What is the truth behind quantum entanglement?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Rodrigo Cesar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Entanglement
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the complexities of quantum entanglement, emphasizing that it represents a unique correlation distinct from classical probability theory, as outlined in Bell's Theorem. Participants clarify that while entanglement challenges intuitive notions of distance and locality, claims such as "distance is an illusion" lack scientific grounding. The conversation highlights the importance of rigorous understanding and skepticism towards popular interpretations of quantum mechanics, advocating for a deeper exploration of quantum foundations and their implications in physics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles
  • Familiarity with Bell's Theorem and its implications
  • Knowledge of quantum entanglement and its experimental verification
  • Basic concepts of quantum field theory (QFT)
NEXT STEPS
  • Study Bell's Theorem and its significance in quantum mechanics
  • Explore quantum entanglement experiments and their interpretations
  • Investigate the relationship between quantum mechanics and general relativity
  • Learn about quantum foundations and their philosophical implications
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of quantum mechanics, and anyone interested in the philosophical implications of quantum theories and entanglement.

  • #61
TrickyDicky said:
Your text is from Zurek.

Errrrr. I don't know what to say.

Do you actually read references?

It isn't of course - but that you would confidently say it is, is to say the least, rather a concern.

I think I will take my leave of this thread - there is really no more to say anyway.

Thanks
Bill
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
bhobba said:
Errrrr. I don't know what to say.

Do you actually read references?

It isn't of course - but that you would confidently say it is, is to say the least, rather a concern.
Don't worry. I know the book is not authored by Zurek, I was referring to the text pages you highlighted, they refer to the concept of einselection, that comes from Zurek.
Nevermind, it is obvious you don't want to discuss physics.
 
  • #63
bhobba said:
It's as I said - position eigenstates. Why didn't you note the key word I said before eigenstate?

The problem is you have got the cart before the horse. /QUOTE]
The problem is that you are somewhat pedantic.
I read and met Ballentine about 25 years ago. I subscribe to his approach to quantum mechanics.
Yet, you can axiomatize QM all you want, it is not the same as understanding it.
And, imo a no-brainer, a wave function requires a wave equation.
Get out of that box.
 
  • #64
It's time to end this thread. Now.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba and vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
6K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
9K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
8K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K