The entanglement is greater than we think

Yolanda Cadenas Gómez

This article has no greater claim to the expose some of the technological applications of contemporary physics, since our society revolves around them and, however, the greater part of the population, which makes up the society, ignores its origin and they even think that particle physics or quantum physics is something that only concerns a few theoretical and experimental physicist who has nothing to do with them. In a technological society such as ours not cannot ignore these applications as they have profoundly changed our way of life and interact with each other.

F.J. Duarte

Graham P. Smetham

Some of Zurek’s remarks seem to indicate that he thinks that his analysis undermines the ‘ultimate evidence’ that the classical world is entangled and dependent upon consciousness. However, a rigorous analysis shows that the opposite is the case; Zurek’s epiontic quantum Darwinian classical universe is ultimately dependent upon consciousness. It would seem that the entire epiontic process of the evolution of reality is geared towards the production of ever greater levels of sentient awareness and the material world is an ‘advertising billboard’ for a realm of solidity amidst the ‘unreal’ ‘dream stuff’ of the quantum realm within which individualized consciousness can grow to fruition. And the reason that the apparent solidity of the apparently material universe comes into being is because the universe is nothing more than an enormous and multitudinous ultimately immaterial epiontic information exchange which takes place within the quantum ‘dream stuff is made of.’

Christopher A. Fuchs

“Partners in crime again?” CAF to AP 29 September 1999 Introduction Irving John Good once titled a paper, “46,656 Varieties of Bayesians.” With little stretch of the imagination, one can believe that a similar paper on the interpretations of quantum mechanics exists somewhere out there too. And that may be true even though 46,656 is greater than the whole membership of the American Physical Society! It is no wonder that taking a stand on quantum foundations is treacherous business. Nevertheless, in the March 2000 issue of Physics Today , Asher Peres and I flouted the usual rewards of a calm life and did just that. Our article was titled, “Quantum Theory Needs No ‘Interpretation’.” This chapter is about the evolution of that article and a later “reply to critics.” When I was an undergraduate at the University of Texas, Bryce DeWitt made a great impression on me by saying something I have not forgotten: “We learn mathematics so that we don't have to think when we do physics.” My paper with Asher contained no mathematics. We had to think, and think very hard. The fruits of that labor, for my part, were in a greatly enhanced keenness for seeing through various foundational issues. How I wanted to share that newfound keenness with the reader! But it was difficult, if not impossible, to convey such an aspect of the paper-writing process in the very paper itself.