Wormholes in the laboratory - Public lecture by Dr. Joe Lykken
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 05. 2024
- A wormhole, also known as an Einstein-Rosen bridge, is a hypothetical tunnel connecting remote points in spacetime. While wormholes are allowed by Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, wormholes have never been found in the universe.
In 2022, a team of scientists including Dr. Joe Lykken, leader of the Fermilab Quantum Institute, published an article about the observation of wormhole dynamics in the science journal Nature. It was featured on the cover of the Dec. 1 issue of the magazine. In the article, the team described observable phenomena produced by a quantum processor that “are consistent with the dynamics of a transversable wormhole.” Working with a Sycamore quantum computer at Google, the team had been able to transfer information from one area of the computer to another through a quantum system utilizing artificial intelligence hardware.
Lykken, a Fermilab distinguished scientist and former deputy director of research, earned his doctorate at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and has previously worked for the Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics and the University of Chicago. He began his tenure at Fermilab in 1989. Lykken is a fellow of the American Physical Society and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The Fermilab Quantum Institute leverages Fermilab’s expertise and infrastructure and partnerships with leading quantum information science researchers to pursue high-impact research and development in quantum information science, while advancing high-energy physics applications.
For more information about the article about wormholes published in Nature in 2022 visit:
news.fnal.gov/2022/11/fermila...
For information about the Fermilab Arts and Lecture Series, please visit:
events.fnal.gov/arts-lecture-... - Věda a technologie
That was the shortest 47 minutes I've experienced in quite a long time. Thank you for a very interesting lecture Dr. Lykken.
Very good description of the EP=EPR. Really exciting time to be alive! Thank you Dr. Lykken for all your good explanations about the extra spatial dimension in the holographic theory and so forth!
Great series 😄🌞
Thank you so much for the lesson! Wormholes are so intriguing
The connection between gravity and quantum mechanism is the most exciting idea in physics in many decades. I watched Leonard Susskind's lecture about the ER=EPR conjecture and I was blown away!
This makes so much sense now. I wish you all came out with this video months ago before the headlines
Thank you Fermilab and Dr. Lykken for helping to bring some level of understanding, comprehension, and anticipation to the masses. As a mass myself I appreciate it and look forward to more.
I love these little insights into current experiments and the direction research is headed.
What a great presentation. I am looking forward to seeing what we discover further down this path. Thank you for sharing this with us.
13:25 Negative energy !!
And what mean by Negative energy or negative mass ..!
Is it something that opposite to Gravity or something than how negative mass or Energy can reduce the mass of positive matter ?? It seems like Antimatter which can do this same task , than why Negative mass or energy !!!!
For photon energy is proportional to frequency, so for negative energy how can be negative frequency? This is ridiculous.
Hi@@YarUnderoaker Gravity = The Spaceless and Timeless Vacuum (Negative) Energy State of Matter!!! :)
Subatomic particles are constantly popping in and out of existence all the time (Quantum Fields Theory).
"When you have them on every street corner". Subtle. Excellent video. Not too overhwelming considering the subject tackled.
Thank you. Good luck in your future experiments. Fascinating.
Could we just quantum entangle two force feilds of photons to make a wormhole? And then use spontaneously degeneration of photons to add your negative and positive energy.
Genial GRACIAS from Valencia SPAIN
Once a particle leaves this SPACE-TIME side caused by the negative energy of that other side's blackhole, it will jump into the ER=EPR bridge (wormhole) accelerating to light velocity within the wormhole's own SPACE-TIME coordinate. As soon as the particle returns, it enters into the same Moment of this side's SPACE-TIME coordinate which it left from. If that negative energy's wave does not appear and does not hit this side's body of the causing object , then the entire body of this side's causing object could probably disappear because of the huge established gravity (teleportation happens). Could'nt it? Well I think so. Thank you Dr. Lykken for your efforts.
I'm not sure if this was stated explicitly, or even if it's implied: When particles are entangled, does that mean a wormhole connects them? (even across great distances)
Not exactly. Rotating traversable Einstein-Rosen bridges (aka wormhole) are the representation of quantum entanglement in the language of geometry.
Somebody deserves a Nobel Prize for this.
I know this may be ignorant and I am just a high school student but what if the information is scheduled to be sent at a specific time and this cut out the phone call from alice to bob at 26:20. Like if sometime far in the future it is scheduled that they will check their qubits for the information being sent. For example, Alice sends information at 9pm when she does send it so every day at 9pm, or once a month or however long bob checks his qubit for the information. Would this hypothetically work? I dont know a lot about the process but am very curious.
Thank you for this upload, extremely interesting topic!
Thank you! Very exciting developments!
Are there public lectures at Fermilab? I'm very close by
Thank you, it was very informative!
With a connection between two points, a wormhole, is it not just a single entity? Rather than two separate black holes?
30:59
Spooky action at a distance could be looked at in 4d to explain that too.
If entangled particles remain close within 4 dimensions, and if information can be passed via the 4th spacial dimension, then the other three dimensions can be whatever value they want as long as the 4th dimension is constant.
It isn't spooky action at a distance, its a single dimension that doesn't change.
(Im not sure this works but it sounds good)
Ahhh yes the Quantum Foam....I have a very simple light accelerator...it uses laser pulsed photons and crushed the fields in a tuned restriction which creates Brilliant White particles (electron showers) and round black particles (muons) ....It appears they are the neutrino particles. We did this in light research using pulsed lasers and a restriction venturi. I have pics created using CMOS detectors to see the luminosity clearly. The particles we found are identical to Fermilab Point Particles and fixed particles ..article by Don Lincoln "Whats the Point". He also agrees space is saturated with the Quantum Foam". I can even see the neutrinos change flavors as they compress into the restriction.....I would like to show you my work and am emailing you shortly with the pics and a short video of the research...thank you Sir.
When taking about negative energy and hawking radiation I couldn't help but notice how nicely that could fit into the new proposal that dark energy and black holes are linked
I take exception to the idea that negative energy is involved in Hawking radiation. If positive energy falling into a black hole increases the mass/size of the black hole, then positive energy leaving the wormhole will decrease the size/mass. The implication is that black holes do not maintain a 100% grasp on matter at the event horizon boundary, an idea that prompted the idea of Hawking radiation in the first place. While the effect of mass leaving the black hole is mathematically equivalent to negative mass entering the black hole, this is by no means necessary or even likely, given our current lack of detection of dark matter or dark energy. Negative energy is just a mathematical construct to balance the books and there is absolutely zero evidence for its’ existence.
Sweet!
I'm curious, using quantum teleportation, encryption methods and phenomenon found in polarised lenses could you still communicate.
A. Polarised lenses have been found that if take in a entangled particle at 90 degrees with a polarised lenses angled at 65 degrees. you have a probability of a certain result at 65%.
If you use a dedicated outbound system to inbound system. You send a concept called a kernal in computer science. You send this several times to prevent error. Then you send the message say 5 times with an AI autocorrect system found in machine learning. You then send this kernal back through another out bound inbound system. With a copy of original message and response.
I'm just curious would the above system work and if not why ?
Thank you Dr. Joe Lykken. It was very interesting lecture. 👏👏👏👏👏🖖🖖
The comments section is just very disappointing, don't bother to read.
I wish Dr. Joe Lykken watched Sabine's episode on the subject of spooky action at a distance, as he repeatedly misrepresented what Einstein actually said by replacing with the habitual stereotype. Einstein was right about the spookiness, as the interpretation of entanglement back in the days was the problem, not the experiment. What he didn't like was the wording used, he was fine with the experimental results, but not with the explanations given. Moreover, unbeknownst to him, his paper on the bridge was the GR solution to quantum entanglement all along, unfortunately he dismissed the bridge because it was unstable and then didn't update the paper after Hubble's data came to light.
On the matter of Einstein's denial that traversable wormholes could exist, the problem was that Einstein was tied to the mindset at the time that space was static, as that was the data back in the days. It's been recently demonstrated that rotating wormholes do not require exotic properties to keep the throat open. It has also been demonstrated that the physics inside wormholes is identical to the outside, thus no FTL is possible (and don't dare touch the wall); however, traversable wormholes will also propagate all fields, as the inside is just regular space (something I'm sure is highly exploitable).
Einstein-Rosen bridge requires exotic properties only because it's static (exactly the same problem Einstein had that required the cosmological constant, the blunder he mentioned was missing out a prediction that space was not static and embarrassing himself in the process, but again he was tied to the data prior to Hubble's work). The quantum equivalent to a rotating traversable wormhole requires negative energy; thus, I'd like to suggest we say from now on that rotating traversable Einstein-Rosen bridges are the GR representation of quantum entanglement (ER=EPR).
Contrary to what was said by Dr. Lykken, on the matter of a person travelling through a rotating traversable ER bridge faster from their viewpoint, but subluminal from an external viewpoint, is not correct. Penrose demonstrated that traversable wormholes can be benign, where it would take a fixed amount of time, i.e. 1 minute to go through, regardless of the distance travelled and the initial velocity of the traveller, as it's a property of the wormhole, not the objects inside it (longer distances require a lot more energy to build the wormhole, so it's not free), and it would be noted as only taking a minute by outside observers too: upon questioning or examining the log book to see when and where the travellers started their journey, as external observers cannot possibly know when the craft left the origin, without first waiting for the information itself to arrive (which could take 1,000 years; however, the craft is already there). They can only see the craft suddenly arriving, thus they have to enquire the crew or the logs to understand when and where the journey started, and then they would conclude exactly the same thing: the journey took 1 minute.
Hi, why don't you have an automatic translation for Farsi?
I've been considering the question of what comprises a point in quantum spacetime, and I have a slightly different answer than what is presented here.
The conventional view we're unsatisfied with is Euclidean points - they're too simple, too infinitesimal, not detectable, and seemingly too abstract to be plausible.
The view presented here seems to be of a quantum point that exists as a Heisenberg Uncertainty pair. This, I think is on the right track, but might still not capture the complexity of the situation. It is a good definition for a bit of quantum information, but I don't think it's sufficient to describe a point in quantum spacetime.
The idea I like best is that a quantum point in spacetime is either a quantum observation, or a potential quantum observation. This, I think, captures the complexity of the situation best.
First, the idea is to capture all the observational data in a single node in a spacetime network. The natural node is the observation (or particle collision/detection), which consists of a measurement of several vectors consistent with Heisenberg Uncertainties. Also, the implication is that two particles must have been causally adjacent at the moment of observation. There's a discrete logic that follows this implication, which is consistent with causality.
Then, the idea is to capture the notion of an "empty" point in spacetime. It's not actually possible to directly detect an empty point in spacetime, but we infer them in terms of potential observations/particle collisions that didn't happen. This seems to me, to be the definition that captures the logic of empty space best.
I think the more complex point that I'm describing is more likely to produce relativity, as it seems to me the act of quantum observation is a fundamentally relativistic activity, it's just a matter of adding up enough of them in the right way.
The conclusion, which may be a little troubling to some, is that spacetime is not continuous, and that particles may move in it in a non deterministic manner. This is a probabilistic spacetime, where each point is relative to some initial observation, and particles' paths between observations are undefined. It may be unsettling and unfamiliar to describe a spacetime where particles are popping in and out of existence, but that appears to be the spacetime we reside in. Also, this is the kind of behavior that should be predicted in a quantum spacetime when viewed with maximum resolution. The continuity is going to break down at some point, and non deterministic behavior appears to be what the particles' solution to this problem is.
The shift in perspective is in recognizing that the waveforms described by quantum mechanics represent spacetime rather than the wave properties of particles. I think wave particle duality is better explained as: particles have a wave like effect on the spacetime around them, but interact with other particles in a discrete manner.
Beyond that, the natural groupings of quantum points/observations, is in terms of singularities and horizons. A network of these points should exist as one or the other, or some combination of singularities and horizons.
Which is to say, we're pretty much in agreement on where this research is going, I just think the final, formal definition of quantum spacetime should be a little more complex, but we agree on many of its properties. The end result is a quantum spacetime that is built up of non deterministic fundamental units, which if you believe in a universe that emerges from chaos, is exactly the kind of answer you'd expect. An empty, well ordered Euclidean space, does not appear to be an accurate description of what's happening there empirically.
Good material for an old movie.
Is wormhole a distortion of space geometry ?
I used to collect worms when I was a kid for fishing. I Saw many worm holes.
I still don't understand why two entangled Qbits couldn't be used to communicate information.
To my understanding serious use of wormholes is really only possible in Universes that have distorted topographies as to be able to connect things. Otherwise you just dent a sheet and never meet anything else. There may be those distortions at a very small scale. The idea quantum entanglement is in fact a womlhole is problematic in that distance is not supposed to be a factor to quantum entanglement. I guess like mentioned it could suggest non spatial mechanisms we don't currently understand, but more likely is just wrong.
Really nice.
"Wormholes in the laboratory" have never occurred.
What is negative enegy?
The definition of wormhole involves large amounts of gravity, a quantum computer does not have a lot or mass or the gravitational fluid interaction, a lead ball has orders of magnitude more gravitational interaction than this computer. This is an attempt link gravitational interaction with effects within a quantum computer that is not very massive or energetic (if you try to link energy with mass), I suspect the effects are quantum effects in the world of matter and not gravitational effects of space time. You might get very tiny black holes and other high-density things of immeasurable size and time in LHC collision, but you can say little about it since it is unmeasurable.
Reality... If we can still connect to it... Is still stranger then fiction. Holy Crap! Freak'n Amazing Stuff!
✌
So... if light can't escape a black hole wouldn't that denote light has mass... .
a lot of hoping going on here !
Thanks, Prof. Joe Lykken, for an enlightening lecture. It would add understanding of Einstein’s irate protestation (“Gott würfelt nicht!”) about these ERP implications, to point out that his deep Faith mandated: “Only God is omniscient,” simultaneously! We learn anew, every day.
This is cool.
Upgrading my 3-d printer to a Q/bit dimensional Xformer.
It would seem that spin is not a natural state of space itself on a whole. That naturally it would attempt to be in a state of rest if you consider the entire timeline of a universe, reacting with a singularity.
UPDATE: Wormhole Experiment Called Into Question - [Quanta Magazine] - March 23, 2023
I think there's some conceptual dangers in thinking of the universe as pure information. Information is part of the zeitgeist, and we're all thinking about it, but I don't think we've all agreed on its properties. It's very useful as a conceptual tool, but I think the universe has its own ideas about what information it reveals to observation.
When a particle collision occurs, there is a certain amount of information about the particle collision that is hidden from us, and its parameters reveal themselves in the form of Heisenberg Uncertainties. It appears to be a completely paradoxical idea that this information should be known at the moment of observation. That information is intrinsic to the particles, and the only way to release it is to annihilate the particles, thereby making the question of observing it a complete paradox. Should have asked a better question!
Unlike on a computer, even looking at information in real life has a cost.
This is a physical black box, which contradicts the cryptographers' notion of a black box. It may be mathematically inconsistent that there be such a thing as a black box, but if observation of the contents of a physical black box entails violating fundamental physics, the mathematics is a moot point and must be tailored appropriately.
I think a better way to think about information and physics is to simultaneously admit the possibility of non information, or lack of information, in the form of physical black boxes. These physical black boxes are in particles, they're in singularities, and they're outside our observational and computational horizons.
The theory of information appears an attempt to provide a framework for a unified theory of energy, but I strongly suspect a theory of hidden information will also be needed as a complement, both philosophically and theoretically. (Call it anti information maybe? I keep coming up with different analogies.)
It was a great talk, can't wait to see where this research goes. Looks to me like it's on the right track, and we'll have better answers regarding quantum space time in the not too distant future.
Really Very interesting. So well presented / there is a chance that I understood the general principles if not the maths detail of what you've been working on.
South China Morning Post has recently reported some Chinese (PRC) banks using Quantum computers and linking them between remote data centres.
It all seems to be picking up speed.
Oooooo send me through. I'll tell you the results and data when I get back.
We'll be able to travel vast distances in the next 15-20 years then all bets are off!!
Seri s. Calculation to Mars. Using the DIELECTRIC VORTEX Technology by Ronald Frederick Sykes is less than 72. Hours earthlings
Diana - "Physics Girl" just made a U Tube short creating two linked vortexes (vortices if you must) in a swimming pool using a dished ceramic (dinner plate). She showed the injection of negative energy permitted travel between the two using FOOD COLOURING.
I wondered quite seriously if her fun experiment with water had a parallel in this linking of black holes in the laboratory .... Fluid on one hand Some sort of gravitational field on the other .
czcams.com/video/pnbJEg9r1o8/video.html
Space /Time. Is the vortex. Earthling struggle to understand
@@ronsykes5035
😵
@@causewaykayak 95 years behind the times. Real spacecraft. Don't use rocket s
Only the DIELECTRIC VORTEX Technology by Ronald Frederick Sykes delivers superior Levitation for your personal spacecraft
A question from a non scientist: if space can expand faster than the speed of light; could expanding space carry information between quantum entangled " cats.???
You can never create a corridor opening across a quantum field.
A particle breaks apart via Quantum Dimensional Funneling long before a bridge can be established.
Wormholes aren't a thing. :O/-
Sorry, it has to be said.
"Quannum graviddy"
My suggestion to Fermilab, is, to consider replacing magnets with a PASIV and STABLE source of control ; the rest is Blah, Blah, Blah!
0 dimension is arbitrariness
I don't know why it's not obvious. If you want to make progress in quantum gravity, you have to realize that spacetime is made of gravitons in the same way that the ocean is made of water molecules. Now, all you have to do is figure out the properties of the graviton and how to control it. Hint: the graviton is the building block of wave functions. A quantum entanglement is a form of a wave function. If you physicists are as smart as you think you are, you won't ignore my comment.
N?ceeee
Right on the hairy edge of my ability to comprehend. But it's nice to see CZcams being used for something other than jackass videos. And cats.
Fermilab. 95 years behind the. Times
The holographic principle is nonsense. There is no such thing as 1 or 2 spatial dimensions by themselves. 3D space cannot be broken down into separate or lesser dimensions. A holographic representation on the surface of a (3D) film is way more complicated than the thing it represents, not to mention, you only get to see an illusion of what the surface of the hologram looks like. Occam's razor cuts this to shreds. One- and two-dimensional objects do not exist. Even a triangle does not exist. The triangle drawn on a paper with ink is a 3D construct. There are some assumptions made here by "Physicists" that are questionable for even metaphysics. No one has ever observed 2 dimensional anything. 3D is fundamental. Just because you can make an equation with a variable that has an exponent that is a variable, doesn't mean you can put numbers, in the place of the exponent variables, (that don't represent nature) and say...."see this proves it". This is why string theorist fail at everything, because nature does not always follow the laws of mathematics, and all principals are conditional. A model can never be the very thing that it represents, and mathematics is neither complete nor consistent, using the rules of mathematics. Don't get me wrong, mathematics can be a wonderful tool used to explore answers. Mathematics will never be the answer. Negative energy has never been observed or created in a lab. If I simulate a pokeman, this does not mean pokeman exists, let alone all the mathematical attacks and defences they possess in the simulation. Even if I write a paper on "possible genetic engineering of pokeman", with mathematics that works according to the rules of mathematics, this will not make them real living pokeman. Not going to get fooled by math-e-magicians or wore out by mathletes. Well professor Susskind, I can see entangled photons, but entangled wormholes?! This is nonsense and people(investors) need to watch what they spend their hard-earned money on.
What is your academic background to be able to say anything about this subject you apparently don't even understand?
@@victorferreira5852 Maybe i understand more than you think? I am a small bit of the universe that tries to understand itself and the universe in which i am a part. I am a contemporary natural philosopher.
iduhknow... While i certainly don't have the background to thoroughly critique Dr. Lykken's presentation, i can't help but notice that the results of the computer simulation apparently matched the theoretically predicted outcome. There are many things in the various maths which do not have direct correlations to any physical reality but are nevertheless quite useful (The notion of a point, a location in time/space with no length, width or height, is now known to be a physical impossibility but it is fundamental to geometry which has been remarkably effective. Same for the square root of -1, with a symbol which literally stands for 'imaginary', but it features prominently in quite a few real life applications you'll encounter every day that do work and very well). Math doesn't actually have to match reality, more used to give us a handle with which to get a grip on it, a way of thinking about and describing the world around us. Ya, i squirmed a bit too with the mention of 'String Theory' but, if the goal was to reach the palace, it seems he may have arrived safe and sound at the destination in spite of the journey there maybe having taken him through a tavern down by the wharf. ;-)
In my initial comment I stated, "but entangled wormholes?!" I meant, "But entangled black holes?!" Sorry for the mix up.
@@scribebat I do appreciate what you are saying, and a couple of beers from that tavern down by the wharf would be wonderful. The fact is that the simulated "space" that was generated in which these simulated "wormholes" exist in is not real space. The fact is the programmers used the same math the physicists used in their theory that ER = EPR. I am sure it is an honest mistake. What space are they emulating? What Lorentzian manifold are they using? Are we going with De Sitter space, Minkowski space, or anti-De Sitter space? How are the "Q-bits" that are entangled not detangling or untangling when interacting with the manifold used in the simulation? In such simulated manifolds, how does a programmer, account for metric and stress tensors in Einstein's field equations, that have to be accounted for in any version of space-time? I remember when I was a teenager, I used to play the arcade game asteroids. You could literally fly off one side of the screen in one direction and come back on the other side of the screen at the same speed in the same direction. Is the left side of the screen entangled with the right side of the screen? Did the speed of my simulated spaceship change as I "EPR-ed or ER-ed" in the nonexistent space "worm hole/quantum teleportation" that loops the edges of the screen together? Some might say, if Icode a four dimensional array A$(x,y,z,t) and plot it in cyberspace that I can represent a metric or stress tensor with that array, but resetting the value of that variable to allow a bridge from one off-screen to the other side is neither entangling the edges of the screen, or creating two-dimensional surface of a three-dimensional torus. I could use the mathematics for navigating a 2-dimensional surface of a 3-dimensional torus and get the results of where the ship would be on the screen. I would be right for the wrong reason, and so would my prediction for the location of the ship. One does not need to have Dr. Lykken's background to critique. A good scientist would ask about the source code of the program, details on the Turing machine in question, and would try to isolate the biases that are programmed into the program from both the programmer as well as the collaborating physicist/mathematician. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
"Alice does something. I won't explain what", "Bob doen something. I won't what". Well that makes this whole lecture pointless if you don't want to explain what is going on.
BS
Hearing that the decrease of energy due to some radiated energy a black hole could emit is a demonstration of the existence of negative energy made me laugh. It is probably the worst scientific argument I heard this year, and believe me my students are very creative. Remember that the Hawkings' radiation is only a conjecture with not the faintest evidence to date. The only demonstration we have here is that the whole stuff about traversable wormhole is a succession of conjectures of increasing unlikelihood to stay polite.
This is NOT a worm hole in the lab - They created a THEORETICAL SIMULATION of a wormhole in software. Could also be programming bug or misinterpretation of a result.
🤣