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://​jour​nals​.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://​arxiv​.org/​a​b​s​/​1​8​0​4​.​00491
3https://​arxiv​.org/​a​b​s​/​1​9​1​1​.​12333
4https://​arxiv​.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://​jour​nals​.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