-2

Nobel prize 2022, a local theories of hidden variables are ruled out, Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" seems to be a reality.

Is there ANY explanations of this behavior of quantum objects in other theories? Maybe in string theories or LQG?

I know "shut up and calculate" and MWI explanations, but maybe... something else?

In suggested "answered" qustion I see the idea that entangled pair is a single "object". OK, but how one "end" is synchronized with other "ignoring" any distance? Maybe in other dimensions/universe/level of reality they're linked in some way, but how and what is "projected" on our spacetime, so it looks like superluminal interaction? I think (maybe that's stupid, OK) that all matter, energy and spacetime are "made" of something more fundamental and voila - no spacetime at this level of reality, so SR is unapplicable here. But I can't find something serious about a concept like this :(((

ZZ Wave
  • 55
  • 1
    You're also familiar with Bohmian Mechanics, right? It has an explicit nonlocal mechanism. Most interpretations don't really describe a mechanism producing "quantum nonlocality" other than to say they provide the same experimental predictions as base QM. – DrChinese May 17 '23 at 21:22
  • 2
    String theory does not solve the interpretations of quantum mechanics issue – Mauricio May 17 '23 at 22:01
  • 2
    "action at a distance" (whether spooky or not) is a rather misleading way to describe the observations. But there is no short simple phrase that does a good job. – Andrew Steane May 17 '23 at 22:10
  • @Quillo I see there the idea that entangled pair is a single "object". OK, but how one "end" is synchronized with other "ignoring" any distance? Maybe in other dimensions/universe/level of reality they're linked in some way, but how and what is "projected" on our spacetime, so it looks like superluminal interaction? I think that all matter, energy and spacetime are "made" of something more fundamental and voila - no spacetime at this level of reality, so SR is unapplicable here. But I can't find something serious about a concept like this – ZZ Wave May 17 '23 at 22:52
  • 1
    There is no such mechanism because there is no such effect. It's simply hard for a human being to imagine this kind of correlation because "objects" don't behave this way. With quantum mechanics not being about objects in the first place, however, but about energy flow, it's not all that hard to get used to it. – FlatterMann May 17 '23 at 23:08
  • Don’t some physicists (e.g., Susskind) think wormholes are the mechanism? – Ghoster May 17 '23 at 23:16
  • @Ghoster Susskind is a very smart guy and you can learn a lot from him if you listen to some of his older lectures, but he did say a few things where you just have to think that age is taking a toll, after all. – FlatterMann May 17 '23 at 23:18
  • @FlatterMann I don’t notice any cognitive impairment, so I don’t believe he has any. And it is rude of you to suggest that he does simply because you don’t agree with his ideas. I don’t suggest that you are cognitively impaired just because I disagree with your pronouncements. – Ghoster May 17 '23 at 23:20
  • @ZZWave The "other end" is not synchronized. You are getting a stream of completely random results at either end of these entanglement measurements. They are simply correlated. But then... so are left and right shoes if you randomize pairs and send one of each pair far away. Do separated pairs of shoes communicate FTL just because you look at one of them? – FlatterMann May 17 '23 at 23:20
  • @Ghoster The cognitive impairment part is entirely in your imagination, just like wormholes are entirely in the imagination of old relativists like Susskind. There is not a single shred of evidence for their existence and even the theory has confirmed over and over, again, that the two ends of a hypothetical wormhole can't actually communicate. – FlatterMann May 17 '23 at 23:24
  • @FlatterMann Ageist slurs are rude. – Ghoster May 17 '23 at 23:24
  • @Ghoster I am an old man, I am afraid. I already know what age does to a person. I wish that it won't do that to you, but we both know that it will. That's why they say "the best die young", because the old are never among the best. The mathematicians are even putting an age limit on their equivalent of the Nobel... – FlatterMann May 17 '23 at 23:27

2 Answers2

4

There is no known "underlying" explanation of what is happening that causes entanglement. All we really know is that the math suggests it, and that it is measured in experiment. The rest is basically a mystery. No theory more fundamental than quantum mechanics offers any different explanation.

All bets are off for the future though. Maybe a deeper theory will eventually offer some explanation. Or maybe it will be just as unintuitive and far-removed from our everyday experience.

doublefelix
  • 6,872
  • 1
  • 23
  • 52
2

The mechanism is that if $V$ and $W$ are vector spaces of dimension greater than 1, then then not every element of $V\otimes W$ is of the form $v\otimes w$. Once you've bought into the basic structure of quantum mechanics, this compels you to believe that there are entangled states. To ask for anything beyond that is like asking for the "mechanism" behind the fact that if you combine a pile of five stones with a pile of three stones, you'll have a pile of eight stones. The answer is that the math compels it, and that's enough.

WillO
  • 15,072
  • That's "shut up and calculate" explanation. Don't touch it, don't think about it ever or you can go crazy... That's so boring. I want to find ANY possible physics behind this math. Bohmian, emsemble and transactional interpretations are wonderful, but for some reason they all are so unaccepted by mainstream physics, that I think there's something really wrong with these interpretations :( – ZZ Wave May 17 '23 at 22:29
  • @ZZWave --- That leaves me puzzled about what sort of explanation you're looking for. Maybe this would clarify --- if someone asked you what is the mechanism behind the fact that combining five stones with three stones, you always get eight stones, what answer would you give? – WillO May 17 '23 at 22:59
  • I've edited the initial question, maybe that's explain what I'm trying to find – ZZ Wave May 17 '23 at 23:03
  • @ZZWave It's not shut up and calculate, at all. You simply have to think a little harder about what it is that you are really observing here. What you are not observing, for sure, is the behavior of objects. Quanta are not objects but irreversible energy transfers. Secondly you have to understand that "the effect" doesn't happen at the level of single quantum measurements. It happens at the level of the quantum mechanical ensemble. The average outcome of a dice throw, for instance, is 3.5, even though dice don't have a side that shows 3.5. Are you in any way upset about that? Is that SUAC? – FlatterMann May 17 '23 at 23:15
  • @FlatterMann Oh yes, love that dice analogy. Dice probabilities are ruled by everyday physics, classic mechanics and a gravity. Mechanics are explained by QED, gravity is somewhat explained by GR. These's no any magic! On the other side, Copenhagen interpretation looks like some kind of religion, you MUST believe in these wonders blindly and don't ask any questions "why". That's somewhat frustrating. I'll read more about your "reversible energy transfers", thanks so much! – ZZ Wave May 17 '23 at 23:26
  • @ZZWave Copenhagen simply admits that nobody can give us a formula for when the next photon will cause a signal in one of our photomultiplier tubes. It can only give ensemble averages. The major "problem" with Copenhagen is that nobody actually explains it to you. You are being given von Neumann's solution theory of the Schroedinger equation without any actual physical context. Of course it looks like magic, especially since most teachers use the wrong language in addition. They talk about particles, even though particles don't exist, use "measurement" in a non-physical way etc.. – FlatterMann May 17 '23 at 23:33
  • @FlatterMann but isn't a "measurement" merely any interaction with the environment? Again, there's no magic as we keep asking uncomfortable questions on nature of things – ZZ Wave May 17 '23 at 23:40
  • @ZZWave A physical measurement is by definition an irreversible energy transfer. Why? Because we demand that there is an eternal record of the outcome and because the measurement system has an equivalent thermodynamic temperate >0 (third law). If we want to discriminate reliably between a quantum and thermal noise, the energy E of the detected quantum has to be >kT. Where did I learn this? Second year undergrad physics. It was hidden in a 15 minute lesson about thermal noise. Nobody pays attention to this "triviality" it seems. Trivial... except that it opens up QM for you ontologically. – FlatterMann May 17 '23 at 23:45
  • @FlatterMann that's wonderful, thanks you again – ZZ Wave May 17 '23 at 23:51
  • @ZZWave That's "shut up and calculate" explanation. Don't touch it, don't think about it ever or you can go crazy... That's so boring. I’m confused because after writing this you later accepted the answer. Did the answer change your initial opinion? – Ghoster May 18 '23 at 00:14
  • @Ghoster to put it succintly, yes. Yes, kinda weird that "the bottom of reality" is ultimately just math objects, just a numbers, and no physics behind it, but seems I should accept this until we'll discover something really new on accelerators or space observations. I'm open to anything new, I'm open to "truth", no matter how weird is this truth. – ZZ Wave May 26 '23 at 20:20