I New interpretation of quantum mechanics

[billllib]

TL;DR Summary

Can someone explain the discovery of this new interpretation of qm to a layman? Can someone also explain the implications?

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00120-6

 

[berkeman]

There is an Advanced (graduate school level) thread here about the paper:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...sics-the-answer-could-be-incalculable.983212/

Does it help at all, or do you want a more basic explanation? Hopefully we can help.

 

[billllib]

I am going to summarize the link. I may be completely off base but quantum entanglement can be L distance apart or infinite distance apart but the process happens at the exact same time. Is this correct? If not explain can you explain where I went wrong? What about wormholes to explain quantum entanglement?

How did the author prove this?

 

[DennisN]

but the process happens at the exact same time. Is this correct?

If you ask if it is established that the measurement of one part of an entangled system causes the other part to instantly acquire a state, then no, that is not an established fact. What is established is that distant measurements of entangled systems show a particular strong correlation.

What about wormholes to explain quantum entanglement?

That is one quite recent proposal in theoretical physics, you can search for "ER=EPR" on this forum or on Google. This is definitely not an established fact nor experimentally verified, but it is being discussed and thought about in some theoretical physics groups. ("ER" means "Einstein-Rosen bridge", "EPR" refers to "the Einstein, Rosen, Podolsky paper on entanglement")

 

[billllib]

What is established is that distant measurements of entangled systems show a particular strong correlation.

I apologize if this a stupid question.
I am a little confused by the above line. I can take a stab at it. Qm entanglement is probabilistic but the process is the same no matter how far even if infinite distance? Is this correct?

 

[DennisN]

Qm entanglement is probabilistic but the process is the same no matter how far even if infinite distance? Is this correct?

Yes. That is the current understanding of entanglement.

 

[billllib]

How did the guy prove this? You can't exactly measure speed of entanglement.

 

[DennisN]

How did the guy prove this?

I can't speak very much about the paper itself, I've just heard about it, and the paper is regrettably far beyond my own knowledge and expertise. But I've read the Nature article.

You can't exactly measure entanglement.

Maybe not exactly, but good enough to experimentally verify that various quantum systems can be entangled. There have been many, many experiments that demonstrate entanglement during the years.

 

[atyy]

Summary:: Can someone explain the discovery of this new interpretation of qm to a layman? Can someone also explain the implications?

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00120-6

It is not a new interpretation of QM.

Already by old methods, there are simple ways (eg. Bell's theorem) to describe ways in which QM has "spooky action at a distance" in ways that classical relativistic theories do not.

The new paper is a technical mathematical result (whose correctness remains to be verified by other experts) using the standard interpretation of QM, which says that not all "spooky actions at a distance" can be described as being "built" from certain sorts of "simpler" elements.