2_trouNoirs
π Space π Science and technology
Astrophysics: 3 recent discoveries that illuminate our vision of the universe

Crossing a wormhole: reality or science fiction?

with Isabelle Dumé, Science journalist
On November 3rd, 2021 |
4min reading time
Guillaume Bossard
Guillaume Bossard
Lecturer in physics at École Polytechnique (IP Paris)
Key takeaways
  • Wormholes are a staple of science-fiction movies, allowing space travellers to move between two extremely distant points in the universe.
  • But, in theory, it is impossible to travel through a wormhole without invoking “exotic” effects such as time travel.
  • Moreover, if a wormhole connects two black holes – and black holes absorb everything in proximity – how then could you escape the force of gravity on the other side?
  • Nevertheless, recently two physicists, Maldacena and Qi, described a very simplified model of a crossable wormhole that also helps to solve the “Hawking information paradox”.

Worm­holes make for good sci­ence-fic­tion as ways for faster-than-light-speed travel between two extremely dis­tant points in the uni­verse. In real­ity, how­ever, Einstein’s the­ory of gen­er­al relativ­ity shows that it would not be pos­sible for mat­ter to actu­ally cross these “tun­nels through space”. But phys­i­cists are still con­sid­er­ing wheth­er that hypo­thes­is is false: quantum effects could play a role in refut­ing this hypo­thes­is. Nev­er­the­less, recent research is help­ing sci­ent­ists bet­ter under­stand how worm­holes could exist in a quantum the­ory of grav­it­a­tion. And, in doing so, it may help solve Hawking’s fam­ous “inform­a­tion para­dox”1.

Are black holes “space portals”?

Worm­holes are usu­ally rep­res­en­ted as a cyl­in­droid con­nect­ing two sheets (or planes) of the uni­verse – i.e., a tun­nel between two black holes. In the clas­sic­al descrip­tion of gen­er­al relativ­ity (which neg­lects quantum effects), it is impossible to cross a worm­hole without invok­ing exot­ic effects such as time travel. Fur­ther­more, if a worm­hole con­nects two black holes and those black holes pull everything near them into them (even light!), then surely it would be impossible to pass through a worm­hole while escap­ing the force of grav­ity on the oth­er side?

To explain this, phys­i­cists the­or­ised that “strong” quantum effects are at play. Indeed, recent work by Juan Mal­da­cena (Insti­tute of Advanced Study, Prin­ceton) and Xiao-Liang Qi (Stan­ford Uni­ver­sity)2, goes some way in con­firm­ing this hypo­thes­is. The duo used a very sim­pli­fied mod­el to show that it is pos­sible to con­struct “neg­at­ive energy” quantum states that pro­duce a worm­hole that can be trav­elled through. Neg­at­ive energy (which, incid­ent­ally is thought to be respons­ible for the accel­er­ated expan­sion of the uni­verse) is the energy that opposes the force of grav­ity and, as such, would keep the “mouth” of a worm­hole open.

Quantum effects

What is most phys­ic­ally inter­est­ing in Mal­da­cena and Qi’s hypo­thes­is is not so much the pos­sib­il­ity of worm­holes we could cross, but rather its rela­tion­ship to the “inform­a­tion para­dox” put for­ward by Steph­en Hawk­ing – a very act­ive area of research34!

A black hole is formed when a very massive star dies and its resid­ual core has a mass three times that of our Sun. Black holes of this size are so dense that they curve the struc­ture of space-time around them to such an extent that noth­ing can escape, not even light. But Hawk­ing pre­dicted in 1974 that, even though black holes absorb everything, they could some­how them­selves emit particles in the form of radi­ation (this is known as the “Hawk­ing radi­ation”)5. These particles are cre­ated by so-called “quantum events” at the edge of the black hole (its “event hori­zon” or “point of no return”). 

Accord­ing to quantum the­ory, the vacu­um of empty space is not a true vacu­um, but con­tains “vir­tu­al particles”: pairs made up of a sub­atom­ic particle and its anti­particle (an elec­tron and a positron, for example). These particles may briefly come into exist­ence in a ran­dom quantum fluc­tu­ation, before anni­hil­at­ing one other.

The situ­ation is quite dif­fer­ent at the event hori­zon, how­ever. Here, one of the pair might fall into the black hole while the oth­er escapes and becomes a real particle. This pro­cess draws (grav­it­a­tion­al) energy from the black hole, which reduces its effect­ive mass. The black hole then slowly evap­or­ates, while Hawk­ing radi­ation streams from its sur­face. This radi­ation is extremely weak, and in the­ory, a black hole of one sol­ar mass would take 1058 bil­lion years to evap­or­ate com­pletely – and the uni­verse is not even 14 bil­lion years old.

Inextricable links

This evap­or­a­tion also poses anoth­er dif­fi­cult the­or­et­ic­al prob­lem, related to “quantum entan­gle­ment” (a pro­cess by which particles become inex­tric­ably linked). The particles emit­ted by the Hawk­ing radi­ation are entangled with the quantum state describ­ing the black hole. But if the black hole ends up evap­or­at­ing com­pletely – and thus dis­ap­pears – there would be no black hole quantum state with which Hawk­ing radi­ation particles can entangle. So, accord­ing to quantum the­ory, it should be pos­sible to have a situ­ation in which a particle would be absorbed by the black hole while its anti­particle would “evap­or­ate”.

To over­come this appar­ent para­dox, most the­or­ists believe that Hawk­ing radi­ation is max­im­ally entangled with the black hole only dur­ing the first part of its evap­or­a­tion (roughly its “half-life”). In the second part, the black hole would emit radi­ation entangled with the radi­ation emit­ted in the first moments of its life. Once it has evap­or­ated, the quantum entan­gle­ment would there­fore only occur between particles radi­ated at dis­tinct moments in time.

Semi-classical states 

The chal­lenge for phys­i­cists is to provide a quant­it­at­ive explan­a­tion for these ideas using a quantum the­ory of grav­it­a­tion. The so-called semi-clas­sic­al approach (so called because it describes the mat­ter in and around black holes using quantum the­ory, but describes grav­ity using Einstein’s clas­sic­al the­ory), con­siders quantum effects as being weak.

No one has been able to provide a sat­is­fact­ory descrip­tion of this phe­nomen­on. Accord­ing to Mal­da­cena and Qi, the explan­a­tion lies in the idea that when a black hole is young, the clas­sic­al descrip­tion of Hawk­ing radi­ation holds. With time, how­ever, new semi-clas­sic­al states, involving a worm­hole that links the black hole to the radi­ation it emit­ted in its early days, become more import­ant. As the black hole evap­or­ates, these new states even­tu­ally end up includ­ing worm­holes out­side the black hole. These new worm­holes describe the quantum entan­gle­ment between the early and late-stage radiation.

Finally, these worm­holes are vir­tu­al and there is no ques­tion of tra­vers­ing them, but they play an import­ant role in describ­ing the phe­nomen­on of black hole evap­or­a­tion. Even if their mod­els are very sim­pli­fied, research­ers can now accur­ately describe that the entan­gle­ment entropy – which meas­ures the rate of entan­gle­ment between the radi­ation and the black hole – fol­lows the so-called Page curve6, in a way that resolves Hawk­ing’s inform­a­tion paradox.

1https://​journ​als​.aps​.org/​p​r​/​a​b​s​t​r​a​c​t​/​1​0​.​1​1​0​3​/​P​h​y​s​R​e​v​.​48.73
2https://​arx​iv​.org/​a​b​s​/​1​8​0​4​.​00491
3https://​arx​iv​.org/​a​b​s​/​1​9​1​1​.​12333
4https://​arx​iv​.org/​a​b​s​/​1​9​1​1​.​11977
5https://​www​.nature​.com/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​s​/​2​4​8​030a0
6https://​journ​als​.aps​.org/​p​r​l​/​a​b​s​t​r​a​c​t​/​1​0​.​1​1​0​3​/​P​h​y​s​R​e​v​L​e​t​t​.​7​1​.3743

Support accurate information rooted in the scientific method.

Donate