How Does Quantum Gravity Influence Our Understanding of Quantum Mechanics?

[A. Neumaier]

It is not black and white

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.02589.pdf
"Quantum gravity may have as much to tell us about the foundations and interpretation of quantum mechanics as it does about gravity. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and Everett’s Relative State Formulation are complementary descriptions which in a sense are dual to one another. My purpose here is to discuss this duality in the light of the of ER=EPR conjecture."

See Peter Shor's comments here and here and Urs Schreiber's comments here.

 

[PAllen]

The Urs Schreiber link does not work for me.

 

[atyy]

There seem to have been advances in understanding how ER = EPR could resolve the firewall paradox:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.02055https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.08255

 

[Haelfix]

See Peter Shor's comments here and here and Urs Schreiber's comments here.

I very much doubt ER=EPR has anything to do with the foundations of QM, despite some papers that speculate along those lines. At least that link is not obvious. I also don’t think Peter Shors (who is a very good physicist) comments are particularly illuminating.

ER=EPR started out as an observation that two sided black holes in ADS space evade AMPS argument and produce a unitary system without a firewall. This much is not contested. The weak part of the conjecture then goes on to posit that maybe nature always makes something that looks like two sided black hole systems. Explicit examples are provided (black hole pair creation in magnetic fields). Again, this ties into Ryu-Takayanagi and the entanglement program in a very interesting way.

The strong form of the conjecture is a little more crazy, which posits that all entanglement is related to the connectivity of space time in a as yet to be properly formulated way.

In any event, the weak form is not manifestly wrong, evidence is given and the consequences are worthy of research. It also does lead to some interesting features (state dependance) and ties in with other research (tensor networks, SyK models, etc).

 

[ftr]

See Peter Shor's comments here and here and Urs Schreiber's comments here.

Thanks Neumaier for highlighting the subject. I intended to do the same but I have not gotten the chance. I can't elaborate too much but I got interested in the subject because the idea I showed before(which leans toward TI) when generalized seemed to imply the ER=ERP conjecture. Moreover, for a long time there has been a conjecture that particles can be thought of as black holes which sort of convinced me more by the possibility. Of course the strong resistance from your links is understandable, but thank you for them.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9202014.pdf

 

[ftr]

EriK Verlinde even takes the idea much further, expanding on his original idea about gravity which is based on "action at distance"

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.02269.pdf

 

[A. Neumaier]

for a long time there has been a conjecture that particles can be thought of as black holes

There is a big difference between a conjecture and a theory that would turn the conjecture into a truth.

the strong resistance from your links is understandable

The comments by Urs Schreiber linked to are neutral.