I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again

The caption I cited is from the article itself, not from wiki.

Are you really this stupid?

WTF is wrong with you?

Do I have to explain this to you as I would to a child?

Can you really be this dumb?

That is the caption from wikipedia. The author of the article did include it as an example of the prevailing opinion as to what a wormhole represents.

Then, in the article itself, he presents the absolute proof coming from MIT (Dr. Julian Sonner) that quantum entanglement requires the use of wormholes: you cannot have quantum entanglement without wormholes.

Pretty basic stuff even for a simpleton like you.

No one mentions aether.

The only stable, rotating wormhole absorbs aether.

If you know of any other model, please bring it forth.

Unless you are able to do so, I win.

I have now the photograph of quantum entanglement, a phenomenon which cannot exist without wormholes.

The only stable, rotating wormhole absorbs aether.

And wormholes are cool, but hypothetical.

Not anymore.

We have now the first photograph taken of quantum entanglement.

And this is coming from MIT:

Quantum entanglement is not possible without wormholes:

http://news.mit.edu/2013/you-cant-get-entangled-without-a-wormhole-1205

Please grow up and learn to accept defeat.

The caption I cited is from the article itself, not from wiki.

Are you really this stupid?

WTF is wrong with you?

Do I have to explain this to you as I would to a child?

Can you really be this dumb?

That is the caption from wikipedia. The author of the article did include it as an example of the prevailing opinion as to what a wormhole represents.

Then, in the article itself, he presents the absolute proof coming from MIT (Dr. Julian Sonner) that quantum entanglement requires the use of wormholes: you cannot have quantum entanglement without wormholes.

Pretty basic stuff even for a simpleton like you.

My goodness you’re exhausting. The image is from wiki and I already copied above what the caption is on the wiki page. It’s not the one in the article. And like i said, why would the MIT author leave “hypothetical” in the caption if its not “hypothetical”. The wiki credit is for the image. It says “photo: Wikipedia”. Is there something wrong with you?

No one mentions aether.

The only stable, rotating wormhole absorbs aether.

If you know of any other model, please bring it forth.

Unless you are able to do so, I win.

I have now the photograph of quantum entanglement, a phenomenon which cannot exist without wormholes.

The only stable, rotating wormhole absorbs aether.

And wormholes are cool, but hypothetical.

Not anymore.

We have now the first photograph taken of quantum entanglement.

And this is coming from MIT:

Quantum entanglement is not possible without wormholes:

http://news.mit.edu/2013/you-cant-get-entangled-without-a-wormhole-1205

Please grow up and learn to accept defeat.

No mention of aether anywhere. Wormholes are theoretical.

It’s not the one in the article.

That is not what you implied at first.

From the opening image in the article:
"A diagram of a wormhole, a hypothetical "shortcut" through the universe, where its two ends are each in separate points in spacetime."

See bold: hypothetical

http://news.mit.edu/2013/you-cant-get-entangled-without-a-wormhole-1205

You can’t get entangled without a wormhole
MIT physicist finds the creation of entanglement simultaneously gives rise to a wormhole.

MIT News Office
December 5, 2013

Now an MIT physicist has found that, looked at through the lens of string theory, the creation of two entangled quarks — the building blocks of matter — simultaneously gives rise to a wormhole connecting the pair.

Sonner mapped the entangled quarks onto a four-dimensional space, considered a representation of space-time.

To see what geometry may emerge in the fifth dimension from entangled quarks in the fourth, Sonner employed holographic duality, a concept in string theory. While a hologram is a two-dimensional object, it contains all the information necessary to represent a three-dimensional view. Essentially, holographic duality is a way to derive a more complex dimension from the next lowest dimension.

Using holographic duality, Sonner derived the entangled quarks, and found that what emerged was a wormhole connecting the two, implying that the creation of quarks simultaneously creates a wormhole.


No mention of aether anywhere.

Once the word wormhole is mentioned, the concept of aether is implied as well (Ellis wormhole).

The only stable, rotating wormhole absorbs aether.

If you know of any other model, please bring it forth.

Unless you are able to do so, I win.

I have now the photograph of quantum entanglement, a phenomenon which cannot exist without wormholes.

The only stable, rotating wormhole absorbs aether.


Wormholes are theoretical.

Not anymore.

Recently, a group at the University of Glasgow used a sophisticated system of lasers and crystals to capture the first-ever photo of quantum entanglement violating one of what's now known as "Bell's inequalities."

This is "the pivotal test of quantum entanglement," said senior author Miles Padgett, who holds the Kelvin Chair of Natural Philosophy and is a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Glasgow in Scotland. Though people have been using quantum entanglement and Bell's inequalities in applications such as quantum computing and cryptography, "this is the first time anyone has used a camera to confirm [it]."

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/7/eaaw2563

Quantum entanglement is not possible without wormholes:

http://news.mit.edu/2013/you-cant-get-entangled-without-a-wormhole-1205

It’s not the one in the article.

That is not what you implied at first.

From the opening image in the article:
"A diagram of a wormhole, a hypothetical "shortcut" through the universe, where its two ends are each in separate points in spacetime."

See bold: hypothetical

http://news.mit.edu/2013/you-cant-get-entangled-without-a-wormhole-1205

From the article: “The theoretical results bolster the relatively new and exciting idea that the laws of gravity holding together the universe may not be fundamental, but arise from something else: quantum entanglement.”

See that funny word at the beginning of the sentence, “theoretical”? Look it up.

You can’t get entangled without a wormhole
MIT physicist finds the creation of entanglement simultaneously gives rise to a wormhole.

MIT News Office
December 5, 2013

Now an MIT physicist has found that, looked at through the lens of string theory, the creation of two entangled quarks — the building blocks of matter — simultaneously gives rise to a wormhole connecting the pair.

Sonner mapped the entangled quarks onto a four-dimensional space, considered a representation of space-time.

To see what geometry may emerge in the fifth dimension from entangled quarks in the fourth, Sonner employed holographic duality, a concept in string theory. While a hologram is a two-dimensional object, it contains all the information necessary to represent a three-dimensional view. Essentially, holographic duality is a way to derive a more complex dimension from the next lowest dimension.

Using holographic duality, Sonner derived the entangled quarks, and found that what emerged was a wormhole connecting the two, implying that the creation of quarks simultaneously creates a wormhole.


No mention of aether anywhere.

Once the word wormhole is mentioned, the concept of aether is implied as well (Ellis wormhole).

The only stable, rotating wormhole absorbs aether.

If you know of any other model, please bring it forth.

Unless you are able to do so, I win.

I have now the photograph of quantum entanglement, a phenomenon which cannot exist without wormholes.

The only stable, rotating wormhole absorbs aether.


Wormholes are theoretical.

Not anymore.

Recently, a group at the University of Glasgow used a sophisticated system of lasers and crystals to capture the first-ever photo of quantum entanglement violating one of what's now known as "Bell's inequalities."

This is "the pivotal test of quantum entanglement," said senior author Miles Padgett, who holds the Kelvin Chair of Natural Philosophy and is a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Glasgow in Scotland. Though people have been using quantum entanglement and Bell's inequalities in applications such as quantum computing and cryptography, "this is the first time anyone has used a camera to confirm [it]."

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/7/eaaw2563

Quantum entanglement is not possible without wormholes:

http://news.mit.edu/2013/you-cant-get-entangled-without-a-wormhole-1205

Wormholes are still theoretical and there is no mention of aether, implied or otherwise, anywhere. Simple as that.

See that funny word at the beginning of the sentence, “theoretical”? Look it up.

Wormholes are still theoretical

Not anymore.

Recently, a group at the University of Glasgow used a sophisticated system of lasers and crystals to capture the first-ever photo of quantum entanglement violating one of what's now known as "Bell's inequalities."

This is "the pivotal test of quantum entanglement," said senior author Miles Padgett, who holds the Kelvin Chair of Natural Philosophy and is a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Glasgow in Scotland. Though people have been using quantum entanglement and Bell's inequalities in applications such as quantum computing and cryptography, "this is the first time anyone has used a camera to confirm [it]."

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/7/eaaw2563

Quantum entanglement is not possible without wormholes:

http://news.mit.edu/2013/you-cant-get-entangled-without-a-wormhole-1205

You can’t get entangled without a wormhole
MIT physicist finds the creation of entanglement simultaneously gives rise to a wormhole.

MIT News Office
December 5, 2013

and there is no mention of aether, implied

The ONLY known stable, rotating wormhole model at the present time does absorb aether.

If you disagree with this statement, you must produce an example of a stable, rotating wormhole which does not absorb aether.

If two quarks are connected by a wormhole then that wormhole must be very stable.

See that funny word at the beginning of the sentence, “theoretical”? Look it up.

Wormholes are still theoretical

Not anymore.

Recently, a group at the University of Glasgow used a sophisticated system of lasers and crystals to capture the first-ever photo of quantum entanglement violating one of what's now known as "Bell's inequalities."

This is "the pivotal test of quantum entanglement," said senior author Miles Padgett, who holds the Kelvin Chair of Natural Philosophy and is a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Glasgow in Scotland. Though people have been using quantum entanglement and Bell's inequalities in applications such as quantum computing and cryptography, "this is the first time anyone has used a camera to confirm [it]."

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/7/eaaw2563

Quantum entanglement is not possible without wormholes:

http://news.mit.edu/2013/you-cant-get-entangled-without-a-wormhole-1205

You can’t get entangled without a wormhole
MIT physicist finds the creation of entanglement simultaneously gives rise to a wormhole.

MIT News Office
December 5, 2013

and there is no mention of aether, implied

The ONLY known stable, rotating wormhole model at the present time does absorb aether.

If you disagree with this statement, you must produce an example of a stable, rotating wormhole which does not absorb aether.

If two quarks are connected by a wormhole then that wormhole must be very stable.

Actually no one has produced a stable, rotating wormhole which absorbs aether because wormholes are theoretical according to the MIT article as well as everywhere else. And nowhere does anyone in modern physics mention aether in regard to quantum entanglement theory. Remember, all of this really interesting stuff is theoretical. No one has stated otherwise. No one.

Actually no one has produced a stable, rotating wormhole which absorbs aether because wormholes are theoretical according to the MIT article as well as everywhere else.

You are late to the party.

Quantum entanglement = rotating Ellis wormholes; in case you didn't know, the Ellis wormhole absorbs aether.

If you disagree with this statement, you must produce an example of a stable, rotating wormhole which does not absorb aether.

Recently, a group at the University of Glasgow used a sophisticated system of lasers and crystals to capture the first-ever photo of quantum entanglement violating one of what's now known as "Bell's inequalities."

Which in no way helps you provide a mechanism for your replacement for gravity.

It doesn't even help with your nonsense regarding wormholes.

So no, you still lose, big time.
You still have less than nothing.
You still have no mechanism for your alternative for gravity, nor any justification for why your magic shouldn't also work just as well for a RE.

It doesn't even help with your nonsense regarding wormholes.

You miserable moron.

Quantum entanglement is not possible without wormholes:

http://news.mit.edu/2013/you-cant-get-entangled-without-a-wormhole-1205

You can’t get entangled without a wormhole
MIT physicist finds the creation of entanglement simultaneously gives rise to a wormhole.

MIT News Office
December 5, 2013

The ONLY known stable, rotating wormhole model at the present time does absorb aether.

If you disagree with this statement, you must produce an example of a stable, rotating wormhole which does not absorb aether.

If two quarks are connected by a wormhole then that wormhole must be very stable.

You miserable moron.

You sure do love projecting your own inadequacies onto others.
Again, where is your mechanism?
You have none.

Until you actually provide a mechanism and clearly explain why it only works for your fantasy Earth, I don't need to do anything.

Again, if you want to provide a reference, do so to a peer reviewed publication.

Quote from: sandokhan on July 27, 2020, 02:35:33 AM

You miserable moron.

You sure do love projecting your own inadequacies onto others.
Again, where is your mechanism?
You have none.

Until you actually provide a mechanism and clearly explain why it only works for your fantasy Earth, I don't need to do anything.

Again, if you want to provide a reference, do so to a peer reviewed publication.

Paper by dr.Ellis will be good start

Gravity = quantum entanglement

The deepest connection between gravity and quantum entanglement:

“The universality of the gravitational interaction comes directly from the universality of entanglement- it is not possible to have stress-energy that doesn’t source the gravitational field because it is not possible to have degrees of freedom that don’t contribute to entanglement entropy.”

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.2933.pdf

Universality of Gravity from Entanglement


Quantum entanglement = wormholes


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.6850.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.6850v2.pdf

Holographic Schwinger effect and the geometry of entanglement

Julian Sonner, a senior postdoc in MIT’s Laboratory for Nuclear Science and Center for Theoretical Physics, has published his results in the journal Physical Review Letters, where it appears together with a related paper by Kristan Jensen of the University of Victoria and Andreas Karch of the University of Washington.

Quantum entanglement is not possible without wormholes:

http://news.mit.edu/2013/you-cant-get-entangled-without-a-wormhole-1205

You can’t get entangled without a wormhole
MIT physicist finds the creation of entanglement simultaneously gives rise to a wormhole.

MIT News Office
December 5, 2013


Photograph of quantum entanglement




https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/7/eaaw2563

Acquiring images of such a fundamental quantum effect is a demonstration that images can capture and exploit the essence of the quantum world. Here, we report an experiment demonstrating the violation of a Bell inequality within observed images. It is based on acquiring full-field coincidence images of a phase object probed by photons from an entangled pair source. The image exhibits a violation of a Bell inequality with S = 2.44 ± 0.04. This result both opens the way to new quantum imaging schemes based on the violation of a Bell inequality and suggests promise for quantum information schemes based on spatial variables.


Stable, rotating Ellis wormholes:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1503.pdf

Rotating Ellis Wormholes in Four Dimensions


Unless you can produce an example of a stable, rotating wormhole which does not absorb aether, I win.

Paper by dr.Ellis will be good start

Purely theoretic, and doesn't provide a mechanism.
It does not describe the fundamental interaction between aether and matter that causes a the matter to move.

Gravity = quantum entanglement

So all your claims about aether was just pure nonsense?

But even that still doesn't help you provide a mechanism.

Unless you can produce an example of a stable, rotating wormhole which does not absorb aether, I win.

Once again, until you actually provide a mechanism and clearly explain why it does not work for a RE, YOU LOSE!

Until you actually provide a mechanism, I don't need to do anything.

I don't need to do anything.

Then, you lose.

But even that still doesn't help you provide a mechanism.

It sure does.

Gravity = quantum entanglement

The deepest connection between gravity and quantum entanglement:

“The universality of the gravitational interaction comes directly from the universality of entanglement- it is not possible to have stress-energy that doesn’t source the gravitational field because it is not possible to have degrees of freedom that don’t contribute to entanglement entropy.”

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.2933.pdf

Universality of Gravity from Entanglement


Quantum entanglement = wormholes


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.6850.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.6850v2.pdf

Holographic Schwinger effect and the geometry of entanglement

Julian Sonner, a senior postdoc in MIT’s Laboratory for Nuclear Science and Center for Theoretical Physics, has published his results in the journal Physical Review Letters, where it appears together with a related paper by Kristan Jensen of the University of Victoria and Andreas Karch of the University of Washington.

Quantum entanglement is not possible without wormholes:

http://news.mit.edu/2013/you-cant-get-entangled-without-a-wormhole-1205

You can’t get entangled without a wormhole
MIT physicist finds the creation of entanglement simultaneously gives rise to a wormhole.

MIT News Office
December 5, 2013


Unless you can produce an example of a stable, rotating wormhole which does not absorb aether, I win.

1. Gravity = quantum entanglement

2. Quantum entanglement is not possible without wormholes

Sandhokum also claims earlier in this thread that:

3. Wormholes are not possible without aether/ether

4. Aether/Ether depends on the earth being flat.

Simple logic applied to the above leads to the conclusion that there can be no gravity on a round earth. So either statements (1) - (4) contain a fallacy, or this is a fallacy (take your pick):

I don't need to do anything.

Then, you lose.

But even that still doesn't help you provide a mechanism.

It sure does.

Gravity = quantum entanglement

The deepest connection between gravity and quantum entanglement:

“The universality of the gravitational interaction comes directly from the universality of entanglement- it is not possible to have stress-energy that doesn’t source the gravitational field because it is not possible to have degrees of freedom that don’t contribute to entanglement entropy.”

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.2933.pdf

Universality of Gravity from Entanglement


Quantum entanglement = wormholes


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.6850.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.6850v2.pdf

Holographic Schwinger effect and the geometry of entanglement

Julian Sonner, a senior postdoc in MIT’s Laboratory for Nuclear Science and Center for Theoretical Physics, has published his results in the journal Physical Review Letters, where it appears together with a related paper by Kristan Jensen of the University of Victoria and Andreas Karch of the University of Washington.

Quantum entanglement is not possible without wormholes:

http://news.mit.edu/2013/you-cant-get-entangled-without-a-wormhole-1205

You can’t get entangled without a wormhole
MIT physicist finds the creation of entanglement simultaneously gives rise to a wormhole.

MIT News Office
December 5, 2013


Unless you can produce an example of a stable, rotating wormhole which does not absorb aether, I win.

So gravity is not from a rotating ball or from electrical current.

Got it.

Now explain how the stress-energy sources the gravitational field, which is in your source.

3. Wormholes are not possible without aether/ether

Then, do your own research, and provide stable, rotating models of wormholes which do not use aether/exotic research.

I have done my job to come up with the best references available today: photographs of quantum entanglement, gravity = quantum entanglement, rotating Ellis wormholes models which connect particles.

It's your turn now, since you can no longer deny the evidence.


Now explain how the stress-energy sources the gravitational field, which is in your source.

Let's see first what the energy-stress source can do for e/m waves.

"The Einstein equation with an electromagnetic wave source has no valid solution unless a photonic energy-stress tensor with an anti-gravitational coupling is added.

Now, the entanglement entropy for ball shaped regions is determined in terms of the expectation value of the stress-energy tensor via the “first law of entanglement", the gravitational version of this constraint is exactly the linearized Einstein equation. By considering quantum corrections to the Ryu-Takayanagi formula, the expectation value of the bulk stress-energy tensor comes in as a source for the linearized Einstein equations."

What then is the correct form of the linearized Einstein equations?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194825#msg2194825

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2196454#msg2196454

When a gravitational wave is present, the gravitational stress-energy tensor is non-zero.

3. Wormholes are not possible without aether/ether

Then, do your own research, and provide stable, rotating models of wormholes which do not use aether/exotic research.

I have done my job to come up with the best references available today: photographs of quantum entanglement, gravity = quantum entanglement, rotating Ellis wormholes models which connect particles.

It's your turn now, since you can no longer deny the evidence.

Right about here and still, wormholes being theoretical and all:

Ellis wormhole without a phantom scalar field (2019)

Pedro Ca˜nate 1 , ∗ Joseph Sultana 2 , † and Demosthenes Kazanas 3 ‡ 1Departamento de F´ısica, Centro de Investigaci´on y de Estudios Avanzados del I.P.N., Apdo. 14-740, 07000 Mexico City, Mexico. 2Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, University of Malta, Msida, Malta 3Astrophysics Science Division, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland 20771, USA

"We show that the solution belongs to the most general class of solutions known as Ellis wormholes but without the need for `exotic matter' or a phantom scalar field."
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.09463.pdf

Looks like Wormholes are possible without aether/ether.

You have started to do your own research.

Continue.

You have started to do your own research.

Continue.

My point is that we are in a highly theoretical realm, advancing all of the time, but theoretical nonetheless. Ellis in the 70's says you need ether for these theoretical wormholes to exist and in 2019, you have these guys saying you don't. And myriad physicists up and down the spectrum between the two. Hence it's all still theoretical. Really interesting stuff, but we're a long way away from saying definitively, "This is how it works....!"

I could intervene right now and point out the inconsistencies of the Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet wormhole theory. Continue your research (Einstein-Cartan wormholes, conformal Weyl spaces wormholes, Kaluza-Klein theory wormholes).

I could intervene right now and point out the inconsistencies of the Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet wormhole theory. Continue your research (Einstein-Cartan wormholes, conformal Weyl spaces wormholes, Kaluza-Klein theory wormholes).

Inconsistencies because of it still being theoretical yes.

I could intervene right now and point out the inconsistencies of the Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet wormhole theory. Continue your research (Einstein-Cartan wormholes, conformal Weyl spaces wormholes, Kaluza-Klein theory wormholes).

Like I said, it's all theoretical. That's why you have Ellis, ether, to the 2019 guys, no ether. Then a whole host of theoretical variants in between and around. Technically inconsistent because they are different theories. No mystery there. You may adhere to a specific theory, but that doesn't make it true.

That's why you have Ellis, ether, to the 2019 guys, no ether. Then a whole host of theoretical variants in between and around.

No, you only have the Ellis model and that's it. That is why you need to continue your research, to convince yourself that indeed no other wormhole model is possible.

That's why you have Ellis, ether, to the 2019 guys, no ether. Then a whole host of theoretical variants in between and around.

No, you only have the Ellis model and that's it. That is why you need to continue your research, to convince yourself that indeed no other wormhole model is possible.

No, there are a whole host of theoretical models, not just Ellis'. And there is no clear indication that Ellis' model from the 70's is the only theoretical model possible. One of the reasons why wormhole theory is still theoretical. It's as simple as that.

No, there are a whole host of theoretical models, not just Ellis'.

Yes, but the other models do not work.

Don't take my word for it, do your own research to find out that I am right.

One of the reasons why wormhole theory is still theoretical.

You still don't get it: we now have photographs of quantum entanglement which is possible only through wormholes.

Now, which wormhole model causes quantum entanglement? That's right, the rotating Ellis wormhole.

No, there are a whole host of theoretical models, not just Ellis'.

Yes, but the other models do not work.
Don't take my word for it, do your own research to find out that I am right.

You would have literally no way of knowing that other theoretical models don't work. You are not a quantum mechanics physicist and have no research of your own other than copy and pasting the research of others that you agree with.

One of the reasons why wormhole theory is still theoretical.

You still don't get it: we now have photographs of quantum entanglement which is possible only through wormholes.

Theoretically requiring wormholes. From the MIT article you referenced, "You can’t get entangled without a wormhole":

"Earlier this year, physicists proposed an answer in the form of “wormholes,” or gravitational tunnels."

"Now an MIT physicist has found that, looked at through the lens of string theory, the creation of two entangled quarks — the building blocks of matter — simultaneously gives rise to a wormhole connecting the pair."

"The theoretical results bolster the relatively new and exciting idea that the laws of gravity holding together the universe may not be fundamental, but arise from something else: quantum entanglement."

From an article, "A Link Between Wormholes and Quantum Entanglement" published in Science, regarding what Julian Sonner found in his research referenced in the MIT article above:

"Theoretical physicists have forged a connection between the concept of entanglement—itself a mysterious quantum mechanical connection between two widely separated particles—and that of a wormhole—a hypothetical connection between black holes that serves as a shortcut through space."

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/12/link-between-wormholes-and-quantum-entanglement

As well, from an article in Scientific American about the same findings from the MIT article, "Physicists Find a Link between Wormholes and Spooky Action at a Distance" :

"The new theory connects quantum entanglement with Einstein’s general relativity"

"Wormholes are hypothetical shortcuts through spacetime, also known as Einstein–Rosen bridges, after Albert Einstein and Nathan Rosen, who predicted them in 1935."

"Entanglement has been demonstrated in quantum physics experiments with particles, but wormholes, which arise from general relativity, are purely theoretical."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wormholes-quantum-entanglement-link/

And from the actual paper by Julian Sonner at MIT that your article references, "Holographic Schwinger Effect and the Geometry of Entanglement":

"This observation supports and further explains the claim by Jensen and Karch that the bulk dual of an Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen pair is a string with a wormhole on its world sheet. We suggest that this constitutes a holographically dual realization of the creation of a Wheeler wormhole."

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.211603#fulltext

A Wheeler Wormhole, not an Ellis Wormhole. No ether. And all theoretical.

Now, which wormhole model causes quantum entanglement? That's right, the rotating Ellis wormhole.

Nowhere is there any mention that Ellis' theoretical model is the only one that works.

It seems that you are useless here.

A Wheeler wormhole IS an Ellis wormhole!

https://cds.cern.ch/record/605298/files/0302049.pdf

K.S. Thorne was a student of J.A. Wheeler: the Morris-Thorne wormhole which IS an Ellis wormhole (Ellis-Bronnikov-Morris-Thorne wormhole model).

The metric presented by Morris and Thorne already appears in 1973 in the work published by H.G. Ellis.

It seems that you are useless here.

A Wheeler wormhole IS an Ellis wormhole!

https://cds.cern.ch/record/605298/files/0302049.pdf

K.S. Thorne was a student of J.A. Wheeler: the Morris-Thorne wormhole which IS an Ellis wormhole (Ellis-Bronnikov-Morris-Thorne wormhole model).

The metric presented by Morris and Thorne already appears in 1973 in the work published by H.G. Ellis.

Umm, nowhere in the paper you reference does it connect Wheeler with Ellis and nowhere is there any mention of ether. Just because Thorne was a student of Wheeler's has no bearing on anything. And it appears that Thorne and Ellis were not in agreement regarding ether:

"Thorne manufactured a duplicate of the Ellis wormhole to use as a tool for teaching general relativity,[3] asserting that existence of such a wormhole required the presence of 'negative energy', a viewpoint Ellis had considered and explicitly refused to accept, on the grounds that arguments for it were unpersuasive."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellis_wormhole

And as I showed you in my last post, all of this is theoretical and no one is saying the Ellis model is the only one that works.

Try again

The Wheeler-Morris-Thorne model IS an Ellis wormhole.

The metric presented by Morris and Thorne already appears in 1973 in the work published by H.G. Ellis.

In fact, this model is called the Ellis-Bronnikov-Morris-Thorne wormhole model.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.02531.pdf

https://inspirehep.net/literature/837615