Creating wormhole with quantum entanglement between two microscopic black holes

[Nemo33318]

Hi
How can I quantum entangle two microscopic black holes and creating the wormhole tunnel between them? Do I need super powerful TW laser system to rip apart space-time between them for nanoseconds only? After that use strong UV laser to entangle the 2 black holes with each other or I need double split plates to do that, or how?
Or I have to use Hawking radiation's particles?
If someone here understand this, please help.

[scienceguy]

From my knowledge, a wormhole involves warping spacetime and entanglement involves two particles being quantum mechanically coupled. Warping spacetime has nothing to do with entanglement.

[ChrisWilson68]

Also:

  1. Microscopic black holes evaporate nearly instantly.  The smaller the black hole, the faster it will evaporate.  To even get a black hole to last 1 second, it needs to mass 2.28×10^5 kg -- and it would release 5 million megatons of energy in that 1 second as it evaporated.  So there's no possible way that small black holes could ever be used practically to convey information, even if you could make a wormhole between them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

  2. Nobody has yet managed to create or detect even a single microscopic black hole.

[Mark K]

From my knowledge, a wormhole involves warping spacetime and entanglement involves two particles being quantum mechanically coupled. Warping spacetime has nothing to do with entanglement.

Actually a lot of work is being done on the quantum entanglement of spacetime itself and limits from computational theory. See youtube videos by Leonard Susskind and actually Scott Aaronson who I can tell loves the fact that his beloved Computer Science theory has possible physical implications.

But these are speculations. To answer the question. We do not understand how black holes, wormholes or theory of quantum spacetime/gravity work in detail. So there is no answer that has any real confidence behind it. We have several models of this stuff but we are talking low confidence theoretical speculation. Differing models have different predictions.

I feel like someone should make a formal hierarchy of confidence in models from:
1. We use it to design things we bet our lives on without a thought
2. We use it to build things we test heavily then trust
3. We create experiments to test the model but we don't know how to use to build things confidently
4. We create experiments to confirm aspects of the model in different ways with high confidence
5. We do extrapolations from lower numbered models with reasonable confidence and experimental evidence that is close to new model.
6. We do extrapolations from current model that has experimental evidence but the extrapolations have not been tested yet and have lower confidence
7. We do new models that do can express current models but have no evidence or way of testing yet.
8. We do new models that can explain something that current model does not and are possible different to current models in someday testable ways.
9. We create new mathematical models that we may someday be able to embed our current models in but we don't  know how or if they work, but they do explain something.
10. We throw stuff out there because it looks interesting and might be an approach...
11....

This Quantum Gravity wormhole stuff is 9 or 10 ....

You could add in predictions somehow to make this more reasonable.

[ncb1397]

From my knowledge, a wormhole involves warping spacetime and entanglement involves two particles being quantum mechanically coupled. Warping spacetime has nothing to do with entanglement.

He may be referring to this:

But what enables particles to communicate instantaneously — and seemingly faster than the speed of light — over such vast distances? Earlier this year, physicists proposed an answer in the form of “wormholes,” or gravitational tunnels. The group showed that by creating two entangled black holes, then pulling them apart, they formed a wormhole — essentially a “shortcut” through the universe — connecting the distant black holes.

Now an MIT physicist has found that, looked at through the lens of string theory, the creation of two entangled quarks — the building blocks of matter — simultaneously gives rise to a wormhole connecting the pair.

http://news.mit.edu/2013/you-cant-get-entangled-without-a-wormhole-1205

1. Microscopic black holes evaporate nearly instantly.

Hawking radiation is just a theory. It hasn't been experimentally verified.

[Nemo33318]

I don't know, a picometer sized would weigh how much tons.
I know it is etremely dangerous to create 2 small black holes, their weight would be thousands of tons in this small scale. We need antimatter too to destroy them if something goes wrong. And we need to create the same quantity antimatter and store it somehow, which is a huge risk again...
In addition we need large, superconducting Niobium-tin magnets cooled down at nearly 0 K, circulating thousands of Amps in it to keep the black hole in position in the centre of the sphere shaped vacuum chamber, and feeding it with a continous particle beam, and research how Hawking radiation works too. Those magnets should be extremely large and strong (each one of them would be thousands of tonnes, like the LHC magnets). I think the hardest challange would be to defend against the gamma rays from the black hole's poles. We need some kind of material which absorbs the radiation, the chamber's wall would heat up. I think we could solve the cooling problem with copper or silver wires in the wall’s material, and we could circulate liquid helium in those wires.
What is your opinion?

[Nemo33318]

Someone said in a facebook group, we would need dark matter with negative mass to maintan the tunnel somehow, I don't understand why.
And another person said that on Quora, the entanglement would be impossible cause the extreme heat around the black holes, the two gamma ray jets (northern and southern) and the Hawking radiaton's particles would confuse the wavefunction.

[meberbs]

I know it is etremely dangerous to create 2 small black holes, their weight would be thousands of tons in this small scale. We need antimatter too to destroy them if something goes wrong. And we need to create the same quantity antimatter and store it somehow, which is a huge risk again...

No, adding antimatter to a black hole just makes the black hole bigger. Antimatter has positive mass. When matter and antimatter react, they generate light, but light can't escape from a black hole either, so dumping antimatter into the black hole just makes it bigger.

In addition we need large, superconducting Niobium-tin magnets cooled down at nearly 0 K,

You are skipping dozens of possibly unworkable steps that you run into before this. It doesn't matter what material are used in the magnets when black holes would not generally be trapped by magnetic fields in the first place. You could try to make the black hole charged so it can be manipulated with electromagnetic fields, but that brings up many more pressing questions than "how do you get strong enough magnets"

Someone said in a facebook group, we would need dark matter with negative mass to maintan the tunnel somehow, I don't understand why.

Wormholes and not "2 entangled blackholes" but a structure in General Relativity (which is not a quantum theory). It has been shown that to make a stable wormhole you need exotic matter with negative mass (again antimatter is not this). Also, Dark matter is generally believed to have positive mass as well. The "dark" refers to it not interacting with electromagnetism. Exotic negative mass matter is simply something we have no reason to believe exists. Ideally, if negative mass matter existed, it would not be "dark," to make it easier to manipulate.

And another person said that on Quora, the entanglement would be impossible cause the extreme heat around the black holes, the two gamma ray jets (northern and southern) and the Hawking radiaton's particles would confuse the wavefunction.

As others have stated, there is no theory of quantum gravity that actually is consistent with what we know and makes new predictions that have been verified. Therefore any statements about a quantum gravity effect like the statement you mention here simply is a meaningless statement without the context of the theory that it originated from. Even with that context, the statement does not necessarily have any relation to the real world.

[Nemo33318]

I thought that that black hole is biult from original matter, antimatter would destroy it.
The annihilation would produce 2 gamma rays if I know well, pure light which have no mass, so the black hole would not be heavier.

The black hole have mass, so it is possible to trap it in strong magnetic fields.
With a diamond anvil cell we could make denser, stronger superconducting magnets with new crystal structure in it:


Dark matter have negative mass, check this video if you still doesn't believe:


As to the Hawking radiation's particles, if we could quantum entangle the two particles somehow wo would be ahead a little bit I think.

[meberbs]

I thought that that black hole is biult from original matter, antimatter would destroy it.
The annihilation would produce 2 gamma rays if I know well, pure light which have no mass, so the black hole would not be heavier.

False, that gets back to the whole energy-mass equivalence thing Einstein came up with. The photons have energy, and that is equal to an equivalent amount of mass, and has the same gravitational effect.

The black hole have mass, so it is possible to trap it in strong magnetic fields.
With a diamond anvil cell we could make denser, stronger superconducting magnets with new crystal structure in it:

You just aren't making sense here, something having mass is not a condition for magnetic fields being able to interact with it. Something has to have its own electromagnetic fields in order to be affected by electromagnetism, and that is not necessarily the case for black holes. Maybe you have been confused by that cool video of levitating a frog in a strong magnetic field. The frog is made up of a bunch of water particles that do have electromagnetic fields. Black holes are a place where spacetime collapses, and matter inside a black hole cannot form a magnetic dipole like water does. That requires spatial separation or motion of the charges, which is not possible when space itself has collapsed.

Dark matter have negative mass, check this video if you still doesn't believe:

While it is not impossible that there is matter with negative mass, the version of dark matter that best fits the data so far has positive mass. One scientist publishing a hypothesis about negative mass particles does not constitute proof that dark matter has negative mass. There is a good article discussing how the media around the article that video is based on has generally been overhyped in a way that is detrimental to good science:
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/dark-fluid-theory-of-dark-matter-energy

As to the Hawking radiation's particles, if we could quantum entangle the two particles somehow wo would be ahead a little bit I think.

Hawking radiation gets into quantum gravity, which is a field where essentially none of the theories are even testable with current technology, so it is hard to comment on.

[Nemo33318]

Okay, I will give up this "dream", a chance, a "working" engine for an FTL drive. :/

[meberbs]

Okay, I will give up this "dream", a chance, a "working" engine for an FTL drive. :/

I'd like an FTL drive too, but as it is current physics knowledge does not have a way to build one as well as some good reasons to expect that it may be completely impossible. (Most versions of FTL drives could trivially be used as time machines, there are specific restrictions needed to avoid that).

[Clyde]

you might be interested in the following talk by Leonard Susskind the quantum entangled black holes discussion starts at 35 mns.

[Nemo33318]

I have hundreds of question in this subject (wormholes, quantum entanglement, material science, nuclear phisycs, aerospace engineering, spacecraft engineering).
If someone would like to help, do not hesitate to send a private message for me, please!
Anyway I will try to design this futuristic impossible engine in Creo in summer (if I will have time).
I will never give up!

[Nemo33318]

I have a new idea for this FTL drive, Casimir effect with quantum entangled nuclei and dark matter.
Perhaps it could work.

[meberbs]

I have a new idea for this FTL drive, Casimir effect with quantum entangled nuclei and dark matter.
Perhaps it could work.

The answer is going to be no, for a dozen different reasons, but it would take forever to explain them all. You are going to have to provide more detail, so that specific relevant discussion can happen. For example, I don't know whether I should be explaining why quantum entanglement is not true FTL, or why dark matter is by definition unrelated to the Casimir effect.

[oyzw]

From my knowledge, a wormhole involves warping spacetime and entanglement involves two particles being quantum mechanically coupled. Warping spacetime has nothing to do with entanglement.

In fact, the Einstein-Rosen bridge is strikingly similar to the mathematical model of quantum entanglement.

[Nemo33318]

I think I have an idea for this FTL drive, but alone it is impossible to design such a thing like that.
I would need more people, theoretical physicists, electric engineers, materials science engineers, chemical engineers, manufacturing engineers, aerospace engineers, computer engineers, software engineers, design engineers, automotive engineers, industrial engineers, mechatronic engineers, molecular engineers, nuclear engineers, nanoengineers, structural engineers, vehicle engineers, thermal engineers.

[ugordan]

Hawking radiation gets into quantum gravity, which is a field where essentially none of the theories are even testable with current technology, so it is hard to comment on.

From my (admittedly very limited) understanding, I don't think that's really the case. Hawking radiation originates at black hole horizons where spacetime curvature is not really strong enough to warrant a full quantum description of gravity. My understanding is that it's in some ways analogous to the Unruh effect which itself has nothing to do with spacetime curvature but with quantum field physics in an accelerating frame of reference. Even our cosmological horizon (the distant part of the universe that's "moving" away from us at the speed of light) is speculated to have a finite, nonzero temperature because of this effect.

Where quantum gravity really comes into play is in the center of the black hole, the "singularity", but that is decoupled from the horizon and hidden away from outside observers.

The idea that entanglement and wormholes are connected in a deep way was first proposed I think by Leonard Susskind et. al, as was already mentioned here. The conjecture that "ER=EPR" is a play on two papers coauthored by Einstein, ironically the very same year. One is Einstein-Rosen, on the wormholes and black holes, a classical GR paper and the other is the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paper on quantum entanglement.

BTW, even if it was possible to create a wormhole by macroscopic quantum-entangled systems collapsed to a black hole or whatever, they would not be traversable. The "space" inside the wormhole grows at the speed of light so there is no way of jumping in at one end and coming out at the other end. It would be like entering a tunnel where the far end is moving away from you faster than you can drive. The only thing possible would be for two observers to jump in from their sides and then meet in the middle, but that still doesn't violate causality and does not allow faster than light travel or information exchange. Wormholes in movies apparently never mention that fact.

...at least that's my understanding.

[meberbs]

From my (admittedly very limited) understanding, I don't think that's really the case. Hawking radiation originates at black hole horizons where spacetime curvature is not really strong enough to warrant a full quantum description of gravity. My understanding is that it's in some ways analogous to the Unruh effect which itself has nothing to do with spacetime curvature but with quantum field physics in an accelerating frame of reference. Even our cosmological horizon (the distant part of the universe that's "moving" away from us at the speed of light) is speculated to have a finite, nonzero temperature because of this effect.

To my knowledge, there is not experimental evidence either way for Hawking radiation or Unruh radiation. The point of my statement was just that Hawking radiation is solidly in the category of: we don't even know how to design an experiment to test this theory using current technology.

Even if Hawking radiation does not involve a full theory of quantum gravity, it is undoubtedly combining quantum and general relativistic effects. The event horizon is a location that cannot possibly be described correctly outside of GR, and it is only the special properties of the event horizon in GR that would allow Hawking radiation.

BTW, even if it was possible to create a wormhole by macroscopic quantum-entangled systems collapsed to a black hole or whatever, they would not be traversable. The "space" inside the wormhole grows at the speed of light so there is no way of jumping in at one end and coming out at the other end. It would be like entering a tunnel where the far end is moving away from you faster than you can drive. The only thing possible would be for two observers to jump in from their sides and then meet in the middle, but that still doesn't violate causality and does not allow faster than light travel or information exchange. Wormholes in movies apparently never mention that fact.

While the most basic type of wormhole in GR is not transversable, there are solutions for transversable wormholes. These still have issues about requiring exotic (negative mass) matter though, so not actually useful.