Is Quantum Entanglement Real?

NY Times ^ | 11/14/14 | David Kaiser

[Yashcheritsiy]

Agreed - I was just pulling your chain to see what you’d say ;)

[Yashcheritsiy]

Curious - what is your opinion about Magueijo and Moffat? Charlatanry or something there?

[FredZarguna]

You mean regarding VSL, their dispute about primacy, or something else?

[Lazamataz]

Given that Dr. Susskind’s online Stanford University lectures on quantum entanglement spans nine lectures, each about an hour and forty minutes per pop, I don't think the veracity of Bell's theorem or entanglement can be easily critiqued or refuted in a pithy FR post.

I can refute Bell in one single photo:

Q.E.D.

[AllAmericanGirl44]

bkmk

[ottbmare]

The really brilliant ones are tremendously humble, in my experience. It’s the impostors who have the huge egos.

True. I recall some scientist saying somewhat snarkily of another, "He's so annoyingly humble. But he's not great enough to be humble."

[Yashcheritsiy]

VSL

[FredZarguna]

Well, in the interest of full disclosure, let me first say that I am no longer a working physicist, and haven't been one for a long time. When I was, I was a condensed matter theorist and not a cosmologist or a particle guy. I studied both because I was interested in them, and always thought knowing as much science [in and out of physics] would be useful to being a good low energy physicist. [And, as an aside, the particle guys thought so, too. The so-called "Higgs" mechanism should really be known as the "Anderson" mechanism. The particle guys had, manifestly no problem stealing from condensed matter theorists. The popular press has just had trouble giving credit to the right person... Oh well...]

So, anyway, what I think about it is no more important than what any other well informed layman might think. If you accept that, then here goes:

A lot of people, as you may know, are kind of dubious about the so-called "Inflaton Field." The biggest reason is that it seems completely ad hoc. We have some gross morhology that we can't account for without it. But if this field existed, what happened to it? Oh "spontaneous symmetry breaking." That sounds like a rabbit coming out of, and then going back into a hat to me.

There is, of course, the possibility that it might be an already known field. But that far back, it has to be one we don't know very much about, so, how about the Higgs?

I've always been suspicious of the idea that the Higgs Field might be the Inflaton Field. It strikes me as a "bandwagon effect" argument to get people onboard with the Inflaton Field hypothesis; never a good idea in science. There are some -- to my way of thinking weak -- arguments to suggest that the Higgs is the Inflaton, bnut it has problems. The most serious is that Higgs Inflatons don't preserve Unitarity. This is a deal killer generally in quantum field theory, although there are some hand-waving arguments that it might be possible to get past this. There were some serious reasons for wanting it to be the Higgs: there doesn't seem to be "any room" for yet another field with the right properties in the very, very early universe.

As you probably also know, the uniformity of the CMB as well as large scale fluctuations are explained by Inflation. And we do need some explanation. But, they are also explained by VSL theories.

I'm kind of attracted to VSL theories, because I've always thought the speed of light might very well be a function of the size and shape of the universe in spacetime. It's natural to think of it as a "geometrical" constant because in the metrics of both Minkowski Space and GR it is just a scale-factor between space and time. So to me, there is some appeal of the VSL theories. And since the energies of the early universe are not going to be achieved in any lab any time soon, the only thing we have right now is satisfaction of the known very gross morphology of the current universe and mathematical self-consistency. So I think VSL theories are still on the table.

[Swordmaker]

How fast is Gravity?