4
$\begingroup$

Maldacena and Susskind have "formulated" the now famous ER = EPR conjecture in their paper Cool horizons for entangled black holes, but as of today, I have not find a quantum theorist who can precisely describe what Maldacena and Susskind actually mean (including Maldacena and Susskind).

Quoting Peter Woit:

My problem with ER = EPR is not that it is untrue, but that it’s meaningless, as about “not even wrong” as “not even wrong” gets. It’s basically a conjecture that “maybe there is a duality between conventional QM and some unknown theory”, but doesn’t tell you what the unknown theory is (it’s not conventional GR).

Can anyone here formulate ER = EPR in a precise way ?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ This seems really more opinion-based ... $\endgroup$
    – Norbert Schuch
    Commented Jan 19 at 18:03
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ ER=EPR does not have a precise formulation, however precise statements such as Ryu-Takayanagi formula could be seen as realizations of a more general principle. $\endgroup$
    – A.V.S.
    Commented Jan 20 at 5:11

0

Reset to default

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.