- #1
billllib
- 76
- 2
- TL;DR
- 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
- Context: Undergrad
- Thread starter billllib
- Start date
Click For Summary
Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around a new interpretation of quantum mechanics, particularly focusing on quantum entanglement and its implications. Participants explore the nature of entanglement, its probabilistic characteristics, and the potential connections to concepts like wormholes. The conversation includes references to existing literature and seeks to clarify complex ideas for varying levels of understanding.
Discussion Character
- Exploratory
- Technical explanation
- Conceptual clarification
- Debate/contested
Main Points Raised
- Some participants summarize that quantum entanglement can occur over any distance, potentially even infinite distances, and question whether this process happens simultaneously.
- It is noted that while distant measurements of entangled systems show strong correlations, it is not established that one measurement instantaneously affects another.
- Participants mention the theoretical proposal of using wormholes to explain quantum entanglement, specifically referencing "ER=EPR," but clarify that this is not an established fact.
- There is a discussion about the probabilistic nature of quantum entanglement and whether the process remains the same regardless of distance.
- Some express confusion about the verification of entanglement, noting the challenges in measuring the "speed" of entanglement and the existence of many experiments that demonstrate entanglement.
- A participant asserts that the new paper is not a new interpretation of quantum mechanics but rather a technical mathematical result that requires further verification.
- Concerns are raised about the implications of the new interpretation and its relation to established theories like Bell's theorem.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express varying levels of understanding and interpretation of quantum entanglement, with some agreeing on the probabilistic nature of entanglement while others question the implications of the new interpretation. There is no consensus on the new paper's significance or correctness.
Contextual Notes
Participants acknowledge limitations in their understanding of the paper and the complexity of the concepts discussed. The discussion reflects a range of expertise, with some participants seeking simpler explanations while others engage with advanced theoretical ideas.
- #2
berkeman
Admin
- 69,479
- 25,001
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
- 76
- 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
- 2,181
- 10,014
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
- 76
- 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
- 2,181
- 10,014
Yes. That is the current understanding of entanglement.billllib said:
- #7
billllib
- 76
- 2
How did the guy prove this? You can't exactly measure speed of entanglement.
- #8
DennisN
Gold Member
- 2,181
- 10,014
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
- 15,170
- 3,378
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.