Physicists teleport bullshit through wormhole | Hacker News Reader

Physicists teleport bullshit through wormhole

johnhorgan.org

54 pointsmsravi20 comments

> Scott Aaronson, a quantum-computing expert who often debunks extravagant claims made for quantum computers, told Overbye, the Times reporter: "If this experiment has brought a wormhole into actual physical existence, then a strong case could be made that you, too, bring a wormhole into actual physical existence every time you sketch one with pen and paper." Aaronson says on his blog that the wormhole episode "risks damaging trust in the scientific process itself."

Oi. The great weakness of academics is the obsession with semantics. Debating the words used is a poor subsitute for exploring the concepts.

The experimenters are clear their ‘wormhole’ is a computational “hologram” of a one-dimensional wormhole. These operational words are the concept.

This was a computational experiment designed to show something akin to ER=EPR, or the idea that entanglement is equivalent to a wormhole, an ER bridge. Its a fascinating line of inquiry into what makes the stuff of our universe, and hopefully a few laypeople get to learn about it because of their work.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER_%3D_EPR

This was never an experiment about the wormholes of science fiction, if that is how people read the headlines.

They simulated a toy model of a wormhole. They still have to compare it to a real one to verify their model holds.

I don't think I agree that this is just semantics. I looked into it enough to realize it was just a simulation, but the headlines were all about how they had created a wormhole, very obviously because a headline like "researchers have created a video game of a wormhole" wouldn't have gotten clicks or whatever.

Attention seeking seems a bit rampant these days. Quanta is generally a reliable source, but it's troubling to see even researchers either ignorantly given opinions on topics they know nothing about, or dishonestly inflate the content of a particular paper garnering interesting to further themselves into the limelight.

Maybe it’s is semantics. But look at how it is employed: not to transfer a well known concept into another domain to make things easier to understand for a broader audience.

Instead they use it as as a clever marketing trick and click bait. Even we are now talking about it.

If science is now about marketing it’s a clever thing to do.

But maybe marketing tricks shouldn’t enter every field.

Sorry to sound stupid and probably out of topic, but at the end of the article the author placed a (I infer) satirical image of what appears to be doubly linked gravity wells, a typical wormhole by Hollywood explanations. At the top the author placed “This is not a wormhole”.

Is this a reference to “this is not a pipe” (related to the description ≠ experiment argument of the article) or they actually mean that that rendition does not represent a wormhole?

It just means a picture of a wormhole is not a wormhole. It's a reference to the Magritte painting of a pipe titled "This is not a pipe".

There is new new physics here, and I suspect this gentleman's criticisms are unfounded.

I'll have to take the abstract's[0] word for it since I'm not institutionalized, though.

The author of the rebuke claims that they simply used entanglement as with the quantum teleportation task, which isn't the case, apparently a more robust task has been used to demonstrate their premise.

[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05424-3

Edit: and since when has physics ever been about "proof"? that's not anything, regression is an extremely powerful tool in physics because physics is about predictive reach, not some unjudgeable standard of "correctness". this is coherent in perturbation, and correspondence principles, but apparently easy to miss if you haven't read that far. see also the interoperability principle, to understand at least one framework interpretation of holographic phenomena.

>since when has physics ever been about "proof"

Literally since inception.

Re your later comments: perturbation series that converge aren't considered physics by default. I'm not sure what you're suggesting there.

Physics deals in explanation, observation, prediction.

With observation comes evidence supporting explanations... that's it.

I'm referring to perturbation as taking first-order approximation of a phenomena's best known explanation, similar to my assertion that regression yields explanation.

Sorry for being harsh but that is completely, objectively, wrong.

Physics is not "dealing with" explanation, observation, prediction in some fluid way. It is the minimal model that correctly and succinctly predicts phenomena with sufficient statistical evidence.

There's no role to question whether phenomena is involved.

This is why SUSY is not part of the standard model - because it has not yet been confirmed with sufficient experimental data.

>... the minimal model... That's impossible if "the grand explanation" is to be mathematical, due to the same issue that felled pure math, Godel.

There's assumptive folds throughout, like the correspondence principles, or complementary where arguing that we're even close to a complete explanation is madness. THOSE are all clearly labeled.

All this to argue that yes, this is a novel demonstration, and (if I understand correctly) , shows that matter at some known scales are subject to dynamics elucidated by GR, up to exotic event spaces.

The model being incomplete is not the same thing as saying empiricism is the primary requirement.

The use of assumptions, similarly, does not sit before evidence fit. When we find results that contradict a theory with evidence, we often throw away the assumptions because we realise them as tools no longer fit for the job.

The assumptions I'm discussing are the permissive types which serve as a trapdoor for good explanations, those don't get thrown out.

Unsupported assumptions, like substructure where none had been observed, aren't thrown out until evidence contradicts them. For example in the case of the ether. Or in the case of strings, as yet untested.

They still only get credence as long as they don't disagree with experiment.

The ! was important.

Physicists Teleport Bullshit Through imaginary Wormhole FIFY

I like this article because it sums up the mis-reportage of simulation in the modern world. If your simulation puts preconditions in, and you test if those preconditions produce outcomes, then its a feel good moment the sums add up but you really do need to be confident about those preconditions and in the case of wormholes, they're conjecture. All you really did is say "I got the outcome I was tuning for"

Just the way that strings and extra dimensions, universes are mathematically compelling, they still are merely theoretical and can't be proved. Whereas, concepts such as entanglement which is so fascinating if one thinks about it, molecules interfering with molecules without any connection... cannot be proved theoretically, no-one knows why it happens, experimentalists got the Nobel because they proved it and proved a lot of scientists wrong.

Does anyone else get the irony of this? The actual concepts that are theoretical in physics cannot be proved, and the concepts that are getting proved aren't justified with theoretical physics.

I enjoyed a recent panel by celebrity physicists where the point was made that current theories have plateau’d into the realm of metaphysics. Some were surprising sceptics of the use of purely mathematical models for things we will never be able to test experimentally.

Personally, their descriptions remind me of the early Christian eschatological debate that raged for centuries about the nature of an embodied god. I expect we’ve come full circle about things that remain stubbornly unknown.

Somewhat relevant: https://xkcd.com/465/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com