# Is ER= EPR a Hidden Variable Theory & If NOT Why?

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.

• "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> – dmckee Dec 27 '18 at 18:17
• 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. – Bruce Greetham Dec 28 '18 at 11:00
• @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? – Jake Xuereb Dec 28 '18 at 11:03