No need for spooky action at a distance

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Suppaman
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the concept of "spooky action at a distance" in the context of quantum entanglement. Participants explore alternative interpretations of entanglement, questioning whether this phenomenon truly requires a non-local explanation or if it can be understood through other frameworks, such as connections to "the fabric of space." The conversation includes theoretical considerations and personal reflections on the implications of these ideas.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that "spooky action at a distance" may not be necessary if particles are linked to a deeper structure of space, suggesting a form of connectivity that persists regardless of distance.
  • Others argue that the term "spooky action at a distance" accurately describes the phenomenon of quantum entanglement, emphasizing that it is not in accordance with known physics.
  • A participant mentions that while significant progress has been made in understanding entanglement, incontrovertible proof remains elusive.
  • Concerns are raised about the value of seeking confirmation from others who may share potentially incorrect concepts, suggesting a preference for exploring well-supported ideas.
  • Some participants express a desire to find others who have explored similar concepts, indicating a search for insights that could help evaluate their own ideas.
  • References to various interpretations of quantum mechanics and non-locality are made, including the possibility of nonlocal correlations and the implications of reality existing in a configuration space.
  • One participant questions whether the idea of an alternate plane of existence that influences our reality is even more "spooky" than the original concept of entanglement.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the interpretation of quantum entanglement. Multiple competing views remain, with some advocating for a non-spooky explanation and others defending the traditional understanding of entanglement as inherently non-local.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of definitive proof for various claims regarding quantum entanglement and the dependence on interpretations that may not be universally accepted. The discussion reflects a range of assumptions and conceptual frameworks that are not fully resolved.

  • #31
Neandethal00 said:
But has anyone so far tried to connect quantum entanglement with Higgs Boson?
If Higgs field/boson (if it exists) is everywhere, it may have an effect on entanglement.

Funny, quantum entanglement is not obviously everywhere - only SOME particles are entangled in a way which can be observed.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Neandethal00 said:
OP's idea may not be too far-fetched. Thanks for the links, Bohm, but where is Figure 1?

Figure from linked paper is attached below. I took the OP's argument to be similar to this argument/analogy by that author?
John Bell put forward the locality hypothesis based on the entity consisting of two spin-1/2 particles in the singlet spin state introduced by David Bohm as an example of the Einstein Podolsky Rosen situation. Why do most scientists seem to find this locality hypothesis `natural' for this entity? Because they imagine the entity to be an entity consisting of two spin-1/2 particles located in different and widely separated regions of space and flying in opposite directions. And indeed, for two entities located in widely separated regions of space, with no connection between them, the Bell locality hypothesis is a natural hypothesis to be satisfied. But for two entities that actually form a whole, like the water in the two vessels, it is very easy to violate the Bell locality hypothesis, and hence also the Bell inequalities.
A Potentiality and conceptuality interpretation of Quantum mechanics
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1005.3767.pdf
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 112 ·
4
Replies
112
Views
12K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 140 ·
5
Replies
140
Views
13K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
6K