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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:00 PM, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Jason Resch <[email protected]>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 [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> 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 [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
