I Question about an entanglement paper

[kurt101]

Interpretations are simply assumed for convenience, aesthetics, philosophical, or personal reasons. I am not really interested in interpretations.

I am interested in interpretations because I want to see what the machinery of the universe looks like. I think it is important to discuss interpretations that show promise to advance our understanding. My motivation for my question in this thread was to understand if there was a real challenge to the non-local causal interpretation. I think the challenge that PeterDonis brought up about field operators in QFT having to commute is a good challenge to this and something I plan to learn more about.
[Edit: that is field operators of space like separated events commute]

 

[Dale]

I am interested in interpretations because I want to see what the machinery of the universe looks like.

That sounds completely counter productive. If you want to see what the machinery looks like then study the math. The interpretations are just bedtime stories that we tell each other.

 

[DarMM]

Can you explain why non-local interaction means relativity is wrong?

Checked my emails and saw this. Just to say I've left the forums so I won't be replying beyond this, but it felt wrong to leave you hanging. I didn't go into much detail as this is a Relativity forum, so wasn't sure how much detail on QM to give.

Wood and Spekkens in a 2013 paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/1208.4119) showed that nonlocal interactions have to be fine-tuned to replicate QM. This fine tuning (unless you believe in preposterously specific conditions in the early universe) has to come about via thermalisation in the early universe. Out of this equilibrium state you'd have observable violations of Relativity.

So if the nonlocal interpretations are right there are regimes where Relativity is violated. This is nothing to do with commutation at spacelike intervals.