Entanglement: is there 'action at a distance' due to measurement?

[RUTA]

As there is at least one more critical constant to worry about if you like Einstein seems to see no way to avoid the spacetime continuum.

Can we expect that the next step in the work - in your spirit - to be something like "NPRF+c+h+G"?

/Fredrik

“‘Mysteries’ of Modern Physics and the Fundamental Constants c, h, and G,” W.M. Stuckey,
Timothy McDevitt and Michael Silberstein. Honorable Mention in the Gravity Research
Foundation 2021 Awards for Essays on Gravitation.

Quanta 11(1), 5-14 (2022).

https://dankogeorgiev.com/ojs/index.php/quanta/article/view/66

 

[Fra]

A principles-based understanding of a physical theory is desirable, but I don't think it dissolves interpretational disputes. Even in relativity, these disputes persist (see e.g. Substantivalism vs Relationalism). It's simply the case that quantum theories are more protean than classical theories, with a richer landscape of successful interpretations.

What I have in mind is the intepretation of the principles and how that influence how we view and navigate in theory space.

If we view them as unexplainable fixed facts of nature for us to discover empirically, a typical theory ansatz has plenty fine tuning room. The challenge then is how to enlarge theory space without getting lost in the same.

Or if we see the principles that relate subsystems as emergent as having been tuned by nature itself. Then there may be deeper principles for how persistent principles emerge, that may allow for a more convergent approach to enlarge theory space that maintain stability over evolution. In this case principles likely has an hierarchy, some came about before others.

This is what i meant by principle and constructive principles can complement each other, or be different sides of the same coin.

/Fredrik