Jump to content

Entanglement is an inevitable feature of reality


Strange
 Share

Recommended Posts

According to this article: https://phys.org/news/2017-09-entanglement-inevitable-feature-reality.html

Quote

"My future goals would be to see if Bell non-locality can likewise be derived from the existence of a classical limit," Richens said. "It would be interesting if all theories superseding classical theory must violate local realism. ..."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Strange said:

A simpler explanation of Bell's theorem: http://drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm

Yep a lot easier to read

BUT the last paragraph I wasn't too sure about

"Please note that there is a way out of this seemingly impossible scenario, but the loophole may be difficult to swallow: if Einstein's Relativity is wrong, and the speed of light is NOT a limit for propagation of cause and effect (which is called "signal locality"), then that would give us a way out of the situation. Theoretically, there could exist non-local hidden variables (Bohm outlined such a theory, for example). But regardless, the net effect of Bell's Theorem is profound. Reality is somehow dependent upon how we observe it.
"

Can anyone explain how Einstein being wrong gets out of the seemingly impossible scenario?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Handy andy said:

Yep a lot easier to read

BUT the last paragraph I wasn't too sure about

"Please note that there is a way out of this seemingly impossible scenario, but the loophole may be difficult to swallow: if Einstein's Relativity is wrong, and the speed of light is NOT a limit for propagation of cause and effect (which is called "signal locality"), then that would give us a way out of the situation. Theoretically, there could exist non-local hidden variables (Bohm outlined such a theory, for example). But regardless, the net effect of Bell's Theorem is profound. Reality is somehow dependent upon how we observe it.
"

Can anyone explain how Einstein being wrong gets out of the seemingly impossible scenario?

If c isn't the limit on information transfer, then faster (possibly instantaneous) communication isn't a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.