This new equation might finally unite the two biggest theories in physics, claims physicist

[

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Except it is your denial and irrelevant pretentious diatribe that is arguing against the whole gist of the OP and paper, and the professionals involved in that speculative research.
Coming from someone whose credentials at best remain unknown, and probably non existent, and who is unable to support any claim, here or elsewhere that you have made, the shoe, and a rather big one at that, is on the other foot.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please what you itemised and/or claim is unsupported and unqualified...with the greatest respect I am able to muster, I don't accept it.
The OP and paper is about the speculative proposition of quantum entanglement and worm holes and many papers so far have been linked to offer the research into that scenario.
Like general mainstream scenarios in other areas, you seem to reject that GR most certainly and obviously predicts that worm holes exist.
They do though remain speculative as we have never seen any....the same way that gravitational waves once recently remained speculative.
Taking all that into consideration, then my claim is totally validated....
No physicist, or any scientific article [despite your fairy tale claims to the contrary] have ever said that worm holes categorically do not exist...possible? yes, probably? yes, not likely? yes, don't think so? yes...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

All entirely and categorically true, despite and not withstanding the rather petty backwards and forwards claims, denials and pretentiousness nonsense that is being conducted.

No scientist/physicist will ever categorically claim that worm holes do not exist.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@ paddoboy:

The science reasons were itemized for your information, paddoboy.

What you choose to deny, or what you choose to "not accept", is of very little consequence to the facts as pointed out already on the science: which says 'wormholes' etc are unphysical things which maths throws up from time to time when it is taken beyond its domain of physical reality applicability. Your 'claim' falls even before you started, paddoboy: the science says so. Wormholes etc don't exist; irrespective of what you demand physicists say or not say 'categorically'. Are you this obtuse for real, or just for fun, paddoboy? Best.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

[QUO TE="expletives deleted, post: 3402621, member: 284015"]
What you choose to deny, or what you choose to "not accept", is of very little consequence to the facts as pointed out already on the science: [/QUOTE]
What is of little consequence, is the fact that while your are preaching unsupported nonsense on a public forum, it remains as such, while the fact remains that....
[1]Worm holes are a prediction of GR.
[2] Worm holes are speculative and we have never seen them.
[3] No scientists have ever claimed that worm holes categorically do not exist.
And that's the way it stands as of this day my friend.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

[deleted

 

@ paddoboy:

paddoboy, you must be getting really desperate. You just extracted James R's post out of context, completey ignoring that I responded and explained where he had the wrong impression etc. I defended my points, and now you try to insinuate that James R's comments were left unchallenged and hence "all entirely and categorically true" as you just DISHONESTLY mischaracterized them in your post above.

Does James R know you are using him and his out-of-context post as a pawn in your dishonest tactics and mischaracterizations, paddoboy? He won't be too pleased with you for doing that.

Your desperation is leading you into dangerous missteps, paddoboy. Beware. Retract it all now before he sees it! Best.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Not really, just somewhat concerned for your delusional aspect you seem to be under.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I can quote who I like.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The problem exists that its just another exapmle of what the reputable members of this forum now think of your posts.
And quite hypocritical to boot considering you have done the same.
James was expressing an accurate view which still holds at this time...simple as that.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I actually deleted a error, in a quote nothing more nothing less, nothing improper.....as usual, not sure what you are referring to.....
But you imagine what you like.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Here's another paper on the current subject......
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.09552v1.pdf

Entanglement Conservation, ER=EPR, and a New Classical Area Theorem for Wormholes

Abstract
We consider the question of entanglement conservation in the context of the ER=EPR correspondence equating quantum entanglement with wormholes. In quantum mechanics, the entanglement between a system and its complement is conserved under unitary operations that act independently on each; ER=EPR suggests that an analogous statement should hold for wormholes. We accordingly prove a new area theorem in general relativity: for a collection of dynamical wormholes and black holes in a spacetime satisfying the null curvature condition, the maximin area for a subset of the horizons (giving the largest area attained by the minimal cross section of the multi-wormhole throat separating the subset from its complement) is invariant under classical time evolution along the outermost apparent horizons. The evolution can be completely general, including horizon mergers and the addition of classical matter satisfying the null energy condition. This theorem is the gravitational dual of entanglement conservation and thus constitutes an explicit characterization of the ER=EPR duality in the classical limit


Conclusions
The proposed ER=EPR correspondence is surprising insofar as it identifies a generic feature (entanglement) of any quantum mechanical theory with a specific geometric and topological structure (wormholes) in a specific theory with both gravity and spacetime (quantum gravity). Until an understanding is reached of the geometrical nature of the “quantum wormholes” that should be dual to, e.g., individual entangled qubits, it will be difficult to directly establish the validity of the ER=EPR correspondence as a general statement about quantum gravity. In a special limiting case of quantum gravity—namely, the classical limit, which gives general relativity—this task is more tractable. In this paper, we have provided a general and explicit elucidation of the ER=EPR correspondence in this limit. For a spacetime geometry with an arbitrary set of wormholes and black holes, we have constructed the maximin area of the multi-wormhole throat separating a subset of the wormholes from the rest of the geometry, the analogue of the entanglement entropy of a reduced density matrix constructed from a subset of the degrees of freedom of a quantum mechanical state. We then proved that the maximin area is unchanged under all operations that preserve the relation between the subset and the rest of the geometry, the equivalent of quantum mechanical operations that leave the entanglement entropy invariant. We have therefore completely characterized the ER=EPR relation in the general relativistic limit: the entanglement entropy and area (in the sense defined above) of wormholes obey precisely the same rules. In addition to providing an examination of the ER=EPR duality, our result constitutes a new area theorem within general relativity. The maximin area of the wormhole throat is invariant under dynamical spacetime evolution and the addition of classical matter satisfying the null energy condition. The dynamics of wormhole evolution were already constrained topologically (see Ref. [23] and references therein), but this result goes further by constraining them geometrically. Note that throughout this paper we have worked in asymptotically AdS spacetimes in order to relate our results to a boundary theory using the language of the AdS/CFT correspondence, but our area theorem is independent of this asymptotic choice provided that all of the black holes are smaller than the asymptotic curvature scale. In the classical limit, we have characterized and checked the consistency of the ER=EPR correspondence in generality. However, extending these insights to a well-defined notion of quantum spacetime geometry and topology remains a formidable task. Understanding the nature of the ER=EPR duality for fully quantum mechanical systems suggests a route toward addressing the broader question of the relationship between entanglement and geometry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Let's hope similar research continues as the possible benefits of knowledge are incalculable and beyond measure.....and of course it will!

 

@ paddoboy:

In denial, and projection too; those are bad signs for you, paddoboy. See to those problems quickly before they become even more serious.

Sure; but the onus is upon you not to take out of context or mischaracterize etc, as you just tried on with his post while not presenting the full response to same from me which would have put a totally different light on your one-sided quoting. You realize that any scientist caught doing such a thing would be in deep trouble with his peers, don't you? So don't develop such bad habits just because you are a layman. That is no excuse.

There you go with 'reputable' etc. Either the comments stand up to scrutiny or they don't. The 'reputable' status is immaterial when it comes to discerning fact from fiction.

At least I try to be as even handed and honest as I possibly can be while doing so. Your above attempt was both crude and improperly done.

Your opinions re 'accuracy' is rather suspect on many fronts. So not much store can be placed on your above characterization; which I have already pointed out is not correct, since I answered and dispelled his impression at that time.

 

@ paddoboy:

In that case, I have reinstated my relevant post. I tried my level best to protect you from yourself, so my conscience is clear. Good luck.

 

Best now to ignore our friend and leave him be......sad.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.05295v2.pdf

Cosmological wormholes in f(R) theories of gravity

Abstract:
Motivated by recent proposals of possible wormhole existence in galactic halos, we analyse the cosmological evolution of wormhole solutions in modified f(R) gravity. We construct a dynamical wormhole that asymptotically approaches FLRW universe, with supporting material going to the perfect isotropic fluid described by the equation of state for radiation and matter dominated universe respectively. Our analysis is based on an approximation of a small wormhole - a wormhole that can be treated as matched with the FLRW metric at some radial coordinate much smaller than the Hubble radius, so that cosmological boundary conditions are satisfied. With a special interest in viable wormhole solutions, we refer to the results of reconstruction procedure and use f(R) functions which lead to the experimentally confirmed ΛCDM expansion history of the universe. Solutions we find imply no need for exotic matter near the throat of considered wormholes, while in the limit of f(R) = R this need is always present during radiation and matter dominated epoch. Keywords: wormholes; f(R) theory of gravity; ΛCDM universe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Yep, again proper speculative science which could one day be validated, not withstanding the noise on public forums from no bodies in particular, with dreams of grandeur that will never be realised......

and supported by a previous article I linked to........
http://phys.org/news/2014-05-pair-black-holes-center-galaxies.html
Pair of researchers suggest black holes at center of galaxies might instead be wormholes
and the subsequent paper.......
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.1883v2.pdf
Distinguishing black holes and wormholes with orbiting hot spots:
article:
The supermassive black hole candidates at the center of every normal galaxy might be wormholes created in the early Universe and connecting either two different regions of our Universe or two different universes in a Multiverse model. Indeed, the origin of these supermassive objects is not well understood, topological non-trivial structures like wormholes are allowed both in general relativity and in alternative theories of gravity, and current observations cannot rule out such a possibility. In a few years, the VLTI instrument GRAVITY will have the capability to image blobs of plasma orbiting near the innermost stable circular orbit of SgrA∗ , the supermassive black hole candidate in the Milky Way. The secondary image of a hot spot orbiting around a wormhole is substantially different from that of a hot spot around a black hole, because the photon capture sphere of the wormhole is much smaller. The radius of the photon capture sphere is independent of the hot spot model, and therefore its possible detection, which is observationally challenging but not out of reach, can unambiguously test if the center of our Galaxy harbors a wormhole rather than a black hole.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Hypothetical sure, but hypothesis that is well worth the resarch and papers, rather then the incidental back and forward chit chat on public forums by those entirely ignorant of the possibilities and driven by "god of the gaps"agendas.

 

Another article from 2011.....
http://phys.org/news/2011-02-scientists-possibility-wormholes-stars.html
Scientists investigate the possibility of wormholes between stars
February 25, 2011 by Lisa Zyga report

(PhysOrg.com) -- Wormholes are one of the stranger objects that arise in general relativity. Although no experimental evidence for wormholes exists, scientists predict that they would appear to serve as shortcuts between one point of spacetime and another. Scientists usually imagine wormholes connecting regions of empty space, but now a new study suggests that wormholes might exist between distant stars. Instead of being empty tunnels, these wormholes would contain a perfect fluid that flows back and forth between the two stars, possibly giving them a detectable signature.

The scientists, Vladimir Dzhunushaliev at the Eurasian National University in Kazakhstan and coauthors, have posted their investigation of the possibility of wormholes between stars on arXiv.org.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2011-02-scientists-possibility-wormholes-stars.html#jCp

 

@ paddoboy:

Did you even read the article in full, let alone read the ensuing discussion, paddoboy? If you had, you would have got to the point where it describes what that 'study' actually consists of; and I quote a paragraph:

Do you see where it is a modeling based on assumptions made which are unphysical, paddoboy?

Namely:

- a "wormhole" is assumed;

- assuming ordinary looking stars have "central tunnels" connecting them to other stars (but they don't say how those stars formed those tunnels or how they were entangled in the first place and then separated in order to form a unphysical wormhole connecting them);

- they assume non-existent "exotic matter" (a new twist on the 'negative energy required to 'stabilize' the wormhole in other Black Hole entanglement contexts).

So, paddoboy, do you still believe such wormholes are physical possibilities, even though its all 'modeling' of speculative assumptions about things that also don't physically exist in reality according to the science?

 

Sure I did ol chap!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sure ol chap, and that's what I've been telling you from the time you chose to invent whatever you chose to invent to start this debacle.....
worm holes are hypothetical. [although the word ünphysical is not used: shame

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

]
worm holes are speculative..that's what the OP and our expert, professor Susskind also agree to...so you see all this tooing and froing with your nonsense has got you so tied up you have finally admitted to what I have been telling you from day one.....wormholes are hypothetical: But while they remain a prediction of GR, that same speculation is being researched and considered, the same as many other previous speculative areas of cosmology which were once entirely speculative..
And please note, that as I have said, "no physicist has categorically said that worm holes do not exist" maybe not? sure, probably not? yes, possible they do? yes, do you get the picture yet?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"no physicist has categorically said that worm holes do not exist" and physical and unphysical are your own terms and not used in my reputable links and papers.

 

Here's another paper re the speculative possibility of a star harbouring a worm hole......
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...3BC8655AF990F23C445.c1.iopscience.cld.iop.org

Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics:

A star harbouring a wormhole at its core


Abstract
We consider a configuration consisting of a wormhole filled by a perfect fluid. Such a model can be applied to describe stars as well as neutron stars with a nontrivial topology. The presence of a tunnel allows for motion of the fluid, including oscillations near the core of the system. Choosing the polytropic equation of state for the perfect fluid, we obtain static regular solutions. Based on these solutions, we consider small radial oscillations of the configuration and show that the solutions are stable with respect to linear perturbations in the external region.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


Yes, some of these concepts can be said to be weird, but then again, the whole of 21st century cosmology is weird to anyone absolutely stuck in pre Newtonian era or before.
Like I said, the Universe is a weird and wonderful place

 

@ paddoboy:

You keep missing the crucial point, paddoboy.

If the science already says (I itemized it for you) such things as wormholes, negative energy, entangling and then separating stars/black holes are unphysical things, they are not speculation of science but fantasy devices for pop-sci and sci-fi 'entertainment' not science reality.

Just because you call them "speculations" doesn't give them any sense of scientific credence as to their physically real likelihood. The science already ruled them out as they are unphysical things. These speculations and studies are exercises for the fantasy fun of it, not for real science. In the worst case, it may influence budding scientists into thinking fantasy is part of the science method! Look where that leads. Be careful what you tolerate when it comes to science method and understandings, paddoboy. Best.

 

No that crucial point is what you miss, ie, the scientific methodology in general and total fabricated nonsense to fit your own version.

That alone illustrates the depth and quantity of the problems you proceed under........
[1] All science starts as speculation.
[2]Then follows research by reputable professionals.
[3] Experimental and/or observational verification is next.
[4] scientific theory status if predictions match observations.

Worm holes as yet remain speculative but a prediction of GR.
No physicist has ever categorically said they do not exist.

 

@ paddoboy:

The scientific methodology is what I am applying, paddoboy. You are just applying paddoboy's methodology. Never the twain shall meet.

All those things which science has effectively ruled as unphysical started as speculations and have now ended as unphysical things after science process has had its way. Just because you still want to treat them as speculations now doesn't make them any more real than they were after science has had its say (as I itemized for you).

Rehashing old speculations since ruled unphysical by science process is not doing any 'new' science speculations, paddoboy; it's just rehashing unphysical things for publish or perish and entertainment pop-sci and sci-fi purposes; not for science purposes; no matter how mischaracterized in order to suit the PR spruiker's sales narrative for such unscientific 'fantasy floss' offerings to credulous public/fans.

 

No obviously not the case...More pedantic nonsense, irrelevant rhetoric, and total unreasonable denial on your part.

You are obsessed obviously with your "physical" and "unphysical" fairy story.
Something need not be physical to be real, just as I have pointed out to you and the god many times.
Space, time, spacetime, EMF's spacetime curvature are real.

More claims that obviously apply to yourself, particularly with fairy stories.
Let me reiterate again, all science starts off as speculation, no matter how you chose to dress/undress that fact to attempt to support your own fabricated nonsense, similar as the way you tried to squirm and remove the stigma in your eyes of worm holes being a solution of GR.
Again, in despite your predicted attempt at more dressing/undressing or in any other pedantic/semantic way, please note that "no physicists will categorically say worm holes do not exist"