Entanglement more primary than Spacetime?

[Varon]

What do you think of the following passage from Scientific American (June 2011):

"Thus, the fact that quantum mechanics applies on all scales forces us to confront the theory’s deepest mysteries. We cannot simply write them off as mere details that matter only on the very smallest scales. For instance, space and time are two of the most fundamental classical concepts, but according to quantum mechanics they are secondary. The entanglements are primary. They interconnect quantum systems without reference to space and time. If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line—and, indeed, without a truly classical world—we lose this framework. We must explain space and time as somehow emerging from fundamentally spaceless and timeless physics.

That insight, in turn, may help us reconcile quantum physics with that other great pillar of physics, Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which describes the force of gravity in terms of the geometry of spacetime. General relativity assumes that objects have well-defined positions and never reside in more than one place at the same time—in direct contradiction with quantum physics. Many physicists, such as Stephen Hawking of the University
of Cambridge, think that relativity theory must give way to a deeper theory in which space and time do not exist."

Do you believe it? That entanglement are more primary than space and time and "relativity theory must give way to a deeper theory in which space and time do not exist."?

Or does entanglement work inside Spacetime (with Spacetime more primary and entanglement secondary)? Or are they separate? Pls. elaborate. What is the mainstream view?

 

[Fredrik]

Do you believe it? That entanglement are more primary than space and time and "relativity theory must give way to a deeper theory in which space and time do not exist."?

I like this idea, but it's very speculative at this point. The article Glimmers of a pre-geometric perspective by Federico Piazza describes some of the ideas. I have only skimmed it, and it was years ago, so I probably won't be able to answer questions about it. (Not unless I take the time to study it more carefully, and it's not near the top of my to do list right now).

 

[Varon]

I won't have mentioned this if not for the fact it is mentioned in such popular magazine as Scientific American.

Well. If entanglement is indeed more primary than space and time. Then the randonmess of quantum is a default mode.. or background mode.. meaning Nature has the capability to send signal faster than light. And nature can do travel back in time influence.. but for the sake of us humans.. Space and time were designed in such a way we can't go back in time (this is because superluminal signalling automatically entails backward in time travel in some frame of reference). Bottomline is. If we understand QM at its core. Maybe we can manipulate directly space and time and indeed send signal faster than light (or travel back in time). If Many worlds is right. Then when we send superluminal signal and there is a frame of reference with backward time influence, then perhaps it will influence the other branches of the Many worlds to avoid the Grandfather paradox in this universe. Possible isn't it? So if you go to the past of the other branch and prevent Obama from being born. He won't be president in the timeline of the other branch. Or could it be that the Many world branches all occur at the same time as present branch?

 

[DaveC426913]

meaning Nature has the capability to send signal faster than light. And nature can do travel back in time influence..

Wait, woah.

Who said anything about that?

 

[Varon]

Wait, woah.

Who said anything about that?

What I mean to say is. Without space and time. Entanglement is perhaps like Bohm Implicate order in which everything is connected to everything. Then spacetime is simply to give separation. So if you remove spacetime. Everything is one and superluminal contact is... hmm... ok.. since there is no space if you remove spacetime.. then no superluminal contact... so maybe superluminal contact is not possible. If you remove spacetime, all is one.. so no need for superluminal contact...

 

[San K]

What I mean to say is. Without space and time. Entanglement is perhaps like Bohm Implicate order in which everything is connected to everything. Then spacetime is simply to give separation. So if you remove spacetime. Everything is one and superluminal contact is... hmm... ok.. since there is no space if you remove spacetime.. then no superluminal contact... so maybe superluminal contact is not possible. If you remove spacetime, all is one.. so no need for superluminal contact...

just an opinion because no one knows yet...what the truth/reality is:

entanglement could be happening beyond/outside space-time

however going backward in time is not possible because events and the sequence of events have happened...

the events happening is also, in a sense, separate from space-time...they have their own existence

thus even if you went back in time-space, somehow, the events cannot be reversed...or you cannot go back to a previous state

however you could duplicate/repeat the events...which we do all the time...

 

[PhilDSP]

Article quote: Many physicists, such as Stephen Hawking of the University of Cambridge, think that relativity theory must give way to a deeper theory in which space and time do not exist."

That sounds like either a poor or distorted way to put it (to me). I don't think he meant to say that space and time aren't valid parameters of (at least) electromagnetic and chemical behavior, which they obviously are. He might have meant "must give way to a deeper theory in which space and time do not exist as limiting factors of certain physical processes".

You could interpret that such that the SR limiting speed of c might only apply to electromagnetic energy propagation in a vacuum - not necessarily, for example, to the propagation of weak force or strong force qualities or to EM propagation involving media. Even the fact that the weak force effectively causes protons and neutrons to periodically swap charge faster than EM forces can take affect and cause a repulsive force to be generated between protons indicates that something might happen faster than the propagation of EM potentials.

By the way, the 3 spatial dimensions in the Euclidean/Galilean paradigm are 3 dimensions sharing a single metric (absolute length). They are orthogonal and algebraically independent of each other. Even in SR the minimum dimensionality of space is a longitudinal length dimension and a transverse length dimension which do not share the same metric.

 

[DaveC426913]

the events happening is also, in a sense, separate from space-time...they have their own existence

An event is defined by its coordinates in space and time. Pretty hard to have an event outside of them.

 

[granpa]

An event is defined by its coordinates in space and time. Pretty hard to have an event outside of them.

that is an assumption.
It could equally well be that space and time are defined by the events and their interactions.
I think that is the whole point being made here

 

[Demystifier]

I believe that relativity and entanglement can live together:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1002.3226 [Int. J. Quantum Inf. 9 (2011) 367-377]

 

[DaveC426913]

that is an assumption.
It could equally well be that space and time are defined by the events and their interactions.
I think that is the whole point being made here

No, no, I don't think so. You could speculate that maybe space and time are defined by their events, but you'd have your work cut out to make a case for it.

But you'd have to define a word other than event, since an event is a discrete thing in space and time.

 

[Fredrik]

No, no, I don't think so. You could speculate that maybe space and time are defined by their events, but you'd have your work cut out to make a case for it.

That doesn't contradict what granpa said, so maybe you shouldn't have started with two noes. It sounds very plausible to me that there exists a (still undiscovered) theory in which interactions are the reason why the concept of "spacetime" makes sense at all. The article I linked to explores some ideas along those lines, but it's very speculative, and it's certainly not going to be easy to turn these ideas into a full theory. So I agree with the last part of what you said, and I'm sure the author of that article does too.

But you'd have to define a word other than event, since an event is a discrete thing in space and time.

If a new theory defines the word "event" in a different way than the earlier theories, that wouldn't be very different from how terms like "energy" are defined differently in different theories.