Even if this connection between entanglement and wormholes holds up, I
don't think it automatically means quantum physics is nonlocal and we must
discard the many-worlds claim to preserve locality. Keep in mind that in
general relativity nothing can actually pass from one end of an
Einstein-Rosen bridge to the other, everything that falls in is annihilated
in the central singularity, though things falling in from either side can
meet in the interior region before they hit the singularity (to get a
"traversable" wormhole that actually can be crossed, you need exotic matter
to hold it open). But apparently the authors of the paper you cite are
suggesting a connection between entanglement and the idea known as "black
hole complementarity" which says that two seemingly contradictory claims
about what happens to information falling into the black hole (one which
says that anything approaching the horizon is destroyed by intense heat and
converted to thermal radiation, and another which says it passes smoothly
into the interior region) can both be correct from the perspectives of
different observers inside and outside the horizon who can never
communicate (see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_complementarity). There's a
discussion of the connection at
http://quantumfrontiers.com/2013/06/07/entanglement-wormholes/ which I
don't understand very well, but it does say both "That wormholes are not
traversable is important for the consistency of ER = EPR: just as Alice
cannot use their shared entanglement to send a message to Bob
instantaneously, so she is unable to send Bob a message through their
shared wormhole" and also "The ER = EPR conjecture seems to allow us to
view the early radiation with which the black hole is entangled as a
complementary description of the black hole interior."

Jesse


On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Richard Ruquist <yann...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:00 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>  >> That means you think things are realistic, and that means  I know
>>>>> for a fact your thinking is wrong, not crazy but wrong. We know from
>>>>> experiment that Bell's inequality is violated, and that means that 
>>>>> locality
>>>>> or realism or both MUST be wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > Or measurements are multi-valued.  MWI has both locality and realism.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If the many World's Theory was local AND realistic we'd know with
>>> certainty that it's wrong because any theory that is consistent with
>>> experimental results can NOT be both.
>>>
>>
>> There are at least two possible answers to the bell inequalities:
>> 1. Nonlocal influences
>> 2. Mutliple outcomes for each measurement
>>
>
> It appears that string theory (quantum gravity) is chosing 1. The claim of
> Maldacens and Susskind is that EPR
> happens because of tunneling or Einstein Rosen ER bridges resulting in the
> (bumper sticker or T shirt) ER=EPR.
> Ref: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.0533v2.pdf
>
>>
>> If you choose 2, then you don't need 1. You can have multiple outcomes
>> for a measurement and realism. You just can't have only one definite real
>> value, without FTL influences.
>>
>>
>>>  But MWI could be true because although it is realistic it is not local.
>>>
>>
>> It is local, all QM effects under MW propagate at c or slower.  See the
>> "many worlds FAQ" or the wikipedia table comparing various interpretations.
>>
>>
>>> A entire parallel universe as big as our own that you can never go to or
>>> even see is about as far from being local as you can get.
>>>
>>
>> Locality has a specific definition in physics, that things are only
>> affected by other things (fields or particles) in direct proximity to each
>> other. It says nothing about the existence of places we can or can't go to.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
>>>
>>>   John K Clark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>
>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to