DBB vs EPR & GHZ: Questions & Answers

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Dmitry67
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Epr
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the compatibility and implications of different quantum theories, specifically de Broglie-Bohm (dBB) theory, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) scenarios, and Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) states. Participants explore the relationships between these theories, particularly in terms of hidden variables, non-locality, and the strength of entanglement in various configurations.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that dBB, as a hidden variable theory, must be non-local and question how this non-locality interacts with GHZ states.
  • Questions are raised about whether dBB requires additional assumptions to make correct predictions for GHZ scenarios.
  • There is a discussion on the concept of "strength" in EPR scenarios, with some participants suggesting that EPR(N+1) is always "stronger" than EPR(N), while others seek clarification on this notion.
  • One participant references a paper discussing violations of local realism in the context of entangled quantum systems, suggesting that the strength of these violations increases with the dimensionality of the systems involved.
  • Clarifications are sought regarding the specific versions of dBB being discussed, particularly whether they pertain to non-relativistic or relativistic frameworks.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the compatibility of dBB with EPR and GHZ states, as well as the interpretation of "strength" in EPR scenarios. There is no consensus on the answers to the posed questions, and multiple competing views remain present throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions regarding the definitions of "stronger" and the specifics of dBB theory are not fully articulated, leading to potential ambiguity in the discussion. The relationship between the number of observers and the strength of EPR scenarios is also not clearly defined.

Dmitry67
Messages
2,564
Reaction score
1
dBB, as a theory with hidden variables, must be non-local.
So there is some magic how 'particles' affect each other with superluminal speed.
I don't care about the details, I know that somehow these rules are adjusted to satisfy Bell.

My questions:
1. is dBB also 'compatible' with GHZ?
2. does it need any extra assumptions to give correct predictions for GHZ?

Then, assuming some generalization - EPR with 2 observers is EPR(2), GHZ with 3 observers is EPR(3) - and I know that EPR(3) is "stronger" than EPR(2):

3. is EPR(N+1) always "stronger" than EPR(N)?
4. is dBB compatible with any EPR(N)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm disappointed. Turns out this thread had nothing to do with Electron Paramagnetic Resonance in the Gigahertz range.. :)
 
1. Yes
2. No
3. What do you mean by "stronger"?
4. Yes
 
3. In a sense that GHZ is "stronger" than EPR
For example:

http://iftia9.univ.gda.pl/~pg/prace/2000PhRvL..85.4418K.pdf

We investigate the general case of two entangled quantum systems defined in N-dimensional Hilbert spaces, or “quNits.” Via a numerical linear optimization method we show that violations of local realism are stronger for two maximally entangled quNits (3 # N # 9) than for two qubits and that they increase with N.

Now when you answer "Yes" to the other questions you mean:
1. Non-relativistic dBB
2. Your version of relativistic dBB?
 
Dmitry67 said:
Now when you answer "Yes" to the other questions you mean:
1. Non-relativistic dBB
2. Your version of relativistic dBB?
Both.
 
Dmitry67 said:
Then, assuming some generalization - EPR with 2 observers is EPR(2), GHZ with 3 observers is EPR(3) - and I know that EPR(3) is "stronger" than EPR(2):

3. is EPR(N+1) always "stronger" than EPR(N)?
Dmitry67 said:
3. In a sense that GHZ is "stronger" than EPR
For example:

http://iftia9.univ.gda.pl/~pg/prace/2000PhRvL..85.4418K.pdf
In the paper above, N is not the number of observers.
 

Similar threads

High School Does the EPR experiment imply QM is incomplete?
  • · Replies 225 ·
8
Replies
225
Views
15K
Graduate Is delayed choice remote entanglement of photons derived from TDSE?
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
Graduate Is non-locality a necessary consequence of the Bell theorem?
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Graduate Bohr's solution to the EPR paradox
  • · Replies 100 ·
4
Replies
100
Views
11K
Graduate What Are the Implications of the EPR Paradox on Quantum Mechanics and Locality?
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
Undergrad Can Quantum Entanglement Be Used to Transfer Information?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Graduate Is there a connection between EPR and crossing symmetry in Feynman diagrams?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Graduate Entanglement Witnesses close to GHZ states
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
982
Graduate EPR and Lorentz transformation
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
Undergrad How do you understand EPR & Bell's Theorem?
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
6K