2
$\begingroup$

John Bell showed that entanglement cannot be a local hidden variable theory in 1964. Leonard Susskind and Juan Malcadena have proposed that non-traversable wormholes, Einstein-Rosen bridges (ER) are the same thing as entanglement between Black holes and hence (EPR).

Isn't the Wormhole a hidden variable approach to explaining the entanglement? Or is its non-transversable nature the benefactor of its character as not a hidden variable.

Additionally, given that extending their conjecture one would be led to emergent space time out of entanglement, in regions where there is a lot of curvature (Gravity) and so a lot of entanglement, is what is important that there is a lot of entanglement going on ie: allowing for entangled pairs to de-entangle and entangle with other particles etc or is it a lot consistently monogamous entanglement? I imagine it is the former given the latter is intensely difficult to sustain in such regions of high curvature.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
3
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ "John Bell showed that entanglement cannot be a local hidden variable theory in 1964." No, he didn't. He showed that there existed experiments which could determine the matter. The demonstration of which class the universe fell into took decades. </pet peeve> $\endgroup$
    – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten
    Commented Dec 27, 2018 at 18:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It seems to me the answer depends whether ER=EPR is attempting to explain the intrinsic indeterminism of quantum mechanics. What the theory is attempting to do is incorporate gravity into quantum mechanics. If having done that you just end up with another quantum theory then all the interpretational questions will remain. Of itself though it will not be a hidden variable theory. $\endgroup$
    – isometry
    Commented Dec 28, 2018 at 11:00
  • $\begingroup$ @BruceGreetham sure, but if wormholes are shown to be the mechanism behind entanglement in some sense, or really entanglement itself. Then entanglement will have been shown to be a non-local hidden variable theory, no? $\endgroup$
    – Jake Xuereb
    Commented Dec 28, 2018 at 11:03

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1
$\begingroup$

I am only an amateur in this field but to answer your first question: If ER=EPR truly does imply that entanglement can, on a fundamental level, be mechanistically explained by wormholes in spacetime (and aren't merely just dual descriptions of one another in the context of AdS/CFT) then yes, this would technically be a hidden variable approach. However, and this is important, it would be a NON-LOCAL hidden variable theory. Only local hidden variable theories are ruled out by the bell inequalities, so ER=EPR is safe from this particular line of reasoning.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for this refinement. Would you attribute this non-local nature to the non-traversable nature of wormholes? $\endgroup$
    – Jake Xuereb
    Commented Dec 27, 2018 at 15:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I believe the non-locality merely stems from the fact that the two points in spacetime are effectively superluminally connected. Even though, as you said, the wormhole is strictly non-traversable (which means you can't enter one end and come out the other), there is nothing stopping Alice and Bob from jumping into each of their respective entangled black holes and meeting up in the middle. Despite them never being able to get out again, this tehcnically is a superluminal exchange of information that is only possible with some characteristic of non-locality. $\endgroup$
    – Scott
    Commented Dec 28, 2018 at 10:22

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.