[sigmoid10]

>The problem is, if they write such bullshit about topics that I do understand, how can I trust their reporting on topics that I do not?

Funny how this is true for basically all of science and yet so many popsci authors get away with it, because the vast majority of the audience will not be experts in the field. If you want the true story you'll always have to read the original paper (though sometimes even Nature lets bs slip through) and absolutely ignore the common media articles about it. Complaining that articles for the masses are not adequate recitations of real research is like complaining that water is wet. It's kind of the whole deal. This stuff is supposed to sound intriguing and generate clicks, not push the research itself ahead or inform real experts.

[rob74]

Yeah, but "creating a wormhole" is laying it on a bit thick, even someone who is only remotely familiar with physics will find this statement highly suspicious - I mean, even in Star Trek, they didn't manage to create a wormhole, they only used one (https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Bajoran_wormhole).

[sigmoid10]

In line with research of the past years this has moved from being absurd to being somewhat debatable. With the ER=EPR conjecture (which this paper heavily references) for example, you could theoretically argue that it's easy to create wormholes - in fact it happens everywhere all the time. The problem is that those are not Star Trek type wormholes that let you move macroscopic matter across galaxies, but everyone outside the field immediately thinks of them thanks to decades of scifi popculture. The wormholes that Susskind et al. are talking about are much more modest.

[VLM]

Magazines are for showing off ones political or philosophical affiliations, not to be informative.