Patrick Reany
4/15/2023
Introduction: The birth of quantum mechanics (1925-6) brought forth strong divisions within the physics
community that remain to this day. I am not a physicist. Nevertheless, I have an interest in the basis of the
continued factions within the physics community because of differing views on the true nature of quantum
mechanics. We haven't yet thrown off the contentions caused by local realism, the collapse of the wave
function, and the true domain of quantum mechanics, and to those issues, we've added a bunch more.
The initial predominant interpretation of quantum mechanics was founded by Heisenberg and Bohr,
which is referred to as the Copenhagen Interpretation, and their views remain contentious even
till today.
Before continuing, I want to be very clear about what I mean when I say "quantum mechanics": I am
referring only to that domain of physics which uses the Schrodinger wave equation to describe
measurements.
To some physicists (maybe even to most physicists) there are held profound beliefs about the entire
universe at stake, so they contest for their views to be dominant. These views include:
1) The wave function is a real thing or just a computational device.
2) The universe never loses information at the quantum level.
3) The wave function needs to be applied to all objects in the universe, not just to microscopic ones.
4) Entangled particles do not operate on an "action-at-a-distance" principle.
5) The notion of a multiverse makes sense.
6) The wave function collapses according to the doctrine of the Copenhagen Interpretation, or the wave
function never collapses, rather, the universe splits off into at least two (or perhaps a huge number) of
universes at each "measurement" -- Everett's 'many-worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics.
7) Is consciousness required to collapse the wave function?
On these points, as well as others, there exists "psychological entanglements" of opinions among them
that may not be obvious. Yet they are entangled because for a physicist to concede one of these points
may imply a weakening his or her grounds for belief on one or more of the others, cherishedly held.
By looking at the literature available to me, I intend to sort this thing out, at least for the prominent
physicists of which I have access to their beliefs, either through their writings or their videos.
I've started this research project by chatting with ChatGPT on just a few aspects of this complex subject.
Patrick: Does the physics community have differences of opinions about whether or not quantum
entanglement is "action at a distance"?
ChatGPT: Yes, there is some disagreement among physicists about whether or not quantum
entanglement can be considered "action at a distance." The concept of "action at a distance"
refers to the idea that objects can have an immediate effect on one another, regardless of the
distance between them. In the case of quantum entanglement, this would mean that the act of
measuring one entangled particle could instantaneously affect the state of its entangled partner,
regardless of the distance between them.Some physicists argue that quantum entanglement does indeed involve action at a distance,
while others argue that it does not. One of the reasons for this disagreement is that the concept of
"distance" is somewhat ambiguous in the context of quantum mechanics. In classical physics,
distance is a well-defined concept, but in quantum mechanics, the position of particles is
described by a probability distribution rather than a definite location. This makes it difficult
to say whether or not entangled particles are actually separated by a distance, or if they are
somehow connected in a more fundamental way.Despite this disagreement, it is generally accepted that quantum entanglement is a real
phenomenon that has been experimentally verified. The exact nature of the entanglement and
the extent to which it involves action at a distance are still the subject of ongoing research
and debate in the physics community.
Patrick: Is this disagreement dependent on whether the physicist believes that the wave function is real
or merely epistemic? There is some connection between the physicist's beliefs about the reality of
the wave function and their view on whether or not quantum entanglement can be considered "action
at a distance."
ChatGPT: In the context of quantum mechanics, the wave function is a mathematical descriptionPatrick: Are these differences of opinions about whether or not quantum entanglement is an action
that encodes the probabilities of the different outcomes of a measurement. Some physicists view
the wave function as a real, physical object that describes the actual state of the system, while
others see it as merely a tool for making predictions about the outcomes of measurements.Physicists who believe that the wave function is a real physical object tend to see entanglement
as involving action at a distance. They argue that entangled particles are truly connected in some
fundamental way, and that the act of measuring one particle has an immediate effect on the state
of the other, even if they are separated by large distances.On the other hand, physicists who view the wave function as an epistemic concept tend to reject
the idea of action at a distance. They argue that the wave function describes our knowledge
or information about the system, rather than the physical state of the system itself. In this view,
the apparent entanglement between particles is due to the fact that our knowledge about the
particles is incomplete, rather than some mysterious connection between the particles.It's worth noting that there is still ongoing debate and discussion within the physics community
about the nature of the wave function and the interpretation of quantum mechanics more broadly.
So, while there may be some connection between a physicist's beliefs about the wave function
and their views on entanglement, it's not a simple or straightforward relationship.
ChatGPT: The question of whether quantum entanglement involves action at a distance is not
directly related to one's acceptance or rejection of Everett's many-worlds interpretation of quantum
mechanics. The many-worlds interpretation is a specific interpretation of quantum mechanics that
proposes that the wave function never collapses and that every possible outcome of a quantum
measurement corresponds to a distinct reality or "world."While there may be some physicists who accept both the many-worlds interpretation and the
idea that quantum entanglement involves action at a distance, there are also many physicists
who reject the many-worlds interpretation and have varying opinions about whether or not
entanglement involves action at a distance.Comment: I'm have to wonder if this bot has the facts to backup this claim,The debate about action at a distance in the context of quantum entanglement is primarily a
though it is certainly a reasonable claim.
question about the fundamental nature of quantum mechanics and the relationship between
entangled particles, rather than a question about any specific interpretation of the theory.
While different interpretations of quantum mechanics may offer different ways of understanding
or visualizing the phenomenon of entanglement, they do not necessarily change the underlying
physical reality of the entangled particles or the extent to which they are connected to one another.
So, this was the opening salvo of my attack against the coat of many colors of quantum interpretation.
As for ChatGPT's replies, I find them erudite, to say the least. Very impressive! Score: five points
out of five!