Pseudorandom Entanglement and Special Relativity

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the relationship between quantum entanglement and special relativity, particularly addressing the concept of pseudorandom algorithms as a potential explanation for superluminal speeds observed in entangled particles. Participants emphasize that local hidden variable theories cannot reproduce quantum mechanics predictions, as established by Bell's Theorem (1964) and the EPR paradox (1935). The conversation also touches on the de Sitter effect as evidence for special relativity and the compatibility of quantum field theory with relativistic principles, asserting that no action at a distance occurs in standard relativistic quantum field theory.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum entanglement and its implications.
  • Familiarity with Bell's Theorem (1964) and the EPR paradox (1935).
  • Knowledge of relativistic quantum field theory (QFT).
  • Concept of pseudorandom generators in the context of hidden variable theories.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study Bell's Theorem and its implications for local hidden variable theories.
  • Research the de Sitter effect and its significance in special relativity.
  • Explore the principles of relativistic quantum field theory (QFT) and its applications.
  • Investigate the role of pseudorandom generators in quantum mechanics and their theoretical implications.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, quantum mechanics researchers, and students interested in the intersection of quantum theory and relativity, particularly those exploring the implications of entanglement and superluminal phenomena.

  • #61
greswd said:
Then what is your opinion on this paper http://dinamico2.unibg.it/recami/erasmo%20docs/SomeOld/RevisitingSLTsLNC1982.pdf
I think it has nothing to do with physics. It holds on to assumptions that are not critical for physics and relaxes assumption that is critical. That's my impression.
Bwt I already replied about this paper in post #26.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
zonde said:
I think it has nothing to do with physics. It holds on to assumptions that are not critical for physics and relaxes assumption that is critical. That's my impression.
Bwt I already replied about this paper in post #26.
I know, but you said something different in #26.

zonde said:
Giving up SR symmetries for FTL entities/phenomena is the only extension that is needed for LET i.e. physical laws for superluminal entities have to be different in different reference frames.

Since you think this paper I linked has nothing to do with physics, do you have any other LET extensions in mind?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
826
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K