How Physicists Created a Holographic Wormhole in a Quantum Computer - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 01, 2022, 07:01:08 pm
content: Can someone please explain to me exactly what these scientists have actually done...I'm trying to wrap my head around that they moved or created 2 entangled, I guess you could call it each end of a wormhole, and id doing so, they observed an effect which only negative mass energy could be the explanation. Something which is required to maintain a wormhole, however, as far as we know, does not exist in our universe.Am I on the right track?Or, did they go even a step further by passing a Q-Bit of information through that wormhole.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2022, 10:32:39 pm
content: Looks like what they have successfully done is to use "digital" quantum computer in an "analog" way, and applied that to simulate the properties of wormholes (to some degree). The simulation give us further insight into how wormholes may behave.For example, looking at force of gravity and force of electrical attraction, they look identical:For gravity force, F = G*M1*M2 / (R*R)For electrical force , F = K*Q1*Q2 / (R*R)If you have a computing machine that operates based on electrical charges and distance with measurement of the electrical attraction force as the result, you can use that device to evaluate gravitational attraction force. Such a computing could be called an analog computer for gravitational forces. You adjust the Q and R (in scaled form) for M and R, and the resulting electrical force as measured. With proper scaling, you have the gravitational force instantaneously.Slide-rule is another analog computing device. Using additive property of length and use logarithm property of "adding log of two number is same as multiplying", slide rule can multiply numbers easily by merely adding the lengths with individual length markers done in logarithm scale.It is currently accepted mathematically quantum entanglement is identical to worm holes' math. So one can be the analogy of the other. Quantum computers use quantum entanglement and so it is rather convenient to use that to simulate the other similar phenomenon with identical math -- namely, wormholes. That the two different phenomenon have the same math may not mean the two phenomenon are the same.For gravity and electrical forces, there are certainly indication that all known forces could be unified. Einstein worked on "Unified Field Theory" for much of his later career. Currently, it is generally assumed that the forces are unified at the beginning and separated as the universe cools. How same are they now is certainly still a valid question -- note the development of "Modified Gravity" in-lieu of "Dark Matter" in Cosmology.Mathematics is a form of representation of Physical phenomenon. Are they the same can be more Metaphysics than Physics.One other question, that they can do some simulation is a success to some degree, but how much can they really simulate is another.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2022, 11:18:46 pm
content: @Rick Law, so what you are saying is that they setup the quantum computer hardware to simulate the function of a wormhole in a 'quasi' physical way and in turn when applied, the computer reveals a result that the effect of some negative energy is 'revealed'.Basically this is like saying either A/B/C, or any combo:A) That our math about the physics functions and if we wanted to create a spacial, negative energy is a requirement which we cannot yet create in any way.B) In our universe, entangled particles which are theoretically linked by micro-wormholes, must contain a tiny amount of negative energy, not yet observed, to maintain the entanglement.C) As theorized, you may not need negative energy to maintain the wormhole / quantum entangled particles, but to be able to traverse / sen matter through one, you need the 'unobtanium' negative energy to keep it open to send anything through.For option C, if you have 2 solid surfaces with each constructed with perfectly maintained quantum entangled particles, with the addition of enough negative energy, you might be able to construct a traversable wormhole. Though I'm guessing this negative energy would need to be absurd, like the equivalent mass energy of the matter being sent through squared.

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2022, 12:18:45 am
content: Quanta Magazine is a written magazine, and sometimes the articles have an embedded video to augment the text.The video without text might not make much sense (as a standalone video). The video you linked is from this article:https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-create-a-wormhole-using-a-quantum-computer-20221130/Even together with the article, might still not make much sense. From my experience (followed them for a while 1-2 years ago), I found their articles too long, with too much journalism, and not clear about the scientific part, at least for me. Never learned anything from their articles, only that they were hyped about whatever research. If interested about something they present, skip the article/video, and read the research paper even if it's not your specialty, the paper will give a better clue than the article.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2022, 01:51:46 am
content: Quantum computers are built with state of the art sources of entangled particles that are best at mitigating issues like quantum decoherence. I assume the researchers found some ingenious way of testing ER=EPR conjecture using quantum computers’s hardware, in particular the sources of entangled particles and detectors.I do not think the experiment had anything to do with quantum computing algorithms. The team might have just repurposed the computer for the experiment. But I am not expert, and could be wrong.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2022, 01:53:21 am
content: I would rather see physicists creating wormholes in human stupidity. Not holding my breath though, hard stuff.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2022, 02:18:32 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on December 03, 2022, 01:53:21 amThis is just for theoretical practice. The types of energies involved to make anything usable by us is on the level of colliding stars. IE: At this point, it looks like it will never happen until some loop-hole in physics is discovered.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2022, 04:24:27 pm
content: Only bits have to be able to travel through it to be valuable and the energy of a single bit can be very small.Just imagine, even faster high frequency trading

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2022, 08:03:39 pm
content: Quote from: vad on December 03, 2022, 01:51:46 amFirst, let's not mix making a simulation with making of the real thing. In so far as I can grasp from the video, they have created a computer simulation of theoretical wormholes, not an actual one. We have to cap our excitement about creating wormholes -- none have yet been created. They have created a simulationonly. Now my editorial: If the simulation is accurate, it will help understand how it behaves. However, knowing its behavior is not the same as knowing how to make one. Helpful to compare "knowing how an average human behave" verses "knowing how to make a human in a lab from mere molecules".Second, that the math are the same at this stage doesn't mean that they really are the same. That is the trouble with simulations. We can only input what we know. We have no idea on what we don't know, and we also don't know the impact of said unknowns have to the correctness of the simulation. When we ask it to predict what we don't know, we should remember the limitations of the simulation are also unknowns.In my first reply which described what I understood from the video, I use gravity in my explanation for a reason. For a long time, we thought Newton has the definitive last word. Eisenstein made itnotso. Any simulation using what we knew before Eisenstein would give you wrong representations where speed is approaching "c". With Relativity, we knew more, but that still is not it -- we now observed that stuff around galaxies are rotating faster than they "should" -- even including all relativistic concerns. So now we have introduced Dark Matter and MOD. One can consider Dark Matter another form of MOD, but just the same, any simulation using Newtons Law plus Relativity would be wrong in prediction of matters in a rotating galaxy. What other things do we not know? Unlike a part from a manufacturer, with simulation, we do not have a gauge to the limit of accuracy or correctness.Taking from assertions in the video (and not my personal knowledge of Quantum Entanglement): As of now, we know ER=EPR. It doesn't mean they have the same fundamental physics underlying them. Both could be represented by the same math as far as we know, so simulation using our limited knowledge will have limitations that we don't know.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2022, 01:33:25 am
content: Google’s quantum computer is an expensive toy with just only 53 qubits. It cannot outperform classical computer, other that in a handful computational tasks specifically crafted to demonstrate quantum supremacy that do not have any meaningful application.You cannot use it even for factorization of 32-bit integers (the largest arbitrary number factored by a quantum computer is 17 bits long), let alone computationally solve equations for some advanced simulations.If the researchers needed to run some simulations, they would have done that on a classical computer, IMO.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2022, 01:35:19 am
content: And no, based from the video we do not know if ER=EPR yet. Not until the paper(s) get peer reviewed, and other researchers repeat the experiment.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2022, 02:36:49 am
content: Quote from: vad on December 04, 2022, 01:33:25 amI don't believe they are doing any numerical computation / simulation. I think they are utilizing the computer's ability to entangle 2 or more quantum bits and injecting a disturbance to see what happens when reading the entangled pair. Their resulting readback disturbance is an analog to what would be seen as a negative energy presence if they had computed / simulated the results using classical computers. IE: They setup a few physical entangled q-bit pairs to see if it reacts the same way to one of classically computed entangled particles theory which uses negative energy worm holes connecting the 2 entangled particles, and they got a match between the theoretical theory which required negative energy and how the physical entangled Q-bits in the quantum computer behaved.It's not that they were trying to make the computer compute the entangled particle theory which requires negative energy, it's that they had the entangled bits in the Quantum computer, applied some stimuli, read the results to see if it matched the theory.The 7 q-bits they used is not enough to do and verify any such classical physics computation.They use the quantum computer to measure itself to verify is it matched the theory which used some negative energy to connect the entangled bits and the results match the theory.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2022, 08:14:20 pm
content: Quote from: BrianHG on December 04, 2022, 02:36:49 amSame as what I grasp from the video, hence I considered how they are using it as analog computing -- rather than digitally resolve the math to compute the entanglement to see how such phenomenon would behave.It is a good idea, assuming if the math is truly identical. However, since there is little yet to suggest the underlying Physics are identical, it is in my opinion a significant assumption here to assume similarity is beyond skin deep.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2022, 01:00:54 am
content: Quote from: Rick Law on December 04, 2022, 08:14:20 pmYou can neither prove nor disprove scientific theory in Physics by simply computing. It does not matter if you use analog computer, digital computer, quantum computer, abacus or pen and paper. You need experiment for that.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2022, 03:57:51 am
content: Quote from: vad on December 06, 2022, 01:00:54 amI know 'Rick Law' said 'like analog computing', but once again, this is not what's happening. They aren't computing anything. They have a box which has entangles bits with wiring to stimulate and read those entangled bits. They throw in controlled random junk and readback the results. They now check to see which theories about entangled particles currently exist match what they see. It turns out that one of those theories which predicts a type of signal if negative energy exists and that signature was found in the read results.It is not that they wrote some quantum program to detect if negative negative energy exists or can be created. It is that they wanted to do a precise experiment with entangled particles to see if it exists. It would have been cost prohibited to make such a precise experiment on their own. However, some Quantum computers already had all the necessary (and then some) hardware elements to perform their experiment.The looked at the noise and errors of the quantum computer hardware and saw a signature in that noise which coincides with negative energy in some existing physics theories.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2022, 05:51:47 pm
content: I understand the distinction you are drawing. This reply is not intended to be argumentative, just clarification of interpretation.Conceptually, the are making use of the physical effect of one to predict the other. While no real computation is occurring, but that is true with all analog computing.I suppose it is what you make of the term "computing".

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2023, 03:28:56 pm
content: OK, here is a clear explanation of exactly how a simulated, but may be real (if the ER=EPR conjecture holds true), wormhole was made and data was sent through inside Google's quantum computer: