Is there a name for this type of interpretation?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Gary_T2018
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Interpretation Type
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the interpretation of quantum communication and the concept of superdeterminism. Participants explore the hypothesis that observers in quantum experiments may be automatons, leading to predestined outcomes. This interpretation raises questions about the feasibility of communication through quantum entanglement. Superdeterminism is identified as a relevant interpretation, although it does not specifically address the limitations of entanglement for communication.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum entanglement
  • Familiarity with the concept of superdeterminism
  • Basic knowledge of quantum communication principles
  • Awareness of philosophical implications in quantum mechanics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of superdeterminism in quantum mechanics
  • Explore the limitations of quantum entanglement for communication
  • Study the philosophical interpretations of quantum mechanics
  • Investigate alternative theories of quantum communication
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, philosophers of science, and anyone interested in the foundational questions of quantum mechanics and the nature of communication in quantum systems.

Gary_T2018
Messages
28
Reaction score
2
One hypothesis (may be a mainstream interpretation now, I didn't follow this subject very closely) about why "quantum communication" isn't possible using quantum entanglement is that we as observers, the physicists who conduct such experiments are automatons, and that at which instant would he observe such and such result was predestined.

Legitimate or not, is there a name for this sort of interpretation? A funky name like "Boltzmann brain" would be nice.

Sorry if this fits better in the off-topic section.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
By that argument, it would be impossible to conduct any communication, even a classical one.

There is an interpretation called superdeterminism (see e.g. http://de.arxiv.org/abs/2010.01324 ) in which everything is predestined in a certain sense, but that interpretation is not used to explain why entanglement can't be used for communication.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
6K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K