---
title: 'Did Physics Just Lose a Brilliant Idea?'
source: 'https://youtube.com/watch?v=rHgaSPzTnlo'
video_id: 'rHgaSPzTnlo'
date: 2026-08-04
duration_sec: 421
---

# Did Physics Just Lose a Brilliant Idea?

> Source: [Did Physics Just Lose a Brilliant Idea?](https://youtube.com/watch?v=rHgaSPzTnlo)

## Summary

The video discusses the recent ruling out of the ER=EPR conjecture, which proposed that entangled particles are physically connected by wormholes. The host explains the conjecture, its origins, and a new paper that tests it by examining the electric field of a hydrogen atom, finding no measurable difference between entangled and non-entangled states. The host concludes that while the idea may be useful as a mathematical metaphor, it lacks experimental support as a physical wormhole.

### Key Points

- **ER=EPR Conjecture Ruled Out** [00:00] — The idea that entangled particles are physically linked by wormholes (ER=EPR) has been ruled out by a new paper. The conjecture was proposed by Juan Maldacena and Leonard Susskind in 2013.
- **Entanglement is Correlation, Not Physical Link** [01:09] — Entanglement is a correlation between observable properties, not a physical connection. Example: identical twins share eye color, but knowing one's eye color doesn't mean they are physically connected.
- **New Paper's Test: Hydrogen Atom** [02:19] — The authors ask if an electron entangled with something else has a wormhole, then part of its electric field should go into the wormhole. They test this with a hydrogen atom, where electron and proton spins are entangled.
- **No Measurable Difference in Energy Levels** [03:27] — By poking the hydrogen atom with an electromagnetic field, they break the entanglement. If wormholes existed, the charge distribution and energy levels would differ between entangled and non-entangled states. They found no difference, matching standard quantum maths.
- **Partial Ruling Out** [04:07] — The paper doesn't entirely rule out ER=EPR; it only constrains the parameter for how much electromagnetic field goes through the wormhole to be very small. The host gives the paper 3/10 on the [__] meter because the idea itself was already [__].
- **Conclusion: ER=EPR as Metaphor** [05:15] — ER=EPR may be useful as a mathematical metaphor or grand vocabulary, but as a physical wormhole, it has no experimental visibility. The host appreciates that some people still treat foundations of physics as science.

### Conclusion

The ER=EPR conjecture, while intriguing, lacks experimental support as a physical wormhole. The new paper's test on hydrogen atoms shows no measurable effect, suggesting that if wormholes exist, they carry negligible electromagnetic field. The idea remains a mathematical metaphor rather than a physical reality.

## Transcript

One of the most popular, if not the most  popular, recent ideas on the foundations   of physics was just ruled out. It's the idea that  entangled particles are actually physically linked   by wormholes known as ER equals EPR. Let's have a  look. ER stands for Einstein Rosen bridges, which  
is the technical term for the simplest type of  wormhole. EPR stands for Einstein, Podolski, and   Rosen who wrote one of the first papers on quantum  entanglement though at the time it wasn't called  
entanglement. The conjecture says that entangled  particles are connected by these wormholes. This   idea was proposed by Juan Maldacena and Leonard  Suskind in 2013. And it's since become one of  
those phrases that theoretical physicists like  because it's vague and sounds deep, but is hard   to check. If you remember the infamous episode of  a wormhole on a quantum computer, yeah, that was  
brought to you by ER equals EPR. The wormholes on  the quantum computer were supposedly the entangled   particles plus some higher dimensional blah  blah. But let's not get distracted. The idea  
that entangled particles are physically linked  by wormholes or anything is of course nonsense   because entangled particles are not linked.  Entanglement is a sort of correlation. It implies  
no physical link whatsoever. A correlation just  means that some observable properties are related.   Identical twins, for example, share the same eye  color. If you know they're identical twins and you  
know the eye color of one of them, you know the  eye color of the other. That's what it means for   properties to be correlated. Knowing the one will  tell you something about the other. It doesn't   mean they're physically connected. Entanglement  is like that. You can of course say, "Ah, look, we  
just take the mathematics for the entanglement and  call that a wormhole." Okay, I admit this isn't   wrong. It's just meaningless. I could also call  my hair a non-perturbative field configuration,  
but it still wouldn't converge. If you want the ER  equals EPR conjecture to be physically meaningful,   then well, you actually need some kind of wormhole  there. If entangled particles are really connected  
by wormholes, then those wormholes should do  something more than looking profound on a seminar   slide. The authors of the new paper now ask a  simple question. Suppose an electron is entangled  
with something else. If that entanglement is a  physical wormhole and the electron has an electric   field, then some of the electric field must go  into the wormhole. Can we not measure this? At   first, the answer to this question seems to be no.  Because whatever the wormhole, it's ridiculously  
tiny. Otherwise, we'd see particles disappear and  reappear like popping in and out through portals.   But the authors look at a case that we've measured  very very precisely. A hydrogen atom. A hydrogen  
atom consists of just one proton in the atomic  nucleus surrounded by one electron. They both   have a spin and usually the electron and the  proton spin are entangled. The authors now  
say that if the entanglement is a wormhole,  then part of the electric field that spans   between the electron and proton goes through the  wormhole. that in and of itself is unobservable.  
However, if you poke a hydrogen atom with an  electromagnetic field at the right frequency,   you can break this entanglement and create an  electron proton pair that is not entangled.   The author's point is then that these two states  are now different. The one has a wormhole, the  
other not. And this makes a relative difference  for the charge distribution in the hydrogen,   which then makes a measurable difference for the  energy levels of the electron. And this difference  
well isn't there. The electron energy levels of  the two states entangled and not entangled are   perfectly described by the standard quantum maths  without the wormholes. Of course, this doesn't  
entirely rule out the idea. Strictly speaking,  it just means that if there are wormholes,   then very little of the electromagnetic field  goes through them. So they say there's some  
parameter that must be very small. This is why  I have to give the paper three out of 10 on the   [ __ ] meter. But that isn't because of the paper.  It's because the idea itself was already [ __ ]  
So of course, you can't rule it out. Now  look, the people who work on this will say,   "But this is not what we mean by ER equals  EPR. It's not a real wormhole. It's just a   way to think about the maths." In which case, you  know, maybe you should stop calling it wormholes.  
It's quite easy to predict that this paper will  not make a difference and physicists will happily   continue publishing about this because it really  doesn't matter at this point whether it's got any  
relation to reality. Still, I wanted to tell you  about this paper because it's good to see that at   least some people still treat the foundations of  physics as the science it once was. In summary,  
ER equals EPR may be useful as mathematics  metaphor or grand writing vocabulary,   but as a physical wormhole, it appears to have the  experimental visibility of my patients. I do a lot  
of online research and I hate the idea that third  parties are tracking what I read, what videos I   watch, and what I search for. There's also always  the risk I click on the wrong thing and catch some  
malware. This is why I'm using NodeVPN, who've  been sponsoring this video. NodeVPN is an app   that makes your internet connection ultra secure.  You install it on your phone or laptop and use it  
to create a safe connection. But it's not  just that. NodeVPN is constantly improving   their service and they're taking online safety  to a new level with their next-gen antivirus.  
It doesn't only scan for viruses and malware.  It also warns you of scams and fishing attempts,   all with 24/7 customer service. NodeVPN  doesn't just protect your privacy.  
It also makes your life easier. You see, NodeVPN  has thousands of servers all over the world,   and you can choose one. This allows you to access  websites in other countries by using a server   located there. I find this especially convenient  to get around all the blockages on US pages for  
visitors from the European Union. NordVPN is a  high quality product that I'm happy to recommend.   If you want to try it out yourself, use my link  nordvpn.com/sabine or the coupon code Sabine  
for our special offer. Thanks  for watching. See you tomorrow.