3 ms·
OK, this might be a stupid/ignorant question, but what do they mean by "[it seems very unlikely to be true that] if a quantum wavefunction were purely a statist
by bglusman 15y ago
OK, this might be a stupid/ignorant question, but what do they mean by "[it seems very unlikely to be true that] if a quantum wavefunction were purely a statistical tool, then even quantum states that are unconnected across space and time would be able to communicate with each other."? Why is this less likely than the alternative?
It reminded me of the single electron universe hypothesis by Wheeler(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe) and wonder if anyone can speak to whether this changes perception on seriousness/testability of that idea.
- wazoox 15y agoCaveat, ignorant answer coming: what I understand is as follows: we know that entangled quantum states can "communicate" through space-time (what Einstein called "spooky action at distance"). The paper therefore proves that either unconnected (not entangled) quantum states can communicate, or the wave function is real. They proceed to conclude that the first member of the alternative is less likely (justifiably I suppose).
- lisper 15y ago> Why is this less likely than the alternative? Because the alternative is quantum mechanics. If unconnected states can communicate, QM is wrong. QM is extremely unlikely to be wrong.