Insights Quantum Entanglement is a Kinematic Fact, not a Dynamical Effect

[Greg Bernhardt]

TL;DR Summary

In the 1990s “second quantum revolution,” physicists began treating quantum mechanics as a principle theory, much like Einstein reframed relativity. Building on Rovelli’s challenge, information theorists such as Hardy showed that quantum features like superposition and entanglement follow necessarily from the observer-independence of Planck’s constant...

Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles.

Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated...

Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insig...t-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/

by @RUTA

 

[Hornbein]

Well I'll be danged. One wonders why this result is so little known.

I'm too cheap to buy the book, which I wouldn't understand anyway.

 

[elias001]

@Greg Bernhardt Wait, my naive understanding is that if there are two locations say A and B with some distance $x$ apart. If we have a particle at location A and another one at location B, then the two particles can be entangled. I assume there needs to be some sort of scientific equipments located at both locations A, B.

So what happens if I just have location A, and I have a particle name Bob, and I want to entangled some other particle at another location of whatever distance $y$ from A. Say we know at distance $y$ from A, there is some sort of stellar body. But but we can't exactly reach it in a human life span, even if we have faster than light travel. That means we can't drag scientific equipment $y$ distance from location A.

However, from popular media, for quantum radars, dragging any scientific equipment $y$ distance from location A is not necessary.

 

[dextercioby]

@Greg Bernhardt Wait, my naive understanding is that if there are two locations say A and B with some distance $x$ apart. If we have a particle [...]

Were you trying a comment on the article or a ask the author a question? Then quote @RUTA (the author), not Greg (admin & site owner), who only made it possible that the text written in the site's "Insights" section be quoted/advertised here in the discussion board.

 

[elias001]

@dextercioby I am asking or am talking to @Greg Bernhardt in my reply. I asked as a lay person. My impression is Greg Bernhardt is an all around pretty knowledgeable chap.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

@dextercioby I am asking or am talking to @Greg Bernhardt in my reply. I asked as a lay person. My impression is Greg Bernhardt is an all around pretty knowledgeable chap.

Not in physics, ironically

 

[PeterDonis]

I am asking or am talking to @Greg Bernhardt in my reply.

You might not understand that @Greg Bernhardt did not write the Insights article that is referenced, and is not the right person to ask questions about it. The right person is the person who did write it, i.e,. @RUTA.

 

[RUTA]

Well I'll be danged. One wonders why this result is so little known.

I'm too cheap to buy the book, which I wouldn't understand anyway.

It's a relatively new twist on the quantum reconstruction program. The book is the culmination of about 4 years of development (papers, blogs, and conference presentations) and it was published just last year.

I made a 5-part YouTube video series totally less than an hour if you want an overview. Here is episode 1: