Just thinking out loud, folks.
The theory of everything TOE called ER = EPR is Einstein-Rosen = Einstein-Podansky-Rosen
The theory is that “spooky action at a distance” = “wormholes”
These wormholes don’t have material or energy passing through from one end to the other, because that’s impossible. But they do have information passing through from one end to the other.
A starting point is that electrons are pointlike – they have finite mass, change, angular momentum. But quantum mechanics only works if they have no physical size. Any object with finite mass and no physical size is, by general relativity, a black hole or white hole. Given that nothing is passing in or out of these entities, it doesn’t matter whether you call it a black hole or white hole.
The simplest quantum action is pair creation. Energy, such as a photon, creates an electron and a positron, a black hole white hole pair linked by a wormhole. This happens all the time within the quantum vacuum. Does it follow that the simplest level of a quantum vacuum, that with pair creation and destruction of electron-positron pairs, can be described directly by general relativity? Or to put it another way, can GR predict the simplest level of the quantum vacuum, ie the electromagnetic quantum vacuum?
It’s an intriguing idea, but may require a supercomputer to solve. Imagine tracking the warping of space when wormholes collide. Would they pass straight through each other or bounce off each other? Or would it cause one of the wormholes to collapse, ending the pair creation and so supporting the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The simulation of the electromagnetic quantum vacuum using GR is the type of simulation that I’d like to do, if I had the mathematical tools to do it.
The immediate problem here is the “black hole has no hair” theorem. Or rather, it’s both an essential and a problem. The “black hole has no hair” theorem tells us that an electron is a black hole, so it essential for ER = EPR. But it also fails to distinguish between leptons and baryons. Or to put it another way, GR relativity tells us that we cannot distinguish between a proton and a positron except by mass. And yet, because a proton is not pointlike and is made of three pointlike quarks, it cannot be a simple black hole. There comes a need to assign quark colour as an addition to General Relativity in order to distinguish leptons from baryons.
Because a wormhole is one-dimensional and a superstring of string theory is one-dimensional, there is a temptation to map superstrings to wormholes. But this temptation should be resisted, because a superstring represents a single particle and a wormhole represents an entangled particle pair. Unless of course string theory is rewritten to allow each string to represent two similar particles (particle and antiparticle) and not just one.
The mathematics. Where is the mathematics for handling such concepts?
Step 1 mathematics:
The mathematics of the wormhole.
The mathematics of entanglement and spooky action at a distance.
Step 2 mathematics
The mathematics of colliding wormholes.
The mathematics of the electromagnetic quantum vacuum.
It the above two can be made to coincide then we’ll know that we’re really on the right track.
Step 3 mathematics
The mathematics of black hole clusters, three black holes together as a proton.
The strong nuclear force.
Black hole clusters would probably require going beyond GR. I would guess by adding the strong nuclear force to it. The strong nuclear force is repulsive at short distances and becomes stronger and stronger as distance increases. This allows a balance between attraction and repulsion at the distance apart of quarks in a proton.
Step 4 mathematics
Superstrings as entangled particle pairs rather than as single particles.