Pseudorandom Entanglement and Special Relativity

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between quantum entanglement and special relativity, particularly focusing on the implications of superluminal speeds observed in entangled particles. Participants explore various hypotheses regarding the nature of entanglement, local hidden variables, and the compatibility of quantum mechanics with relativistic principles.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that entangled particles might not be truly entangled but could appear to be "in-sync" due to a pseudorandom algorithm affecting their spin.
  • Others argue against local hidden variable theories, citing Bell's Theorem, which suggests that no local hidden variable theory can reproduce all predictions of quantum mechanics.
  • A participant questions whether experiments on entangled particles involved pseudorandom generators, seeking clarification on the implications of Bell's Theorem in this context.
  • There is a discussion about the de Sitter effect as evidence for special relativity, with some participants expressing confusion about its relevance to quantum entanglement.
  • Some participants suggest that standard relativistic local quantum field theory can resolve issues related to entanglement without invoking action at a distance.
  • There is mention of the Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity and its potential compatibility with superluminal phenomena.
  • Participants express uncertainty about the implications of superluminal signals in the context of entanglement and the fundamental principles of relativity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit disagreement regarding the interpretation of quantum entanglement, the validity of local hidden variable theories, and the implications of the de Sitter effect. No consensus is reached on these topics, and multiple competing views remain present throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Some claims rely on specific interpretations of quantum mechanics and relativity, and there are unresolved questions regarding the definitions and implications of pseudorandom generators and local hidden variables. The discussion also touches on the relationship between experimental evidence and theoretical frameworks, with participants expressing differing views on the nature of proof in scientific inquiry.

  • #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
990
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K