Here too, as is often the case with science presentations, you can admire the sloppiness of the accompanying graphics. The right rectangle is shorter than the left, although there is no reason for it to be different. I count six weak points at locations on the graphic where lines don't meet properly, even though they should do exactly that at their intended points of contact. An example 1:08:00 To be clear, it does not question Maldacena's genius.
I understand from Maldacena's words that entanglement and a wormhole are the same. Entanglement talks about the absolute statistical correlation between 2 or more particles while wormholes talk about the absolute statistical correlation between 2 or more regions of space-time.
Here too, as is often the case with science presentations,
you can admire the sloppiness of the accompanying
graphics.
The right rectangle is shorter than the left, although
there is no reason for it to be different.
I count six weak points at locations on the graphic where
lines don't meet properly, even though they should do
exactly that at their intended points of contact.
An example 1:08:00
To be clear, it does not question Maldacena's genius.
I understand from Maldacena's words that entanglement and a wormhole are the same. Entanglement talks about the absolute statistical correlation between 2 or more particles while wormholes talk about the absolute statistical correlation between 2 or more regions of space-time.