Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Logothetes t1_iyh0try wrote

'Simulate' might be the key word here.

88

Trubadidudei t1_iyhbpcd wrote

I am a complete ignorant on this subject, but as far as I understand "simulate" refers more to the fact that they used a quantum computer to set up the conditions needed for a what amounts to a "real" wormhole. Quantum computers use entangled particles to process information, and the idea is that entangled particles and wormholes are in fact the same thing.

Quantum computers work by real physics, and so if you set the computer up in a certain specific way you can evoke, detect and measure a real physical phenomenon. In this sense it is not a digital "simulation" per se, as far as I understand. By clumsy analogy, it is more like using a classical computer to measure the speed of an electron by measuring the time it takes for information to be processed.

So in fact, they have created a very real wormhole. Or they have given experimental support to the idea that the math of wormholes fits with the math of entangled particles. They set up entangled particles in a specific way where they turn out to behave exactly the way that "wormhole math" predicts that they should.

24

PM_ME_YOUR_PAULDRONS t1_iyjf9o1 wrote

> They set up entangled particles in a specific way where they turn out to behave exactly the way that "wormhole math" predicts that they should.

This is the correct reading of this result. ADS-CFT correspondence says loosely that the maths of some gravity things matches the maths of some quantum things, when you look at them in the right way. In this experiment they set up the quantum things, looked at them in the right way, and (through the lense of the maths you have to do to look at them the right way) they behaved like the gravity thing. The specific gravity thing they behaved like is a wormhole.

5

Logothetes t1_iyhl0wg wrote

The latter seems about right, or, at least, coincides with my own understanding.

But I comprehend neither the process nor the implied physics well enough to explain it any further, not without the risk of adding, due to my own conceptual errors, more confusion.

There is a 'plain English' [as it were] :) summary available.

This is probably the least nonsensical 'simple' explanation you're likely to get on it.

Cheers!

4

supified t1_iyhnocr wrote

This is sort of what I've been reading too. Personally I'm pretty excited by this.

2

TK-741 t1_iyk33a2 wrote

So when do we get to turn it into a green portal big enough for, say, a man and his grandson to jump through?

2

NoFutherDetails t1_iylgnl0 wrote

Wait so if they use quantum computers to "simulate" the Big Bang, they'd actually make a big bang but like on a smaller scale?

So they basically did make a wormhole?

1

coreyman317 t1_iyh59od wrote

In what sense?

1

cartoonist498 t1_iyh6r27 wrote

> the experiment was based on a modelling that was so simple that it could just as well have been studied using a pencil and paper.

If a scientist drew the wormhole on a piece of paper The Guardian would probably still publish this same headline.

10

whalepranks t1_iyha0uo wrote

How do they know they haven't effected space and time?

I spent an hour searching for my yoga mat this morning and it's gone! Coincidence?

8

bpeden99 t1_iyh1na5 wrote

Is it theoretical that normal wormholes rupture space and time

7

Rugfiend t1_iyhukj5 wrote

No. There are no wormholes we know of, therefore this is speculation based on speculation.

10

FriesWithThat t1_iyh01x2 wrote

>“Experimentally, for me, I will tell you that it’s very, very far away. People come to me and they ask me, ‘Can you put your dog in the wormhole?’ So, no,” Spiropulu told reporters during a video briefing. “... That’s a huge leap.”

>“So don’t hold your breath about sending your dog through the wormhole ...

You know if you can't find an apartment anywhere because they don't allow pets there is always adoption.

5

MRSN4P t1_iz3twuk wrote

Adoption of dog storage wormhole. Landlord comes by, put dog in wormhole. Landlord leaves, bring dog out of wormhole. No problems, life is good!

2

Papaverpalpitations t1_iyiglx4 wrote

Can someone ELI5 the implications this has for potentially creating a real wormhole?

3

PM_ME_YOUR_PAULDRONS t1_iyjdtcl wrote

Absolutely none at all. This does not provide us with any information about wormholes we didn't know before (other than perhaps some of the details of the sort of quantum computing setup you need to simulate one), but it is a very cool demonstration of the simulation capabilities of the quantum computer.

5

AutoModerator t1_iygwstj wrote

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 apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

2

-iamai- t1_iyh757r wrote

If this experiment is so simple it can be done on a piece of paper then what are the steps to do it for real I don't mind giving it a bash you know.

1

WitsAndNotice t1_iyinap1 wrote

It's pretty simple, if you want to start from scratch all you need is:

  • To intricately understand the mathematics of quantum entanglement and Einstein-Rosen Bridges
  • Have the world's most powerful quantum computer
  • Use machine learning to determine simulation parameters simplistic enough for the quantum computer to simulate while still maintaining accuracy to the mathematics of a full simulation
3

yourself88xbl t1_iyi22z1 wrote

I think what is so important about this experiment is the connection it makes between general relativity and quantum mechanics but I could be misinterpreting.

1

postart777 t1_iyj3k19 wrote

Were they really worried about rupturing space and time?

1

Beneficial_Air_1369 t1_iyj475o wrote

I want space An time rupture with my black holes/ black hole theories

1

JonesP77 t1_iyh73id wrote

I know, this is not yet real with our technology. But why do so many scientist still believe that traveling faster than the speed of light is impossible even though we have no idea what space and what gravity really is? I dont think we know enough to exclude traveling through space with wormholes or something else we even dont know exists. We have sooo many unknown unknowns. I hate it if scientists say "nah, thats impossible, if we cant do it no advanced species will ever do it"

Like really? As if we cracked all the secrets of the universe. Get more humble, in the past being humble was important for scientists. Now they feel like they know anything and saying something that is not within the consense is in principle stupid because our scientist cant be wrong, no thats impossible...

0

KiwasiGames t1_iyhbnod wrote

Because we like causality.

Faster than light travel plus relativity means time travel. You would literally be able to travel backwards in time. Full on Michael J. Fox fall in love with your mother time travel.

Time travel introduces so many logical paradoxes that most scientists reject it out of hand. Even if you don’t reject it and allow time travel to be a thing, every known law of physics breaks down.

It’s not just a “go faster” thing. The speed of light is a fundamental limit to the universe.

8

Extension-Ad-2760 t1_iyhsslb wrote

See, the thing is, quantum physics and just relativity also introduces a heckton of things that humans would call logical paradoxes. These are actually real. How do we know what is a true paradox and what isn't? The universe doesn't care about our perceptions. Time travel could just create multiple realities. Moving at close to lightspeed already does similar things

4

supercalifragilism t1_iyil0lx wrote

So there's no experimental results to clarify what's going on with quantum mechanics and gravity, but we've also never seen anything travel faster than the speed of light. It has never been observed, ever. Every time we think there's an FTL phenomenon, it turns out to not be FTL. Energy levels are vastly higher in cosmological situations, so it stands to reason that FTL, if possible, would occur in nature. While absence of evidence is not proof of absence, it informs theories. Likewise, proving a negative is difficult or impossible.

The real problem with FTL are the implications it has for the rest of physics. There's a saying: "FTL, relativity, causality, pick two." Built into the logic of relativity is the idea that <c is the maximum velocity for anything with mass, =c for massless particles and >c for negative mass. It's unclear if negative mass is physically meaningful, it has also never been observed.

More than that, built into the logic and math of relativity is the idea that information can only travel at speeds less than c; there are a number of situations in relativity that can arise with superluminal travel that would undermine causality completely; even at near c, time dilation will never alter the order of events, causes will never follow effects and information can never arrive at a listener before the speaker says it.

Relativity is a very well researched and experimentally supported theory. It's only exceeded in predictive power and experimental agreement by quantum mechanics. But neither of them is anywhere near as important to science, logic and reason as cause and effect.

Basically, without proof of FTL that is ironclad, there's every reason to believe that all the rest of science is more accurate, because thre's no explicit experimental proof of FTL and the implications of FTL conflict with all other observations of basically everything.

tl;dr because of the implication

4

Extension-Ad-2760 t1_iyixd2t wrote

The specifics of causality were invented by humans. For example, we don't like the grandfather paradox, but a multiverse just ignores that problem.

Personally, I think that we assign too much value to our own human experience. In our own experience it is possible to exactly know the velocity and position of an object. In our own experience things are solid, not wavelike. In our own experience it is impossible for time to warp based on speed. And in our own experience it is impossible for cause not to follow effect.

−3

supercalifragilism t1_iyj54s1 wrote

I'm sympathetic to this interpretation, and I agree that human experience is centered too often when dealing with these kinds of notions. The trouble is that causality is necessary for any and all science, including the science that's leading you to doubt causality. The nice thing about experiment is that it can allow you to get out of the human experience.

2

coffeecofeecoffee t1_iyiyozv wrote

I feel like "we like causality" is not good enough for me. Just because we can't understand a universe that breaks causality doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We know n o t h i n g.

2

KiwasiGames t1_iyj9pqv wrote

Come on. This is a science sub.

We have never seen a FTL particle, ever. And we have looked for them.

We have no gaps in our theories of physics that would be effectively explained by allowing FTL.

And every known law of physics would turn out to be wrong if FTL was a thing.

None of that suggests that we will ever get to FTL.

2

coffeecofeecoffee t1_iyjolmc wrote

Yes, but models aren't truths, they are tools. Velocity A + Velocity B = Velocity (A + B) was a good enough model until we needed a more complicated one to account for relativistic speeds.

It doesn't mean the first model is wrong, just that it's not the full picture. I refuse to believe that Einsteins theory of relativity is the full picture.

I wonder why the speed of light is the speed of light? I feel things that are once thought of as "physical intrinsic laws" are really just results of a more complicated mechanism. So what's to say the speed of light, and velocity and spacetime in general is just the observable symptom of something more fundamental?

I don't expect us to find something faster than light but I'm not convinced the entire concept of velocity and spacetime is as fundamental and solid as it feels now.

2

odoc_ t1_iyhuxll wrote

Some theories suggest time doesn’t exist (Order of Time by Carlo Ravolli). The way we understand time is a human extrapolation, and fundamentally time in physics it is irrelevant. In such a case a time paradox would not be a paradox at all.

−1

Tortugato t1_iyjj4ow wrote

Scientists prove themselves wrong all the time.

That’s precisely what makes it science.

Science has to be falsifiable.

Regarding the speed of light, the way you speak about it shows you don’t actually know much about the topic.

The speed of light being the speed limit of the universe is an observation and a supposition. Scientists didn’t just decide on it.. Firstly they realized that the speed of light was constant. i.e. it never changes. It took Einstein’s special theory of relativity to show why and how it never changes. The mathematics of relativity also show us that it would take literally infinite energy to accelerate an object to the speed of light. That’s when we first codified light speed not only as constant, but also as the “speed limit” of the universe.

But guess what.. Scientists are constantly coming up with tests and experiments to try and prove Einstein’s relativity wrong. But so far, relativity still remains to be proven correct.

So yes, according to the our best working theory of understanding the universe, we cannot travel faster than light. But scientists acknowledge that the theory is incomplete, and are constantly trying to find the next step in understanding.

3

WitsAndNotice t1_iyimcls wrote

The speed of light is essentially a mathematically calculated cosmic speed limit, the fastest anything can go without huge swaths of our mathematical understanding of the universe being wrong, including quite a lot that we're pretty damn certain is correct.

Wormholes are not truly examples of FTL speed, they're more like shortcuts through space time. Essentially taking a shorter path between two positions, allowing you to arrive at your destination much faster than you could have if you traveled through space at the speed of light.

My layman's perspective is that yes, scientists do seem to be a little too married to their current understandings of what is and isn't possible, but that's nothing new. The world's smartest people throughout history have tended to draw a line in the sand and say that they are certain of what they know, only for the next generation of scientists to confirm that they didnt get everything right. It's equally important to acknowledge, however, that without understanding the math of fundamental physics (which I definitely do not) we can't truly understand what scientists actually do and don't know, we can only understand very generalized conceptualizations of it because the math simply does not have a complete english translation. There's information that's lost when trying to express the most complex mathematics in just words that precludes us from really understanding why things like the speed of light seem so absolute.

1

neotericnewt t1_iyinuoa wrote

>Like really? As if we cracked all the secrets of the universe.

We don't need to crack all the secrets of the universe, just some, and then we build from there. As far as we can tell FTL travel is impossible. For that to be incorrect would mean some of our most well tested and supported theories are also totally incorrect.

That's just not at all likely, because yeah, they're really well supported. FTL travel just doesn't make sense with the rules of the universe as they are.

1

coffeecofeecoffee t1_iyiy27c wrote

I agree, every physical law and experiment shows observable patterns in the universe but let's not forget the inconceivably confusing existence of the universe to begin with.

1