I just watched the Leonard Susskind lecture at Berkeley,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OkwGDKoY0o&pp=ygUPcXVhbnR1bSBncmF2aXR5
and I wish somebody could answer me a question.
Do entangled Black holes exist in the real world?
Because it seems to me that it's pretty hard for particles (lots of them) to first become entangled and then go on to separately form 2 distinct Black holes.
And I also guess that not all the particles that comprise the two Black holes would have been entangled prior to the Black holes formation. How does that affect the entanglement of the Black holes? Let's say that only 10% of the particles that formed the 2 Black holes were entangled at their formation. Will the Black holes still be entangled. And will they be fully or partially entangled?
Entanglement is not demonstrated between photons, so between BH!
JES
Remains to be worked out what the possible signal could be. Insofar as they are objects in space and time, they can be entangled; however, just like for ordinary objects, observing this can be very hard.
Yes, entangled black holes are thought to exist in the real world. The idea is based on the principles of quantum entanglement and black hole thermodynamics, and has been proposed as a possible explanation for some observations in astronomy. However, their existence has not been directly confirmed and is still a subject of ongoing research.
Cole C. Pazar
Yes, you could say exactly the same thing about photons!
JES
Here's the answer that ChatGPT gave me:
Do entangled black holes, also called Einstein-Rosen bridges, exist in the universe?
A: The concept of entangled black holes, also known as Einstein-Rosen bridges or wormholes, is a theoretical idea that has been proposed as a possible solution to the equations of general relativity. These bridges are thought to be shortcuts through spacetime that could potentially connect distant regions of the universe, allowing matter or information to pass from one point to another almost instantaneously.
However, the existence of entangled black holes has not been proven and is still considered to be a speculative idea. While some scientists have proposed that these structures could exist, others are skeptical and consider them to be highly implausible.
At this point, we don't have any direct observational evidence to support the existence of entangled black holes, and much more research and data is needed to determine whether they actually exist in the universe. Currently, the idea of entangled black holes remains a topic of active investigation and debate within the scientific community.
Cole C. Pazar You are wrong, wormholes are very unlikely to exist, if we are to take into account the reasonability and likelihood of such a scenario, per my description.
Which goes to show how models can be flawed at times as descriptions of the Universe.
Although they are useful to make predictions, not all predictions are realistic.
Maybe the right way to think about this is, the model provides solutions that are not impossible, they could exist in the real world in principle, but in actuality they don't exist because they require events that are very very unlikely to occur, with probability very close to 0%.
“…The concept of entangled black holes, also known as Einstein-Rosen bridges or wormholes, is a theoretical idea that has been proposed as a possible solution to the equations of general relativity.….”
- yeah, that is so. Because of that in the mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics, all really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fields”, etc., “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational ,
- so in every case, when some authors develop some fundamental theory, the result completely obligatorily logically is nothing else than some transcendent fantastic mental constructions.
As that really the general relativity theory really is; and just so in framework of GRT completely fantastic – as all other GRT’s “holes in spacetime”, though - “entangled black holes, also known as Einstein-Rosen bridges or wormholes” are indeed completely real and legitimate.
Including so such strange claims in GRT are also correct and legitimate as
“…Remains to be worked out what the possible signal could be. Insofar as they are objects in space and time, they can be entangled; however, just like for ordinary objects, observing this can be very hard. ….”
- while even in mainstream physics the physical effect “entanglement” is defined only for QM material objects, and by no means for some “space-time objects”; so, say, even in the mainstream it is known that GRT is fundamentally incompatible with QM.
That is so evident even in the mainstream that yeah, that in the mainstream
“…However, the existence of entangled black holes has not been proven and is still considered to be a speculative idea. While some scientists have proposed that these structures could exist, others are skeptical and consider them to be highly implausible.…”
- exists also; despite that those in the mainstream, who “are skeptical”, because of the transcendence above really cannot rationally explain – why they are skeptical?
Really scientific understanding of what are the fundamental phenomena/notions above is possible, and rigorous scientific definitions of the phenomena are already, given only in framework of the 2007 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed
- and, in concrete application to the concrete information system “Matter”, in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics, which is based on the conception, where, including it is rigorously shown
- that the Matter’s utmost fundamental and universal spacetime is the fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), which really is fundamentally nothing else than some [at least, more correctly rather probably [7]4D, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces] fundamentally infinite – in which infinite number of “Matters” can be placed - Matter is placed,
- and fundamentally nothing can happen with the spacetime if anything happen in Matter. Both, space and time, fundamentally cannot be “contracted”, “dilated” , “curved”, etc., including, of course, be “poked” with creating some “holes”, etc. More about what are, though also transcendent, but lesser fantastic, “black holes” see 2-nd link, section “Cosmology”.
More see the papers that are linked above, that is much more useful for really physicist than wasting time on viewing on YouTube, reading in mainstream journals, etc., of really only fairy tales for populace about the “weird”, but real, “properties of space/time/spacetime”, which are “discovered” in next and next “outstanding breakthroughs”.
Cheers
- Badges
- Science topic