joigus

Exactly. This is a pattern. At least at the point we are now in the development of language-based AI. It will almost never say: "Your question is flawed". Many questions and instructions one can think of are flawed. "Move five meters north of the North Pole " is flawed. IMO, gravity (collapse is a mechanism of gravity) explaining gravity (gravitons are the source of gravity) through photons must be flawed. It must be. I don't have to think about the details.

Metaphors won't get you where you want to go. Do you realise you're trying to use gravity to explain quantum gravity via photons? That's what your LLM of choice is suggesting you to do. Doesn't that sound ill-conceived? Remember the most useful tool for a theoretical physicist is actually the wastepaper basket.

Oh, I'm absolutely convinced it's got the potential to be for us what the asteroid was for the dinosaurs. Some furry scuttling things will take over. It's time to keep a low profile perhaps, find a cozy niche of some kind.

A message from God? You've been quite involved in religious topics lately. Think about it. To positive effect in the eyes of the Lord no doubt. 😉 Congratulations on your kid's graduation, btw. A proud day for any father.

Well... Yes and no.

But my point didn't hit the target then. Gluons don't have a mass of their own. They're fundamentally massless. They acquire mass because they do a dance of three colours (and their anti-colours) that we call chromodynamics. They exchange other gluons with each other. In doing so, they "dress" themselves with self-energy, like electrons do in QED. Photons don't do that. Photons do not attract or repel each other. They go past each other like there were nothing there. Gluons do wha they do because they are sources of chromodynamic field, besides being messengers. Photons are pure messengers, without sourcing any field. When a gluon "sees" another gluon, it says "huh, there's another coloured thing out there" and spits a further gluon. The other gluon follows suit. A photon simply does not "see" another photon. That's why gluons get dressed with (dynamical) mass even though they do not have mass at all. I know it's a lot to take. You have to study some quantum field theory first. Before that, you must study quantum mechanics, to see where the "quantum" comes from. In order to do that, you must study "mechanics", to see... And so on. My advice is: Trust in the time-honoured system of studying from the ground up, and don't put too much stock in what AI tells you. It's sometimes right, and sometimes wrong. And in order to tell one from the other you need a magic word: criterion. You have to develop criterion. I know no better way than what everybody else has done from time immemorial.

Indeed.

For gauge bosons to acquire mass (like gluons) the gauge theory must be non Abelian. If that's the case, we should have diferent colours of gravitons, resulting in things like confinement and assymptotic freedom. That doesn't sound like gravity.

Hello and welcome. What is your level of maths?

Gravitons, provided they exist, should not have mass. Interaction carriers having mass would violate gauge symmetry. Gravitons, provided they exist, should be sourced by anything having local energy density, not particularly hyper-dense sources. Gravitons, provided they exist, should not undergo any appreciable clustering themselves. You should be able to produce a convincing reasoning without people having to click any links, as per forums rules. Welcome and good luck.

🫥

Again, a theory of everything is a name that became popular in the '90s, if I remember correctly, and does not mean a theory of "every thing". Nobody would be silly enough to engage in such an endeavour. A so-called TOE sets out to explain parameters of the SM (standard model). A theory of every thing (every single thing that is out there) is just an mirage stemming from a basic misunderstanding of what those words mean.

Science is not about rebuttals. It's rather about an optimum fit to the facts that's conceptually and mathematically economical. If it turns out to be predictive, so much the better! What bias? Maximal entanglement is the perfect paragon of non-bias. Every direction is the same, every particle is the same, everything that can be measured is on an equal basis. Every \( \boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot\boldsymbol{n} \) projection produces the same odds. It has no particular spatial-direction or particle-identity feature. It's the paragon of featurelessness, of non-bias. Informational curvature. Can you define the term? Entanglement a geometric feature? I don't know of such geometry.

As that never happens for professional physicists who understand quantum mechanics, I'm going to guess the reason is just something along the lines of "I'm gonna find a reason that satisfies me" --like @swansont said. I don't care about that "every thing that can happen will happen" nonsense, the non-argument goes. But that's what QM says: Every single event that could happen has an amplitude that affects what will happen. Astronomical observations are not in the domain of a so-called theory of everything. TOE is about masses and angles and coupling constants. Not about why Mercury is so different from the Earth.

Why do people keep thinking quantum entanglement needs predicting or explaining beyond what QM already tells us? Is there some kind of epidemic I'm not aware of?

By the way, your AI engine of choice got this wrong (among other things): The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution is neither classical nor quantum. How do you think Planck proved the right graph for the spectrum of the black body? Exactly. Maxwell-Boltzmann. It is true that Maxwell-Boltzmann cannot give you the entangled state. I didn't say it does. I implied it must be consistent with it. Exchange of identical particles doesn't give you an energy difference. MB demands that statistical weights be the same. It's the principles of quantum mechanics that complete the rationale.

Exactly. Be minimalist. Establish a useful formalism.

All correlations in quantum mechanics can be explained in terms of the Schrödinger equation, or a mixture of it and things in the way of Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, etc. A maximally-entangled state is a trivial case of the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, when you think about it. No need to endow the universe with hidden higher-dimensional tunnels to explain those. They are perfectly explained. No mechanism is needed, and that's the beauty part.

Science is not about refutation. It's about picking the simplest idea that explains the facts. Quantum mechanics does derive those correlations. It doesn't assume them as a premise. You need QM plus Nature's drive towards maximum entropy. There you are. You let the system "relax" to a maximum entropy and apply the superposition principle: The state is automatically the Bell state --mod an arbitrary global phase. It's been prepared that way by just letting it be. It's your idea that seems to assume some "internal" machinery to explain the idea that in quantum mechanics is totally natural.

No. They are built-in quantum correlations. When a quantum system cools down to a maximally entangled state, the amplitudes are what quantum mechanics dictates and Von Neumann's entropy becomes maximal. Then you decide to split up the system spatially and, after however much time you let pass, the odds for different "strings" of observables of choice are exactly what they were at the beginning. It's all initial correlations. No need for extra dimensions to find a shortcut.

In so-called quantum teleportation, the measurement outputs must be sent at regular speeds (as @KJW told you). We've discussed this before on the forums. There is no teleportation of anything and no violation of locality. But, as I told you, misnomers die hard.

No. @KJW 's point is deeper than you think. QM is not a random theory. It is a deterministic theory (with a huge arbitrariness) that gives rise to all the microscopic randomness by way of this element (extraneous to the dynamical theory itself) that we call measurements. Oh, and there's nothing non-local about it. Not a bit.

I know all that, "dude". I'll wait for your doh! moment, don't worry.

Dude, we don't know anything today we didn't know back then about this particular point. And Gell-Mann explains it very eloquently indeed. Learn some physics. And read what you're told. Here, again: Nothing gets from A to B. All the weirdness started in one point in space. Why would it be telling us anything about non-local correlations? Entangled states are prepared at one and only point in space-time. The fact that people still think there's something non-local going on is a testament to the power of words. Nothing more.

No, wait. You might learn something here: Then read The Quark and the Jaguar. Then leave all your ignorance about this matter in the past. Nothing gets from A to B. All the weirdness started in one point in space. Why would it be telling us anything about non-local correlations? Zeilinger himself recognised this. But the spooky (and profoundly misleading) term "non-local" dies hard!