- #1
billllib
- 77
- 2
- TL;DR Summary
- Can someone explain the discovery of this new interpretation of qm to a layman? Can someone also explain the implications?
New interpretation of quantum mechanics
- I
- Thread starter billllib
- Start date
In summary: What the paper shows is that the "spooky action" can happen even when the particles involved are very far apart (ie. L distance or more), and it can happen even when the particles are in different universes.As far as implications go, the paper suggests that this might be a new way to understand some of the weird, seemingly impossible phenomena seen in QM experiments, such as the EPR paradoxes.
- #2
berkeman
Mentor
- 66,960
- 19,737
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.
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.
- #3
billllib
- 77
- 2
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?
How did the author prove this?
Last edited:
- #4
DennisN
Gold Member
2023 Award
- 1,971
- 8,006
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.billllib said:
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 said:
Last edited:
- #5
billllib
- 77
- 2
DennisN said:
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?
- #6
DennisN
Gold Member
2023 Award
- 1,971
- 8,006
Yes. That is the current understanding of entanglement.billllib said:
- #7
billllib
- 77
- 2
How did the guy prove this? You can't exactly measure speed of entanglement.
- #8
DennisN
Gold Member
2023 Award
- 1,971
- 8,006
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.billllib said:
But I've read the Nature article.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.billllib said:
- #9
atyy
Science Advisor
- 15,168
- 3,374
billllib said:
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.
What is the "New interpretation of quantum mechanics"?
The "New interpretation of quantum mechanics" is a proposed alternative to the traditional Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. It suggests that quantum mechanics can be better understood by viewing it as describing the behavior of a single universal wave function rather than the collapse of many individual wave functions.
How does the "New interpretation of quantum mechanics" differ from the traditional Copenhagen interpretation?
The main difference between the two interpretations is the concept of wave function collapse. In the Copenhagen interpretation, the wave function collapses when an observation is made, resulting in a definite measurement. However, in the new interpretation, the wave function never collapses and instead describes the entire system, including the observer.
What evidence supports the "New interpretation of quantum mechanics"?
There is currently no experimental evidence that definitively supports or refutes the new interpretation of quantum mechanics. However, some proponents argue that it provides a more intuitive and simpler explanation for quantum phenomena, such as the double-slit experiment, than the Copenhagen interpretation.
How does the "New interpretation of quantum mechanics" impact our understanding of reality?
The new interpretation of quantum mechanics challenges our traditional understanding of reality by suggesting that the universe is fundamentally described by a single universal wave function rather than individual particles. It also raises questions about the role of consciousness and the observer in the quantum world.
What are the potential implications of the "New interpretation of quantum mechanics"?
If the new interpretation of quantum mechanics is proven to be valid, it could have significant implications for fields such as quantum computing, communication, and technology. It could also lead to a deeper understanding of the nature of reality and our place in the universe.
Similar threads
-
Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
-
Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
-
Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
-
Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
-
Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
-
Quantum Physics