Did Einstein Crack the Biggest Problem in Physics…and Not Know It?

Join Brian Greene and a team of researchers testing Google's quantum computer to glean new insights about quantum gravity from their impressive–if controversial–results.

Participants:
Maria Spiropúlu
Joseph Lykken
Daniel Jafferis

Moderator:
Brian Greene

00:00 - Introduction
01:36 - Participant Introductions
03:24 - The Einstein Papers
10:40 - Can Quantum Entanglement Be Used to Transfer Information?
14:30 - The Second Einstein Paper: The Quantum Properties Of Blackholes
16:28 - Wormholes and Quantum Science, ER = EPR
22:30 - A Wormhole in a Quantum Computer?
29:25 - Quantum Computer Experimentation
36:27 - Contextualizing Quantum Computation and its Future
42:09 - Credits

- SUBSCRIBE to our YouTube Channel and "ring the bell" for all the latest videos from WSF
#worldsciencefestival #wormholes #briangreene #quantumcomputing #science

[EveK-North]

I hope you watch Sabine Hossenfelder's video published today, which was critical of this. It would be lovely if Brian Greene and Sabine Hossenfelder could have a conversation about this topic. I'm such a huge fan of both.

[fultzjap]

Brian Greene is about as good as it gets at physics science communicator. I love that he's operating right at the boundary between proven theory and speculation, and he's always very honest with himself and his audience about where each topic lies on that spectrum. It must be pretty hard to be authoritative, open minded, and not talk down to people all at once when you're that smart, because most of his peers fail miserably at one of the three.

[briankuczynski]

"String theory" was all I needed to hear to stop watching. Throw in "traversible wormholes" and we are guaranteed to learn nothing useful or based in reality.

[bishopdredd]

Did Brian Greene really read this study in detail? Because there’s a quite few people that don’t agree with this, thought with his skillset he would have come to the same conclusion.

[murkdurk]

Nice to hear Seth Rogan making sense for once in his life.

[yaserthe]

Sorry, the lady literally made no sense.

[SA-erop]

Would love a longer, in depth explanation of ER=EPR, such a hard concept that 40mins with multiple quests does not quite do the job. Still, thanks for all that you are doing for science, appreciate it!

[fraemme]

I still didn't understand what is the connection to wormholes.. it seems that they just managed to teleport a qbit in a quantum computer made of a few qbits. It doesn't prove anything about a connection to wormholes.
I have briefly thought about these ideas even before knowing about these papers, but the problems that I saw are:
1. If entanglement is equivalent to a wormhole between two particles, where is the required negative energy ? (Entanglement happens for sure, but we never measured any negative energy).
2. If fundamental particles are tiny black holes as also one of the speakers suggests, where is all the Hawking radiations that they should emit?(in fact, the smaller the bh, the higher the radiation) . We don't measure it.

In the best hypothesis, it seems to me that this correspondence could be useful at most as an analogue, a bit like in analogue gravity where they use hydrodynamics to get some ideas about gravity (of course not claiming that they are the same physical systems).

[_John_P]

It's not that Einstein did not know it. It's because Einstein had the static universe mindset, as that was the data at the time. Only after Hubble, it changed, but unfortunately too late for Einstein. Because of the static universe mindset, Einstein introduced the cosmological constant and, in the case of the bridges (wormhole was coined later by Wheeler), concluded that they were impossible because they were unstable when using a static model, just as his cosmological model was. Much later, other physicists introduced rotating wormholes, which stabilises the wormhole with the need of less magic.

[isatousarr]

Some of Einstein's predictions, such as the existence of gravitational waves, were not confirmed until decades later with the advent of advanced detection technologies. Furthermore, Einstein's skepticism about certain aspects of quantum mechanics, such as entanglement, has led to ongoing debates and discoveries in quantum physics. The possibility that Einstein's work contained hidden solutions or insights that future generations would uncover highlights the profound and often unforeseen impact of foundational scientific contributions. It underscores the idea that groundbreaking discoveries can emerge from the interplay of theory, experimentation, and evolving technological capabilities, even when the original thinkers might not fully grasp their implications.

[e-t-y]

Doesn't this tell us that the brain in transducing, creates the "reality" of the perception, and that it otherwise is not in evidence?

[ramirodelavega]

For me (and I´m guessing for most regular people) it is hard to tell the difference between these "explanations" and a typical Terrence Howard non-sense talk. Just saying!

[nick_john]

Funny, Brian’s white t-shirt makes him look like a priest on his day off.

[VaBellaBeautz]

I saw Einstein in the title and i knew what time it was 😎 shout out to Brian.

[PaulSebastianM]

These are theoretical physicists! Get these people armchairs not skinny kind of a chair chairs.

[thedellow]

Daniel Jafferis’ voice is like a blend of Christopher Walken and Seth Rogan lol

[edcunion]

The physicists and mathematicians round about the 1927 Solvay conference certainly, notwithstanding Heisenberg's principle, had active & creative minds & set a STEM framework that still resonates today like their atoms, nucleons and ideas based on their fermionic & bosonic observations are won't to do!

This viewer prefers the term spacetime tunnel over wormhole, though the latter may apply if that spacetime as a medium has measurable permittivity, permeability, temperature and curvature properties is thought of as a kind of background holey cheese, or just a holy smokes?!

The view from here- particles appear to have a binary superimposed view of the universe that's both fermionic & bosonic? One being a sub light speed accelerated fermion view that is shared by other free- falling fermions, that includes the particles' spacetime curvature paths over time, with the other being a coincident and timeless bosonic view, shared by all massless constant light speed particles including besides photons the light speed gravity waves comprised of a spectrum of "acceleratons", a viewpoint that effectively is universally instantaneous. This view is both attached to and/or confined by the particles local spacetime curvatures and is somehow simultaneously a superimposed universal view? The query follows is particle entanglement a kind of massless, light speed, acceleration radiation that behaves as a kind of particulate memory? The particle remembers what it is to some extent and behaves accordingly?

Is a Hamiltonian centroid infinitely dense and zero dimensional or the opposite i.e. weightless, massless and timeless, or a binary superposition of both?

Are neutrinos the residua, l chargeless, resonating spacetime shells of fermionic accelerations that had the quark gluon innards and charge knocked out of them by near light speed free fall that was then rotated or flipped 180 degrees away from the free fall centoid ? Would they accelerate ever so slightly as they flee out into the universe subsequently, and approached really dense material in other places as they travel through space?

Coffee buzz has run out of steam time to run!

[binbots]

General relativity and quantum mechanics will never be combined until we realize that each individual observer is observing them both at different moments in time. Because causality has a speed limit (c) every point in space where one observes it from will be the closest to the present moment. When one looks out into the universe they see the past which is made of particles (GR). When one tries to measure the position of a particle they are observing smaller distances and getting closer to the present moment (QM). The wave property of particles appears when we start trying to predict the future of that particle. A particle that has not had an interaction exists in a future state. It is a probability wave because the future is probabilistic. Wave function collapse is what we perceive as the present moment and is what divides the past from the future. GR is making measurements in the observed past and therefore, predictable. It can predict the future but only from information collected from the past. QM is attempting to make measurements of the unobserved future and therefore, unpredictable. Only once a particle interacts with the present moment does it become predictable. This is an observational interpretation of the mathematics we currently use based on the limited perspective we have with the experiments we choose to observe the universe with.

[arnoldvankampen]

What is the use to try to explain spin if there is also something as an up and a down quark?
Worse: up, down, charm, strange, top, and bottom.
And according to QCD, quantum chromodynamics, there are so-called color charges: red green and blue.
Etc.
Let's say these are all properties, but it is very(!) hard to make that relate to our everyday macro world?
In the end, I guess, it can only be understood in mathematics?
Understood in the sense that there is enough knowledge of the subject to make predictions
that can be physically lab-tested for validity.

It is pretty abstract but then so is the trajectory of a projectile under gravity.
After all, no one has ever seen a trajectory, it is an abstract notion?

[bipolarminddroppings]

Einstein was wicked smart, he was so smart that his "blunders" turned out to just be far ahead of their time.

I'm gonna assume that this talk is about ER=EPR and since you don't have Susskind on the stage, there's nothing new I'm going to learn. I'm sure it's worthwhile for those less familiar with the subject, though.