrough.

Have you heard much about Penrose's Twister theory?




posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: hubrisinxs

Yeah, I like the emergent property of gravity. A smart idea!

Penrose? No I haven't read about that in a while. There were several quantum gravity contenders out there as I recall. None seemed super radical enough to be true! I will go do re-read.

Thanks!



[ETA: Since I have just opened it... Wikipedia - Twistor Theory]



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

I have read Penrose's Road to RealityLink to book.

He seems to think that twister space can prove:



Twistor theory was first proposed by Roger Penrose in 1967,[1] as a possible path to a theory of quantum gravity. The twistor approach is especially natural for solving the equations of motion of massless fields of arbitrary spin.
From the wiki link

the spin of motion of a massless field sounds like quantum entanglement and the b topological space can map and gravitational field, so it seems like they are trying to say the same thing.

I am really interested in the math side of things, but sometimes I miss understand the application, but I feel like these ideas are related.

Also, thanks to the person who posted that video lecture, really neat stuff.







 
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join