Guys,(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

I have been watching \ reading some introductory courses in QM for fun, and there's a thing I'd like to discuss. As you might expect, I was displeased by the seeming non-intuitiveness of QM and its interpretations, but one thing appeared to be more intuitive than people imagine. If you look at an entangled pair of, say, spin orientations, there is a way to think of it that doesn't require the "spooky action at a distance": you could think that choice was made at the moment the pair interacted originally, like if you have a black box with two balls, one of the white, and the other one is black, and the tow of you pick out a ball without looking, walk away and then look into your hands, whenever one of you has the white ball in his hand, the other one must always have the black one. This idea was expressed by Susskind in his online lectures, but he said it was a simplification, because Bell's inequalities show that the state can't be fixed until measured. Particularly, Susskind said that you can't simulate this behavior correctly with a usual computer, if you move the simulation of one of the spins to another computer after the original interaction, without having the other computer notify the first one at the time of the "measurement". But, the funny thing is that you can. In computer programming, there is really no uncertainty - it is emulated by a random-number generator. A random-number generator is a sequence of numbers, where each next element of the sequence fully depends on the previous one, making the sequence nearly impossible to extrapolate, therefore the sequence appears to be just a set of random numbers, while in fact being completely deterministic. Any randomness in a computer is emulated by picking the next number in the sequence, and projecting it onto the domain of whatever requires a random input. So, in a computer, it is possible to synchronize two random-number generators, if the algorithms of the generators are the same, the base seed is the same, and the number of iterations is the same, the two quazi-random numbers will match even on disconnected systems, so in fact it is not necessary to notify the other computer at the time of the measurement. Could the same idea apply to the real life? As far as I understand, everybody thinks of uncertainty as of a local process, so that the two measurements are independently uncertain, while they could be jointly uncertain. Basically, the the states of the two spins may be indeed undefined until the measurement takes place, but the measurement reflects not the local uncertainty of the state of the spin, but the global uncertainty of the evolution of the universe. Basically what I mean sounds like the many-worlds interpretation, but without the other worlds existing objectively, just being opportunities that never materialized. This naturally raises the question of how frequently the world branches, as a random-number generator is a sequence, not a smooth function; were it a smooth function, there should have been more determinism at the smaller scale. It could be a fractal though. Or the time could be discreet.

So the questions are: (1) does this idea make any sense at all? (2) is there something that rules this idea out immediately, (3) are there any articles which would develop similar ideas?

Thanks!

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Non-local uncertainty - does it make sense?

Loading...

Similar Threads - local uncertainty does | Date |
---|---|

I Making sure about the spreads in the Uncertainty Principle | Mar 3, 2018 |

I EM Radiation of "Permanent" Molecular Electric Dipoles | Feb 10, 2018 |

I Gauge Symmetry | Jan 13, 2018 |

B Preserving local realism in the EPR experiment | Dec 26, 2017 |

A What are local and non-local operators in QM? | Nov 29, 2017 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**