Why do we need wormholes to describe entanglement?

[PhysicsStuff]

I've seen before and especially now that there is growing support for a theory of wormholes to describe entanglement (even though Hawking showed they can't exist?). But, this makes no sense to me, because you don't need worm holes at all. I thought that you could describe entanglement merely as the correlation of probability and position as particles translated, correlation is independent of time and space so particles will be entangled for however long the correlation that they are the same particle can hold true. It is the same exact principal with the change in position of electrons. When an electron gains energy in an atomic orbital, it instantaneously at infinitely faster than light speed changes from one orbital to the next and all without traveling through the intervening space because at the instantaneous moment an electron has enough energy, the only position it can logically have without violating it's own logical properties of existence and having it's own wave-function become in a way cause destructive interference with itself and have it's existence essentially leak out of itself is it if has a specific orbital that is in a higher potential. Now, this does not actually violate relativity because information is not actually traveling between two points, it's still the same electron, and in any case the force carrier particles and associated photons still travel at the speed of light. But anyway, because there is no amount of time an electron in an atomic system can exist in continuous space yet we clearly see electrons existing, the only way an electron doesn't already cause it's own existence to leak out of itself is by instantaneously having the position from the nucleus that would allow the quantized "resonance" frequency of it's oscillation to actually completely indefinite cycles of oscillation without creating destructive interference at the very instantaneous moment it possesses the energy to move to the next energy level. Which, is similar to stating that the electron transitions at infinite speed because it's not actually traveling speed, rather it's probability over space is merely correlating to a different number, and a correlation is independent of time and is "always" true, 1+1=2 is a true statement at technically infinite speed, but that's not an actual way to describe it, 1+1=2 has always been a true statement. Yet, we don't have wormholes to describe electron orbital transitions, so why for entanglement?

 

[cgk]

OP, some papers have been written on this topic. However, unless you would describe an increase from zero to "ten trained physicists in the world truly believe this" as "there is growing support for a theory of wormholes to describe entanglement", I would not be overly worried about this...
People write lots of papers when days are long.

I would recommend you to look less into these kinds of fundamental questions (lots of what you write sounds like buzzword bingo), and more into how quantum theory, or physics in general, is actually applied. It will quickly turn out that many such fundamental issues have no relevance to real-world physics. And that the real world can be much more complicated and much more interesting than speculations about worm holes. Did you know that the nucleation mechanism of NaCl in water was revealed in... 2004? And that's not even quantum theory.

 

[audioloop]

reconciles relativity with quantum mechanics and saves locality.

 

[PhysicsStuff]

reconciles relativity with quantum mechanics and saves locality.

But..it...doesn't need to be reconciled, it's just that we are on the boarder between math and reality.

 

[DrChinese]

Yet, we don't have wormholes to describe electron orbital transitions, so why for entanglement?

You are correct, not needed. As cgk mentioned, this is not a particularly popular view at this time. Perhaps in the future, someone will come up with some useful advantage to the "wormhole" idea.

 

[PhysicsStuff]

Well it's just that someone showed me a yahoo news article about it and usually fringe theories don't become main-stream unless a lot of interest is built up in them. Not even actual legitimate and tested theories get that much interest until years later after being peer reviewed, there's relatively recent articles about bose-einsten condensates and those substances were theorized years and years ago and created years ago.

 

[audioloop]

But..it...doesn't need to be reconciled, it's just that we are on the boarder between math and reality.

yes, frontiers of math to understand the reality.
the last quest in physics, Quantum Gravity or whatever comes.


.

 

[PhysicsStuff]

yes, frontiers of math to understand the reality.
the last quest in physics, Quantum Gravity or whatever comes..

But I don't understand why they don't just reconcile both theories by saying that higg's bosons distort space and thus the more coupling with higg's bosons takes place, the more an object appears to distort space. That was already an argument for why curvature increases as you increase in velocity. All you do as add more Higg's in one spot, you create a stronger and stronger gravitational field, but that would seem to suggest that gravity is in a way quantized which means space-time curvature is quantized which means the relativistic rate at which we measure time and space could be quantized, but that just means less numbers to deal with, like instead of dealing with continuous distances we just measure everything in Plnack lengths or whatever the new smallest final unit of distance is.

 

[audioloop]

is not so easy...------

a very acessible read

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/428328/super-physics-smackdown-relativity-v-quantum-mechanicsin-space/

 

[atyy]

Well it's just that someone showed me a yahoo news article about it and usually fringe theories don't become main-stream unless a lot of interest is built up in them. Not even actual legitimate and tested theories get that much interest until years later after being peer reviewed, there's relatively recent articles about bose-einsten condensates and those substances were theorized years and years ago and created years ago.

We do not need wormholes to describe entanglement. The article title is misleading.

 

[PhysicsStuff]

is not so easy...

But it can be done, I just don't understand why they haven't made that model more official.

 

[audioloop]

But it can be done, I just don't understand why they haven't made that model more official.

¡!

tell me, which model ?
i am intrigued...


.

 

[PhysicsStuff]

¡!

tell me, which model ?
i am intrigued....

I'm no expert, but I think it's called the contemporary Stadard Model, where gravity is caused by quantized Higg's fields. I just don't understand exactly why it's "incomplete" and how the Higg's coupling doesn't account for a distortion of other objects in space if higg's particles themselves have mass.