Realism vs Locality in Quantum Entanglement

[ddd123]

You can have nonlocal hidden variables in Bohmian mechanics. So "existing in a superposition" is one way to interpret the result, the most common, but it's far from being the only one, there are lots.

 

[Markus Hanke]

You can have nonlocal hidden variables in Bohmian mechanics. So "existing in a superposition" is one way to interpret the result, the most common, but it's far from being the only one, there are lots.

Ok, noted

 

[ebos]

Just because something can't be perceived by our senses and our machines (yet) doesn't mean it is not real.

 

[DrChinese]

Just because something can't be perceived by our senses and our machines (yet) doesn't mean it is not real.

The issues about quantum realism have little or nothing to do with senses or machines. It has to do with classical ideas about the physical world, which we already know are inaccurate and a poor description of it. The quantum view is more accurate and more useful.

 

[Neandethal00]

@Markus Hanke

I have read most of the Link you posted. I have heard/read the following sentence so many times

"a particle doesn't have a certain property (the particle is not IN one state or another) until that property is measured."

Many say this is the conclusion/interpretation of QM.

Will it be totally wrong if we rephrase the sentence as

"Nothing exists until it interacts with other(s)".

Another way of stating this words is

"To a particle nothing exists until it interacts with another particle(s)".

It changes its properties due to interaction.

Interaction(s) of an object is the proof of its existence. I think double slit experiment
can also be explained following this logic.

 

[Neandethal00]

@Markus Hanke

I have read most of the Link you posted. I have heard/read the following sentence so many times

"a particle doesn't have a certain property (the particle is not IN one state or another) until that property is measured."

Many say this is the conclusion/interpretation of QM.

Will it be totally wrong if we rephrase the sentence as

"Nothing exists until it interacts with other(s)".

Another way of stating this words is

"To a particle nothing exists until it interacts with another particle(s)".

It changes its properties due to interaction.

Interaction(s) of an object is the proof of its existence. An interaction always change something about the object.
I think double slit experiment can also be explained following this logic.

 

[Markus Hanke]

"Nothing exists until it interacts with other(s)".

In my mind, that wouldn't be consistent with things like the Aharonov-Bohm effect; a particle traverses a region of vanishing E and B fields, before hitting a detector. It turns out the particle's trajectory is indeed affected by the underlying vector potential, even though no interactions in the usual sense have taken place. So clearly, the particle did exist prior to interacting with the detector.

It guess this ultimately depends on what exactly you mean by "interaction".