6 ms·

Based on the colloquia I watched by Lenny Susskind, the problem is that you can put something into a wormhole, but to get it out the other end, you have to carr

Based on the colloquia I watched by Lenny Susskind, the problem is that you can put something into a wormhole, but to get it out the other end, you have to carry the encoding you get to the other end of the wormhole to decode the output. Because the distance to the singularity grows at the speed of light, the length of the wormhole is essentially infinite. It is only the operator you get from putting the object into the wormhole that lets it tunnel through that infinity, so no shortcut. EDIT: Here is the lecture I'm referring to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEDFh8ma9zM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEDFh8ma9zM

SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
So we've uncovered the universes version of cyptography?
- TomMarius 8y ago
  Native cryptography, I'd say
- jessermeyer 8y ago
  It's more just the encryption method without decryption.
lawlessone 8y ago
> Because the distance to the singularity grows at the speed of light, doesn't our universe expand at the same speed?
- adrianN 8y ago
  Things are moving away from us at a speed proportional to their distance. The fastest objects are actually faster than the speed of light.
  - FrancoisBosun 8y ago
    I thought nothing could move faster than light?
    - philipov 8y ago
      Special Relativity states that no two objects may pass each other faster than the speed of light. Space itself isn't bound by this restriction. To wit: no thing can move faster than the speed of light, but space is not a thing. Space is dynamical. It can stretch and expand and even break, but it doesn't move. The result of this is a cosmological horizon that prevents these objects from communicating, because the distance between them is growing faster than light can cross it. This is the same reason you can't escape a black hole.
      - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
        >and even break Spatial discontinuities? Can you tell us more, please?
        philipov 8y ago
        How about another lecture by Leonard Susskind? I'm just repeating his ideas! The gist of it is that the connectivity of space is related to the patterns of entanglement between particles in the quantum foam. If you were to break that entanglement, you could disconnect two regions of space. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9crggox5rbc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9crggox5rbc
      - magduf 8y ago
        It kinda sounds like we're actually in a gigantic black hole...
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        philipov 8y ago
- philipov 8y ago
  As the sibling poster implies, not only are there black hole horizons, but we are ourselves inside of a cosmological horizon. Objects outside the horizon are impossible to see, and objects approaching it from the inside will redshift and disappear from view the same way they do when entering a black hole from the outside.
  - nightcracker 8y ago
    This is a false horizon. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_on_a_rubber_rope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_on_a_rubber_rope. At least theoretically we should be able to receive signals from arbitrarily far away no matter the expansion of the universe. They'll be redshifted like hell though, as you say.
- vectorEQ 8y ago
  :D is the universe expanding, or revealing more of itself? if the universe is expanding at the speed of light, doesn't that imply that just light is reaching us more from further away places? sorry to be off topic but that comment gave me this brainfart.
  - philipov 8y ago
    The universe is revealing more of itself as light reaches us from farther away, but because the universe is both expanding and that expansion is accelerating, there is a maximum distance we will ever be able to see: the Hubble Distance. I don't think the universe is old enough for light to reach us from that far yet, which is why we can still see the cosmic microwave radiation, but give it a few trillion years, and we won't even be able to see other galaxies because they will recede from us, redshift, and disappear.
  - swebs 8y ago
    No, there's actually more space constantly being added to the fabric of spacetime. So if you take 1 cubic meter of space, eventually it will become 1.01 cubic meters, then 1.02, etc. This isn't noticeable at distances within the galaxy, but it is very noticeable when observing distant galaxies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
logfromblammo 8y ago
So... Two entangled wormhole apertures function as Star Trek style transporter pads. Feed mass into one hole, scanning it as it goes in. Transmit the pattern to another aperture of the hole, using electromagnetic energy at the speed of light, and when that end ejects a mass, apply the pattern to it, so it resolves into an exact copy of what you put in. The distance the mass travels may be shorter than the distance the energy travels, but it can't resolve exiting mass as that object until the information--that had to travel at the speed of light--arrives. So you could potentially use a wormhole as a suicide machine that transports a copy of you, that thinks it actually is you, to a distant location no faster than the speed of light, in zero subjective time for the thing that will then think it's you. Is that a reasonable interpretation?
- ben_w 8y ago
  I don’t think the suicide booth model of a teleporter fits a quantum teleporter model, only the 3D printer teleporter model. From a quantum point of view, all (e.g.) electrons are indistinguishable excitations in the same field, and it’s the pattern that makes you “you”. If you’ll forgive a bit of poetic licence, quantum teleportation seems more like Discworld magic, where you have to exchange two identical sized lumps of matter.
- lloeki 8y ago
  This sounds like the science-fiction version of a cryogenic scam.
- pontifier 8y ago
  http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1 http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1 Edit:Lol, someone else also had this link as a reply to a similar thought.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Terr_ 8y ago
> the problem is that you can put something into a wormhole, but to get it out the other end, you have to carry the encoding you get to the other end of the wormhole to decode the output. That sounds a lot like how entangled particles can't be used to communicate faster than light. While you can make observations immediately, you can't turn them into useful information about the other end, at least not until you get missing data which has to reach you by normal means. Hence the focus on using entangled particles as a kind of tamper-detector or "reusable random one-time pad", rather than for transmitting information.
- philipov 8y ago
  That is precisely the lesson of the ER=EPR principle, which states that every entangled pair really has a 1-qubit wormhole connecting it, and the space inside a macro-scale wormhole is the consequence of combining all those tiny wormholes together. Wormholes are entanglement.

SketchySeaBeast 8y ago

So we've uncovered the universes version of cyptography?

TomMarius 8y ago
Native cryptography, I'd say
jessermeyer 8y ago
It's more just the encryption method without decryption.

lawlessone 8y ago

> Because the distance to the singularity grows at the speed of light, doesn't our universe expand at the same speed?

adrianN 8y ago
Things are moving away from us at a speed proportional to their distance. The fastest objects are actually faster than the speed of light.
- FrancoisBosun 8y ago
  I thought nothing could move faster than light?
  - philipov 8y ago
    Special Relativity states that no two objects may pass each other faster than the speed of light. Space itself isn't bound by this restriction. To wit: no thing can move faster than the speed of light, but space is not a thing. Space is dynamical. It can stretch and expand and even break, but it doesn't move. The result of this is a cosmological horizon that prevents these objects from communicating, because the distance between them is growing faster than light can cross it. This is the same reason you can't escape a black hole.
    - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
      >and even break Spatial discontinuities? Can you tell us more, please?
      - philipov 8y ago
        How about another lecture by Leonard Susskind? I'm just repeating his ideas! The gist of it is that the connectivity of space is related to the patterns of entanglement between particles in the quantum foam. If you were to break that entanglement, you could disconnect two regions of space. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9crggox5rbc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9crggox5rbc
    - magduf 8y ago
      It kinda sounds like we're actually in a gigantic black hole...
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - philipov 8y ago
philipov 8y ago
As the sibling poster implies, not only are there black hole horizons, but we are ourselves inside of a cosmological horizon. Objects outside the horizon are impossible to see, and objects approaching it from the inside will redshift and disappear from view the same way they do when entering a black hole from the outside.
- nightcracker 8y ago
  This is a false horizon. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_on_a_rubber_rope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_on_a_rubber_rope. At least theoretically we should be able to receive signals from arbitrarily far away no matter the expansion of the universe. They'll be redshifted like hell though, as you say.
vectorEQ 8y ago
:D is the universe expanding, or revealing more of itself? if the universe is expanding at the speed of light, doesn't that imply that just light is reaching us more from further away places? sorry to be off topic but that comment gave me this brainfart.
- philipov 8y ago
  The universe is revealing more of itself as light reaches us from farther away, but because the universe is both expanding and that expansion is accelerating, there is a maximum distance we will ever be able to see: the Hubble Distance. I don't think the universe is old enough for light to reach us from that far yet, which is why we can still see the cosmic microwave radiation, but give it a few trillion years, and we won't even be able to see other galaxies because they will recede from us, redshift, and disappear.
- swebs 8y ago
  No, there's actually more space constantly being added to the fabric of spacetime. So if you take 1 cubic meter of space, eventually it will become 1.01 cubic meters, then 1.02, etc. This isn't noticeable at distances within the galaxy, but it is very noticeable when observing distant galaxies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

logfromblammo 8y ago

So... Two entangled wormhole apertures function as Star Trek style transporter pads. Feed mass into one hole, scanning it as it goes in. Transmit the pattern to another aperture of the hole, using electromagnetic energy at the speed of light, and when that end ejects a mass, apply the pattern to it, so it resolves into an exact copy of what you put in. The distance the mass travels may be shorter than the distance the energy travels, but it can't resolve exiting mass as that object until the information--that had to travel at the speed of light--arrives. So you could potentially use a wormhole as a suicide machine that transports a copy of you, that thinks it actually is you, to a distant location no faster than the speed of light, in zero subjective time for the thing that will then think it's you. Is that a reasonable interpretation?

ben_w 8y ago
I don’t think the suicide booth model of a teleporter fits a quantum teleporter model, only the 3D printer teleporter model. From a quantum point of view, all (e.g.) electrons are indistinguishable excitations in the same field, and it’s the pattern that makes you “you”. If you’ll forgive a bit of poetic licence, quantum teleportation seems more like Discworld magic, where you have to exchange two identical sized lumps of matter.
lloeki 8y ago
This sounds like the science-fiction version of a cryogenic scam.
pontifier 8y ago
http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1 http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1 Edit:Lol, someone else also had this link as a reply to a similar thought.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Terr_ 8y ago

> the problem is that you can put something into a wormhole, but to get it out the other end, you have to carry the encoding you get to the other end of the wormhole to decode the output. That sounds a lot like how entangled particles can't be used to communicate faster than light. While you can make observations immediately, you can't turn them into useful information about the other end, at least not until you get missing data which has to reach you by normal means. Hence the focus on using entangled particles as a kind of tamper-detector or "reusable random one-time pad", rather than for transmitting information.

philipov 8y ago
That is precisely the lesson of the ER=EPR principle, which states that every entangled pair really has a 1-qubit wormhole connecting it, and the space inside a macro-scale wormhole is the consequence of combining all those tiny wormholes together. Wormholes are entanglement.