Information field giving rise to quantum mechanics.

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of an "information field" related to quantum mechanics, particularly in the context of quantum entanglement. A quote from Einstein suggests a shift in understanding physics, implying that a universal field may allow for instantaneous information sharing, challenging traditional notions of space and time. The idea raises questions about whether such a field could exist beyond spacetime and if it could resolve the EPR paradox. Additionally, there is skepticism regarding Einstein's Unified Field Theory, with claims that he never successfully formulated it and opposed faster-than-light communication. The conversation highlights the complexities and ongoing debates surrounding quantum mechanics and the nature of reality.
CarlosLara
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
"Information field" giving rise to quantum mechanics.

Hello. I stumbled upon a video on youtube where quantum entanglement is discussed (). A woman quotes Einstein: "There is no place in this new kind of physics for the field and matter, for the field is the only reality." What did Einstein mean by "new kind of physics," and what field was he referring to? I am confused because the woman made it sound like Einstein believed that there is a universal "field" of non-locality where everything is instantaneously sharing information. If such an "information field" exists, it would have to exist beyond spacetime; instantaneous = time is irrelevant. Instantaneous communication between particles also implies that the concept of space is irrelevant. Also, the Pauli exclusion principle says that all electrons in the universe are "aware" of each other's quantum states. Could there be an "information field" permeating "reality" whose description is beyond the notions of space and time (instantaneous action directly implies that space and time are irrelevant)? Could this "field" solve the EPR paradox?

Thank you in advance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org


CarlosLara said:
Hello. I stumbled upon a video on youtube where quantum entanglement is discussed (). A woman quotes Einstein: "There is no place in this new kind of physics for the field and matter, for the field is the only reality." What did Einstein mean by "new kind of physics," and what field was he referring to? I am confused because the woman made it sound like Einstein believed that there is a universal "field" of non-locality where everything is instantaneously sharing information. If such an "information field" exists, it would have to exist beyond spacetime; instantaneous = time is irrelevant. Instantaneous communication between particles also implies that the concept of space is irrelevant. Also, the Pauli exclusion principle says that all electrons in the universe are "aware" of each other's quantum states. Could there be an "information field" permeating "reality" whose description is beyond the notions of space and time (instantaneous action directly implies that space and time are irrelevant)? Could this "field" solve the EPR paradox?

Thank you in advance.


I have seen some complete nonsense about Einstein's Unified Field Theory on the History channel. They should have been ashamed of themselves.

First, Einstein never got the theory to work, and he knew that. So in reality there is no such theory.

Secondly, Einstein was 100% against the idea of anything going faster than light.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top