Home » Cosmology, Intelligent Design, Media, News » Pop science news: Entangled wormholes could unite lovers separated by centuries?

Pop science news: Entangled wormholes could unite lovers separated by centuries?

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG

From a New Scientist preview:

Wormhole entanglement gives space-time the bends

The theory also raises the bizarre possibility of using wormholes to enable a futuristic version of a lover’s leap. Two people separated by hundreds of light years could in principle meet inside an “entanglement wormhole”. But their love had better be strong: there is no escape from a quantum …

Why is this supposed to be “science”—along with:

The space aliens are hiding from us in order to survive. Or there is not enough time for Darwinian evolution to cause them to evolve. Or they are hiding in junk DNA.

As noted before, the only view not on the menu in these instances is that the aliens don’t appear because they don’t exist.

And likewise, this stuff is not science, it’s just  bunk for the bunkhouse on a thunderstricken night.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

17 Responses to Pop science news: Entangled wormholes could unite lovers separated by centuries?

  1. If you don’t like pop science, Denyse, why don’t you read the real stuff?

  2. Like what? Magical mystery mutations that can create bacterial flagella and the diversity of life? :razz:

  3. The point is not that Denyse doesn’t like pop science, Dr. Liddle. The point is that these findings are coming from a new theory (which is presumably being readied for publication and peer review), which makes it “the real stuff.”

  4. Light years measure distance, not time.

  5. Just the one rule, Denyse: You must be an atheist/materialist/naturalist.

  6. Barb – the point of my comment is that Denyse repeatedly posts sensationalist headlines from the pop science press, rather than actual scientific news from actual scientific journals, appears to think the sensationalist headline is the science part, rather than the pop part, and then uses the pop part to denigrate all science in general.

    It doesn’t take much effort to locate the “real science” behind such stories, and in this case, of course, the science is perfectly real, and has nothing to do with separated lovers, which is just a light-hearted attempt to explain in “pop” language the only way in which these wormholes might bear any possible relation to sci fi wormholes.

    Here is a quote from an earlier NS account:

    Here’s what Alice and Bob need to do to meet again:

    Alice may be locked in her room, but she has still got access to her physics kit. Burning out several stars to keep the electricity running, she prepares an enormous batch of entangled photon pairs. She sends one half of each pair off to Bob at the speed of light, keeping the other for herself.
    Photons are massless, but energy and mass are equivalent – so pack them together densely enough and Alice and Bob can create two entangled black holes.
    At a pre-arranged moment, Alice and Bob each jump into their black holes.
    Alice and Bob can meet up in the common interior of the entangled black holes – the connecting wormhole that arises from the entanglement.
    As they speed toward the singularity inside the wormhole, which will end their lives, Alice and Bob spend their last moments together. Depending on the mass of the black holes, they could have anywhere from a fraction of a second together (for a black hole the mass of a planet or star) to days or even weeks (for a black hole with the mass of a small galaxy or more).

    In other words, they can’t.

    The “real science” seems to be perfectly good (i.e. successfully predicts observations), and is certainly worthy of a news post.

  7. WD400

    Light years measure distance, not time.

    Except that in this instance, it doesn’t matter, because however fast they travel, they aren’t going to meet up until they are long dead, unless they take a shortcut.

    Which seems to be rather difficult to arrange.

  8. Elizabeth apparently didn’t notice the little coffee graphic in the upper left corner. A general rule is, don’t take it too, too seriously after that. The same may be said of the space alien graphics.

  9. Well it is a given that there won’t be any “actual scientific news from actual scientific journals” from evolutionism.

  10. No, it isn’t, Joe. You should try reading some.

  11. Yes, it is Lizzie. And I have been reading and there isn’t anything in any journal tat demonstrates natural selection, nor any accumulations of genetic accidents, are up to the task of constructing multi-protein configurations, never mind producing new body plans requiring new body parts.

    Heck Lizzie you can’t even produce testable hypotheses complete with predictions for evolutionism. You don’t even know what evolutionism entails.

  12. OK, point taken, Denyse (I’ll keep an eye out for that coffee cup – I didn’t notice anything different from your usual posts, heh).

    So I take it you don’t think that the science referred to in the NS piece is “just bunk for the bunkhouse on a thunderstricken night”?

    Just that the joke was indeed, a joke?

  13. Hi Elizabeth- over on your blog you ask:

    What is it that you think makes the traits oscillate, rather than move continuously in one direction?

    That is what the evidence demonstrates- a wobbling stability, ie oscialltion. The beak of the finch and anti-biotic resistance are perfect examples of this.

  14. Yes, and I’m asking what makes the finch beak sizes oscillate?

    Why don’t they just stay the same size?

  15. Elizabeth Liddle:

    Why don’t they just stay the same size?

    Indeed! Why aren’t humans all the same size too!

  16. Mung: Are you suggesing that human mean heights oscillate? What’s the periodicity?

  17. What’s the periodicity in changes in finch beak sizes Elizabeth?

    Why don’t humans just “stay the same size” too?

    Your original question was either ill-formed or ignorant and confused. There is variability in the population, and that is why sizes vary. It’s true of finches and their beaks, and it’s true of humans and their bleeps.

Leave a Reply