This new equation might finally unite the two biggest theories in physics, claims physicist

[Schmelzer]

Bell, another contemporary bright theorist, worked out a theorem known as the Bell’s Inequalities or Bell’s theorem, proving mathematically that no hidden local variable theory can predict the same outcomes as the quantum mechanics. The theorem is correct and hence it proves that quantum mechanics does not work with some underlying hidden variables, but it is in fact a feature of nature, embedded in microscopic systems.

This is a quite typical desinformation. The first bold text "no hidden local variable theory" is formally correct, but uses an established but misleading word, local. Its established meaning is Einstein-local, everything happens with a maximal speed of information transfer c. But there is no reason to name a theory where everything is localized and the maximal speed of information transfer is not c but 10000 c or so nonlocal. It is, of course, also local. But, in modern physics, it would have to be named "nonlocal".

So far, this is only a bad naming convention. But, then, note that in the second second sentence the "local" has somehow disappeared. And the impression is created that no hidden variable theories are possible in principle. Despite the well-known fact that there exists such a hidden variable theory - de Broglie-Bohm theory - and that Bell was a proponent of this theory.

, whereby they suggested there is a topological possibility in space-time that two remote coordinates in could be connected (or Warped) by a correlation called a bridge, ER, or a wormhole. ... Thus you can have two black holes which are correlated or entangled by means of an ER wormhole.

Further desinformation, again marked bold by me. Correlation is a term from classical probability theory. Instead, the ER bridge is a purely classical solution. A strange one, a wormhole. but purely classical. No probability involved. Thus, no correlation involved.

Then, correlation is purely classical probability theory, entanglement a purely quantum effect, again two completely different things mingled.

 

[paddoboy]

This is a quite typical desinformation.

In your opinion, and I have seen that opinion on this forum many times.
Since you have already revealed that we have no physicist to argue this speculative scenario, instead of then engaging this with your usual style, revealing your own scientific prejudices, why not write your own paper, refuting the possible speculative scenarios put by the professionals.....if you are able to of course, and if you have what it takes to engage the big boys.
You see the paper published at https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0533 "General relativity contains solutions in which two distant black holes are connected through the interior via a wormhole, or Einstein-Rosen bridge. These solutions can be interpreted as maximally entangled states of two black holes that form a complex EPR pair" is by two respected, reputable physicists, is published so the world can see, and offer its criticism or otherwise, of this hypothetical scenario which because of your own "problem" you seem to have forgotten. So you as a "professional" should be approaching this "professionally" and through the proper channels, if of course what you believed had any certain substance to it at all.
At this stage I must say, "Who cares?" or "So what?" with regards to your own highly biased opinion/s
You have a good day now Schmelzer!

 

[paddoboy]

Yes, sorry about that.
The following "treatment" of this scientifically speculative subject may help..........
http://ggd2013.mpp.mpg.de/files/slides/jensen.pdf

The above well illustrative paper, offers the Interesting final summary........


Summary
1. MS conjecture ER = EPR based on QM of cold BHs
2. Easy to construct EPR pairs in holography via dual strings
3. Entanglement with causal contact doesn’t need wormhole, but entanglement between causally disconnected dofs does
4. Can understand necessity of wormhole in terms of large spacelike correlations
5. Lots to do!
Summary
1. MS conjecture ER = EPR based on QM of cold BHs
2. Easy to construct EPR pairs in holography via dual strings
3. Entanglement with causal contact doesn’t need wormhole, but entanglement between causally disconnected dofs does
4. Can understand necessity of wormhole in terms of large spacelike correlations
5. Lots to do! Maybe strings offer a nice playground for future work [Toy model for horizon formation? Firewalls on string? Systematically characterize interior region via correlators?]

 

[expletives deleted]

@ paddoboy:

The above well illustrative paper, offers the Interesting final summary........


Summary
1. MS conjecture ER = EPR based on QM of cold BHs
2. Easy to construct EPR pairs in holography via dual strings
3. Entanglement with causal contact doesn’t need wormhole, but entanglement between causally disconnected dofs does
4. Can understand necessity of wormhole in terms of large spacelike correlations
5. Lots to do!
Summary
1. MS conjecture ER = EPR based on QM of cold BHs
2. Easy to construct EPR pairs in holography via dual strings
3. Entanglement with causal contact doesn’t need wormhole, but entanglement between causally disconnected dofs does
4. Can understand necessity of wormhole in terms of large spacelike correlations
5. Lots to do! Maybe strings offer a nice playground for future work [Toy model for horizon formation? Firewalls on string? Systematically characterize interior region via correlators?]

The contents of your own links put the kibosh on the "wormhole" fantasy maths speculations and interpretations of 'solutions' etc.

Because, regardless of what 'publish or perish' sensationalist and dumbed-down speculative fantasists and scif-fi writers say, the actual objective and supportable science itself clearly shows that 'wormholes' cannot exist in reality, because:

- there is no such thing as "negative energy"; only positive energy (ie, the 'Casimir "negative energy" state' alluded to by the author in one of your links is actually just a state of difference in positive energy quanta, ie, of 'less' positive energy, not 'negative' energy, between the plates).

- one must be able to separate two Black Hole features in order to 'entangle' two black holes; which your own links admit is impossible to happen, so is merely speculative fantasy not science 'possibility' to create a 'wormhole'.

- there are no 'naked singularities', hence 'two mouths' of any 'wormhole' which depends on the 'existence' of 'naked singularities', is also impossible; in addition to not being able to 'separate two black holes', let alone two non-existent 'naked singularities'.

- your own links admit that such 'wormhole entanglement' is a speculative interpretation of 'certain solutions' of the maths, not a real physical possibility (even before one considers the above reasons for that real impossibility).

- hence the ER = EPR statement is just that: a statement of speculative opinion of Susskind et al. regarding the 'equality' between two other speculative interpretations of 'certain' maths extrapolations; basically unphysical speculation on unphysical speculation on... ad nauseam.

In short: it's all just publish or perish speculative fantasy fare from start to finish, paddoboy. Not worth even your uninformed attacks on those who immediately spotted it as such.


Oh, and paddoboy, don't bother posting again your irrelevant mantra for the umpteenth time. Who cares what 'physicists' will or will not 'categorically' rule in or out? It's the science of the physics itself, not the personal opinions of the physicists, that counts in reality.

I and other scientists and folk interested in objective reality didn't ask them to personally 'categorically' rule in or out anything. That is your irrelevant 'demand' of them, not mine or anyone else's who looks to the science not the person for the indications of whether something can exist of not in physical reality.

Thanks anyway, paddoboy; but no-one needs your personal opinions mantra, just the science. Best.

 

[paddoboy]

@ paddoboy:
The contents of your own links put the kibosh on the "wormhole" fantasy maths speculations and interpretations of 'solutions' etc.

No the contents of all my refeences and links and citations show that worm holes are a prediction of GR but at this time remain highly speculative and have as yet to be observed.
In the meantime the edict that no physicists will ever categorically say that worm holes do not exist stands as is.

Once again your delusion ferris wheel repeated nonsense is ignored at this time.
Sorry about that.

 

[paddoboy]

- hence the ER = EPR statement is just that: a statement of speculative opinion of Susskind et al. regarding the 'equality' between two other speculative interpretations of 'certain' maths extrapolations; basically unphysical speculation on unphysical speculation on... ad nauseam.
.

I did find some "understanding" by yourself in your ignored post.
Of course it is all speculative: No one is denying that fact, and as speculation, and considering the positives that could be gained as science and research progresses, that research will continue and is necessary.
In the mean time, No physicists worth his salt, will ever categorically deny that worm holes do not exist.
The chit chat and the certainty claims that you sometimes seem to be claiming, and then backing away from, serve no purpose in the greater or lesser scheme of things, and the noted professionals involved, the experts that are at least doing the true research instead of chit chat on a public forum, will decipher and in time add or subtract from the current knowledge and data, exclusive of that same useless unqualified and unsupported chit chat.

 

[paddoboy]

As already explained to a couple here, the original creation of worm holes can be explained to some extent in the Planck era just after the BB.
In fact quantum wormholes speculatively may have come about in John Wheeler's also speculative quantum spacetime foam description.
Obviously also it can be said that worm holes are just a special case of spacetime curvature and/or warping.......The same contingency of GR that a couple of those unqualified here also like to claim, and believe that anyone is taking them seriously.
Obviously as all this entails a QGT and being able to verfiy such, the speculative nature of the OP and subsequent paper "ER = EPR" would mean the holy grail of physics for which our noted professional experts have been searching for for a 100 years and well worth the continuing research efforts.
Afterall this is how GR itself was arrived at and how science will continue to progress, not withstanding the antics, chit chat, and general noise on a public science forum, from either cranks, trolls or Maverick physicists.

 

[expletives deleted]

@ paddoboy:

No the contents of all my refeences and links and citations show that worm holes are a prediction of GR but at this time remain highly speculative and have as yet to be observed.
In the meantime the edict that no physicists will ever categorically say that worm holes do not exist stands as is.

Once again your delusion ferris wheel repeated nonsense is ignored at this time.
Sorry about that.

Unphysical speculations are NOT "physical reality predictions", they are 'mathematical solutions to equations' which may be consistent ONY within the maths 'construct', but not consistence in physical reality terms. I just itemized for you the scientific reasons they are unphysical speculations for fantasy writers and publish or perish fodder. Learn to tell the difference, paddoboy.

And you seem to be the only one interested in physicists personal categorical in/out opinions. The rest of us look to the real science itself, not the publish or perish and sci-fi fodder you enjoy so much while missing the real science altogether.

I did find some "understanding" by yourself in your ignored post.
Of course it is all speculative: No one is denying that fact, and as speculation, and considering the positives that could be gained as science and research progresses, that research will continue and is necessary.
In the mean time, No physicists worth his salt, will ever categorically deny that worm holes do not exist.
The chit chat and the certainty claims that you sometimes seem to be claiming, and then backing away from, serve no purpose in the greater or lesser scheme of things, and the noted professionals involved, the experts that are at least doing the true research instead of chit chat on a public forum, will decipher and in time add or subtract from the current knowledge and data, exclusive of that same useless unqualified and unsupported chit chat.

Great! Then there is no argument on the science which says they are unphysical fantasy/maths spculations upon speculations.

Which makes your "physicists have never categorically said that etc..." mantra irrelevant to the scientific discussion point; that science point being that 'wormholes' and 'naked singularity' and 'separating two black holes' and 'negative energy' are NOT real physical possibilities. When you finally twig to that scientific reality reality then we will all give a sigh of relief that you finally twigged. Let's wait and see if that is a real possibility! Best.

 

[paddoboy]

@ paddoboy:



Unphysical speculations are not "predictions", they are mathematical 'solutions'

Nonsense! Unphysical observations such as time, space, spacetime, curvature/warping of spacetime, are just real.
If you consider the EMF as real than so too is spacetime.
https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q411.html
What is a space time continuum?
In 1906, soon after Albert Einstein announced his special theory of relativity, his former college teacher in mathematics, Hermann Minkowski, developed a new scheme for thinking about space and time that emphasized its geometric qualities. In his famous quotation delivered at a public lecture on relativity, he announced that,

"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."

This new reality was that space and time, as physical constructs, have to be combined into a new mathematical/physical entity called 'space-time', because the equations of relativity show that both the space and time coordinates of any event must get mixed together by the mathematics, in order to accurately describe what we see. Because space consists of 3 dimensions, and time is 1-dimensional, space-time must, therefore, be a 4-dimensional object. It is believed to be a 'continuum' because so far as we know, there are no missing points in space or instants in time, and both can be subdivided without any apparent limit in size or duration. So, physicists now routinely consider our world to be embedded in this 4-dimensional Space-Time continuum, and all events, places, moments in history, actions and so on are described in terms of their location in Space-Time.

Space-time does not evolve, it simply exists. When we examine a particular object from the stand point of its space-time representation, every particle is located along its world-line. This is a spaghetti-like line that stretches from the past to the future showing the spatial location of the particle at every instant in time. This world-line exists as a complete object which may be sliced here and there so that you can see where the particle is located in space at a particular instant. Once you determine the complete world line of a particle from the forces acting upon it, you have 'solved' for its complete history. This world-line does not change with time, but simply exists as a timeless object. Similarly, in general relativity, when you solve equations for the shape of space-time, this shape does not change in time, but exists as a complete timeless object. You can slice it here and there to examine what the geometry of space looks like at a particular instant. Examining consecutive slices in time will let you see whether, for example, the universe is expanding or not.

And you seem to be the only one interested in physicists personal categorical in/out opinions. The rest of us look to the real science itself, not the publish or perish and sci-fi fodder you enjoy so much while missing the real science altogether.

The personal categorical opinions you talk about are what mainstream is generally accepting, and that most certainly trumps the unsupported, unqualified, and religiously inspired preachings of some on this forum.
Are you so blind to that fact.
The publish or perish nonsense you mention, is also a fallacy, and a fabricated fallacy pushed by Maverick scientists, cranks, trolls, and those with agendas.

Great! Then there is no argument on the science which says they are unphysical fantasy/maths spculations upon speculations.

Unphysical does not mean "not real"as I have taken the trouble to explain many times... speculative scenarios in the OP and paper, has never been disputed by me, but most certainly confused by yourself, probably due to amount of pretentious nonsense that fills your posts.
But speculative scenarios, as per those in the OP and paper, will continue to be researched by the professionals, and until they have an answer with some certainty one way or the other.

No Physicist has ever said that worm holes categorically do not exist.
When you finally twig to that simple fact, you will have twigged to the nature of the OP and paper by the noted renowned physicists Professor Susskind.

 

[expletives deleted]

@ paddoboy:

As already explained to a couple here, the original creation of worm holes can be explained to some extent in the Planck era just after the BB.
In fact quantum wormholes speculatively may have come about in John Wheeler's also speculative quantum spacetime foam description.
Obviously also it can be said that worm holes are just a special case of spacetime curvature and/or warping.......The same contingency of GR that a couple of those unqualified here also like to claim, and believe that anyone is taking them seriously.
Obviously as all this entails a QGT and being able to verfiy such, the speculative nature of the OP and subsequent paper "ER = EPR" would mean the holy grail of physics for which our noted professional experts have been searching for for a 100 years and well worth the continuing research efforts.
Afterall this is how GR itself was arrived at and how science will continue to progress, not withstanding the antics, chit chat, and general noise on a public science forum, from either cranks, trolls or Maverick physicists.

The real science says: naked singularities, wormholes and negative energy etc, are unphysical speculations, not science possibilities in fact. You now introduce MORE speculative and untestable "big bang Planck era" HYPOTHESIS based "explanations" which are nothing but more speculations dependent on speculations...ad nauseam. Calling something "the holy grail of physics" doesn't make it any less speculative fantasy than it all was before, paddoboy. The only aim of physics is to inform the reality understandings, not just be fantasy and publish or perish fodder for certain pop-sci authors and their 'fans', which latter apparently will swallow anything from their 'heroes', even if it is obvious poppycock according the THE SCIENCE itself.

Time to grow up, paddoboy. The real scientist is objective irrespective of 'heroes' and their publish or perish and pop-sci 'offerings' for the non-scientist 'consumer' of such irrelevant fodder. Learn to leave childish things behind, paddoboy. Become a modern objective intellect that has 'grown up' at last! Best.

 

[paddoboy]

Time to grow up, paddoboy. The real scientist is objective irrespective of 'heroes' and their publish or perish and pop-sci 'offerings' for the non-scientist 'consumer' of such irrelevant fodder. Learn to leave childish things behind, paddoboy. Become a modern objective intellect that has 'grown up' at last! Best.

Is that so?
Well tell us then dear soul, what are your credentials that has you believing that you can logically refute anything an accepted professional has ever said?
tell us dear fellow, what citations, references, links have you ever offered to support your hypotheticals?
And while you are trying to dismiss and ignore those legitmate requests, tell us why you are incapable of writing up your own paper, refuting all of 21st century cosmology that you have preached to this forum. Let me help you....the H/T binary pulsar as evidence of gravitational waves...cosmological redshift......BH's, DM, gravitational lensing, curvature of spacetime, etc.

Your underlying problem re real science, appears to be, that if you can't touch it, feel it. see it, then it is not real....
Science is researching and progressing on many of the speculative scenarios you mention, while you as an amateur, play at "chit chat" with me.
That's OK, I love refuting those with delusions of grandeur and who are unable to support anything they say.
So there you have it....
You expletive deleted, as an unqualified [apparently] and unable to support anything you say with any links citations etc, on a remote forum open to the public, expect/imagine that you are making any difference to those professionals at the coal face doing the proper research.
Perhaps this is similar to the god's "god of the gaps argument" and evangelistic mission you are really preaching to all on this forum.
Is that true?

 

[expletives deleted]

@ paddoboy:

Seriously, paddoboy, the longer this goes on, the more tangled up you become in your conflations, confusions, misunderstandings and just plain non-understandings. For example:

Nonsense! Unphysical observations such as time, space, spacetime, curvature/warping of spacetime, are just real.
If you consider the EMF as real than so too is spacetime.

Those are things which we have labeled after we have observed the behavior of objects within the 3-d physics analysis construct. They are physical observational understandings.

Whereas we have NOT observed 'naked singularities', nor 'negative energy', nor 'the separation of two black holes', nor 'wormholes'. See the subtle but important difference, paddoboy?

And EMF is again an analysis construct. The actual energy/space content and expanses and behavior is what it is, and yet to be explained. We merely observe, analyze, predict and exploit the knowledge as to its behavior and forms of features and interactions. They are real. Again, these observational items which have known physical properties and parameters and behaviors. They are different from UNobserved 'wormholes', etc. Do you understand the difference now, paddoboy?

Learn these differences and you will be going some good way towards dispelling your many confusions and pop-sci 'understandings' and 'beliefs'; yet another example of which is evident from your following link items I highlighted in red:

https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q411.html
What is a space time continuum?
In 1906, soon after Albert Einstein announced his special theory of relativity, his former college teacher in mathematics, Hermann Minkowski, developed a new scheme for thinking about space and time that emphasized its geometric qualities. In his famous quotation delivered at a public lecture on relativity, he announced that,

"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."

This new reality was that space and time, as physical constructs, have to be combined into a new mathematical/physical entity called 'space-time', because the equations of relativity show that both the space and time coordinates of any event must get mixed together by the mathematics, in order to accurately describe what we see. Because space consists of 3 dimensions, and time is 1-dimensional, space-time must, therefore, be a 4-dimensional object. It is believed to be a 'continuum' because so far as we know, there are no missing points in space or instants in time, and both can be subdivided without any apparent limit in size or duration. So, physicists now routinely consider our world to be embedded in this 4-dimensional Space-Time continuum, and all events, places, moments in history, actions and so on are described in terms of their location in Space-Time.

Space-time does not evolve, it simply exists. When we examine a particular object from the stand point of its space-time representation, every particle is located along its world-line. This is a spaghetti-like line that stretches from the past to the future showing the spatial location of the particle at every instant in time. This world-line exists as a complete object which may be sliced here and there so that you can see where the particle is located in space at a particular instant. Once you determine the complete world line of a particle from the forces acting upon it, you have 'solved' for its complete history. This world-line does not change with time, but simply exists as a timeless object. Similarly, in general relativity, when you solve equations for the shape of space-time, this shape does not change in time, but exists as a complete timeless object. You can slice it here and there to examine what the geometry of space looks like at a particular instant. Examining consecutive slices in time will let you see whether, for example, the universe is expanding or not.

All those red highlighted segments tell you explicitly that the spacetime construct is a maths and geometry construct, not a physically real thing in itself like space and energy is. So many 'things' may arise in the maths/geom analysis construct which may not have physical reality in the real PHYSICAL (not just maths/geom abstractions) things we label space and energy of the Universal extent and process.

One most telling confusion (see last red highlighted item above) comes from your past insistence that "time and space began and evolved due to big bang". Now you can read for yourself that red highlighted item in your own reference, where it says:

Space-time does not evolve, it simply exists,"

Do you see now why I point out that 'spacetime' is a abstract analysis construct and not real like space and energy themselves? If you can try hard to understand the subtle but important difference there, you will be on your way to 'getting' more of what is being told you by everybody who is trying to help you get a proper understanding of the science things being discussed. Give it a good calm pensive go, paddoboy!

The personal categorical opinions you talk about are what mainstream is generally accepting, and that most certainly trumps the unsupported, unqualified, and religiously inspired preachings of some on this forum.
Are you so blind to that fact.
The publish or perish nonsense you mention, is also a fallacy, and a fabricated fallacy pushed by Maverick scientists, cranks, trolls, and those with agendas.

I made no claim. I merely observed that THE SCIENCE SAYS they cannot exist in physical reality; irrespective of what 'categorical' OR 'un-categorical' opinions and fantasies physicists personally have on the matter. Can you tell the subtle difference there, paddoboy?

Unphysical does not mean "not real"as I have taken the trouble to explain many times... speculative scenarios in the OP and paper, has never been disputed by me, but most certainly confused by yourself, probably due to amount of pretentious nonsense that fills your posts.
But speculative scenarios, as per those in the OP and paper, will continue to be researched by the professionals, and until they have an answer with some certainty one way or the other.

You still haven't twigged that THE SCIENCE ITSELF (as I itemized for you earlier) says that these things are NOT PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE. Hence they cannot be 'scientifically investigated' in any meaningful physical way; only mathematically/geometrically speculated as maths fantasies and sci-fi plot devices etc. Do you understand the difference now, between science and the publish or perish and pop-sci 'offerings' and 'opinions' etc for people like yourself to 'enjoy' in imagination but not as real things?

No Physicist has ever said that worm holes categorically do not exist.
When you finally twig to that simple fact, you will have twigged to the nature of the OP and paper by the noted renowned physicists Professor Susskind.

Who asked them to say anything like that? You, paddoboy?

I certainly didn't; and nor would I expect them to do so. It is IRRELEVANT opinion, either way, to the science itself. Only people such as yourself, who 'enthuse' and 'defend' sci-fi fantasy and publish or perish non-science 'offerings', treat such things as 'science offerings' just because it may issue from some 'mainstream hero' of yours. That is not doing science, paddoboy; that is believing in fantasies and thinking they are 'science'.

Have you twigged to the subtle and important issues and differences yet, paddoboy? Let us hope. Best.

 

[expletives deleted]

@ paddoboy:

Is that so?
Well tell us then dear soul, what are your credentials that has you believing that you can logically refute anything an accepted professional has ever said?
tell us dear fellow, what citations, references, links have you ever offered to support your hypotheticals?
And while you are trying to dismiss and ignore those legitmate requests, tell us why you are incapable of writing up your own paper, refuting all of 21st century cosmology that you have preached to this forum. Let me help you....the H/T binary pulsar as evidence of gravitational waves...cosmological redshift......BH's, DM, gravitational lensing, curvature of spacetime, etc.

Your underlying problem re real science, appears to be, that if you can't touch it, feel it. see it, then it is not real....
Science is researching and progressing on many of the speculative scenarios you mention, while you as an amateur, play at "chit chat" with me.
That's OK, I love refuting those with delusions of grandeur and who are unable to support anything they say.
So there you have it....
You expletive deleted, as an unqualified [apparently] and unable to support anything you say with any links citations etc, on a remote forum open to the public, expect/imagine that you are making any difference to those professionals at the coal face doing the proper research.
Perhaps this is similar to the god's "god of the gaps argument" and evangelistic mission you are really preaching to all on this forum.
Is that true?

All the above springs from your penchant for pop-sci and personal considerations which are irrelevant to what the science itself has to say, paddoboy, irrespective of personal opinions and publish or perish and sci-fi offerings for 'uncomplicated believer' types such as yourself who are impressed by anything their heroes may want to publish to satisfy your enthralled credulity and build up their personal exposure to their reading/viewing public.

And I only offer science based observations, questions and opinions on matters that interest me. I let the science itself do the 'rebutting': such as I have let it do by itemizing the science itself that says "wormholes" etc are not physical possibilities, but only maths/geometry speculations and extensions which go beyond the physical constraints of reality.

Your continuing mistake has been to concentrate so hard on me, the person, that you keep missing THE SCIENCE, itself, that I pointed to; which says those things are not physically real possibilities. Do you see now why you keep missing subtle and important differences, paddoboy? And why you keep confusing everything if you go for the person instead of going for the science? Let's hope you twig soon. Best.

 

[paddoboy]

All the above springs from your penchant for pop-sci and personal considerations which are irrelevant to what the science itself has to say,

Not in the least true, considering you disagree with near all mainstream accepted cosmology, considering obviously you are entirely blinkered by your agenda, and considering most of my references are reputable mainstream papers.

And I only offer science based observations, questions and opinions on matters that interest me.

Obviously again a false presumption, for the aformentioned reasons, particularly the obvious agenda...

Your continuing mistake has been to concentrate so hard on me,

That view/opinion of yours is obviously inflated somewhat due to the obvious signs of delusions of grandeur as reflected in your posts.
Let me assure you, you are not one I desire to be concentrating on!
In essence at correcting your many error ridden assumptions, this thread is about....
[1] The speculative scenario and research into quantum entanglement and the possibility or otherwise of worm holes.
[2] The fact that worm holes are a prediction of GR, as was spacetime curvature in the presence of mass, time dilation etc etc
[3] The fact that worm holes remain speculative and have never been observed.
[3] The fact that any physicists worth his salt, will never and has never say that worm holes categorically do not exist.

 

[paddoboy]

@ paddoboy:
Seriously, paddoboy, the longer this goes on, the more tangled up you become in your conflations, confusions, misunderstandings and just plain non-understandings. For example:

I suggest in the kindest possible terms that your credibility is near zero at this stage, due to your total ignoring of the same requests often made of the god character..
[1] Your credentials are unknown at best, and non existent at worst.
[2] You obviously due to your general dislike criticism of mainstream cosmology, have an agenda of sorts...probably most likely a "god of the gaps" methodology.
[3] You support nothing you claim, you offer nothing to support your claims, and you deride other reputable claims that refute your unsupported nonsense.
Again, I regret the rest is by-passed simply due to some "cherry picking"dishonest out of context sentences and the usual pedantic semantics and pretentiousness your posts always reflect.
Again as you appear oblivious to the facts of this thread.......
It is about....
[1] The speculative scenario and research into quantum entanglement and the possibility or otherwise of worm holes.
[2] The fact that worm holes are a prediction of GR, as was spacetime curvature in the presence of mass, time dilation etc etc
[3] The fact that worm holes remain speculative and have never been observed.
[3] The fact that any physicists worth his salt, will never and has never say that worm holes categorically do not exist.

 

[expletives deleted]

@ paddoboy:

Oh dear me.

paddoboy, read instead of repeating.

The ER=EPR musings are dependent on wormholes and other things which THE science itself says are physically impossible. Period.

The rest of the clutter is about your personal beliefs, irrelevancies; including your invoking your 'personal demands' on physicists to categorically say one or other way about something which THE science itself already says does not exist.

Do you understand that subtle but important distinction, paddoboy?

 

[paddoboy]

@ paddoboy:

Oh dear me.

paddoboy, read instead of repeating.

The ER=EPR musings are dependent on wormholes and other things which THE science itself says are physically impossible. Period.

Oh dear me indeed!
The ER=EPR speculative scenario is totally opposite to what you claim.
Nothing, no one, no body has ever said"worm holes categorically do not exist.
Is english your second/third language?

The rest of the clutter is about your personal beliefs, irrelevancies; including your invoking your 'personal demands' on physicists to categorically say one or other way about something which THE science itself already says does not exist.

No personal beliefs, just reasonable requests from many myself included, here and elsewhere, for you to show reason why anything you say/claim/believe, should be accepted anyway, other than with a grain of salt.
And some obvious reasonable conclusions drawn from such requests.
And of course no where does it say that worm holes cannot exist...that's just a fairy tale on your part, said to "impress"

Do you understand that subtle but important distinction, paddoboy?

I understand that your posts are reflecting a situation that you are just not interested in the science, rather a mission or crusade as your posts reflect, and all without support, citations and links.

 

[expletives deleted]

@ paddoboy:

THE SCIENCE I pointed out for you says they don't exist.

No more than that is required from my end.

You have repeated your own opinion and demanded opinion of physicists which are irrelevant to the issue because THE SCIENCE has spoken.

Do you understand at least that much, paddoboy?

 

[paddoboy]

@ paddoboy:

THE SCIENCE I pointed out for you says they don't exist.

No science has said they do not exist, That's just your version of a fairy tale, sorry about that.

No more than that is required from my end.

And that brings your grand total to zero!

You have repeated your own opinion and demanded opinion of physicists which are irrelevant to the issue because THE SCIENCE has spoken.

No, I have stated fact as listed in my points.....
here we go again.....
[1] The speculative scenario and research into quantum entanglement and the possibility or otherwise of worm holes.
[2] The fact that worm holes are a prediction of GR, as was spacetime curvature in the presence of mass, time dilation etc etc
[3] The fact that worm holes remain speculative and have never been observed.
[3] The fact that any physicists worth his salt, will never and has never say that worm holes categorically do not exist.

Do you understand at least that much, paddoboy?

I understand the following, as well as the preceeding......
[1] Your credentials are unknown at best, and non existent at worst.
[2] You obviously due to your general dislike criticism of mainstream cosmology, have an agenda of sorts...probably most likely a "god of the gaps" methodology.
[3] You support nothing you claim, you offer nothing to support your claims, and you deride other reputable claims that refute your unsupported nonsense.
Do you understand those facts expletive deleted?

 

[expletives deleted]

@ paddoboy:

No science has said they do not exist, That's just your version of a fairy tale, sorry about that.

And that brings your grand total to zero!

No, I have stated fact as listed in my points.....
here we go again.....
[1] The speculative scenario and research into quantum entanglement and the possibility or otherwise of worm holes.
[2] The fact that worm holes are a prediction of GR, as was spacetime curvature in the presence of mass, time dilation etc etc
[3] The fact that worm holes remain speculative and have never been observed.
[3] The fact that any physicists worth his salt, will never and has never say that worm holes categorically do not exist.

I understand the following, as well as the preceeding......
[1] Your credentials are unknown at best, and non existent at worst.
[2] You obviously due to your general dislike criticism of mainstream cosmology, have an agenda of sorts...probably most likely a "god of the gaps" methodology.
[3] You support nothing you claim, you offer nothing to support your claims, and you deride other reputable claims that refute your unsupported nonsense.
Do you understand those facts expletive deleted?

Your very first line is 'in denial' territory paddoboy.

I itemized the Quantum and Relativity based reasons which militate against such unphysical things conjectured from maths extended beyond its domain of reality applicability.

The rest is more of your repetitive opinion and beliefs and non-science personal irrelevancies.

Denial and Irrelevance are not a good signs for you, paddoboy. Take care. Best.