"Quantum physics urgently needs new images and ideas that can only arise from a profound revision of the principles underlying it."

Nobel laureate Louis de Broglie.

ABSTRACT.

In physics, as known, there are two theoretical proposals: quantum entanglement and "wormholes". Quantum entanglement was predicted within the framework of quantum mechanics and describes the connection between distant elementary particles beyond the standard interactions. "Wormholes" were predicted within the framework of the General Theory of Relativity (GTR) and are "tunnels" connecting distant parts of space-time.

Historically, these phenomena have been given names made up of the first letters of the surnames of the authors of the articles in which these theoretical proposals were first published: quantum entanglement is called "EPR", and space tunnels are called "ER bridges".

This article proposes to return to the beginning of the emergence of these theoretical proposals and to the original sources in which these proposals were put forward. Based on the analysis, it is shown that in subsequent reasoning, incorrect conclusions were historically made, which entailed a corresponding logical chain of judgments based on the apparatus of algebra, which led to a hypothetical proposal about the equivalence of the "EPR" effect and the "ER bridge".

In this paper, a geometric solution to this issue is proposed based on the ontology of the complementarity principle. The author applied a geometric analogue of the complementarity principle of the Mobius strip to visualize the process of filamentary splitting of the "quantum object" and demonstrate the formation of those interrelations that are actualized during fibration of the magnetic loop. The form representation of the magnetic loop is considered based on natural complementary duality, which geometrically contains an inverse turn of 180 degrees and represents a mirror-asymmetric relationship of the components of a single whole.

Geometrical transformations clearly demonstrate the functional difference between the "EPR" effect and the "ER bridge" and lead to the resolution of the question of their equivalence. The content of this article is a more condensed version of the content of the mentioned works. [28] [31] [32] [33] [34]

"We must not allow all other cognitive organs to degenerate through the development of rational analysis alone." Nobel laureate W. Heisenberg.

In 2013, Juan Maldacén of Princeton University and Leonard Susskind of Stanford University published a paper proposing the equivalence of two completely different phenomena: the "EPR" effect and the "ER bridge". [1]

This proposed equivalence exists for now as a hypothesis and is attractive because it has led to the consequences that, using the mathematical apparatus of algebra, repeated attempts are made to prove that the "EPR" effect and the "ER bridge" are equivalent. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

Despite the efforts made, the evidence has not yet been obtained. To understand whether it is possible to obtain this evidence at all and what is the fundamental difference between these two phenomena, it is necessary to go back to the origins or to the beginning, when the very first works on this topic were published, and see what exactly the authors of the first publications meant and whether this corresponds to the idea that has formed by the present day.

Why is it necessary to go back to the beginning? Because if at some initial stage a mistake was made or incorrect conclusions were made, then this entails a chain of erroneous judgments, which ultimately lead to a crisis situation, and it becomes obvious that the entire field of science is moving in the wrong direction, which is essentially what is happening with quantum physics.

Let's start with the facts that the 2025 Breakthrough Prize laureate in Physics and 1999 Nobel Prize laureate theoretical physicist Gerard 't Hooft noted in his latest interview with Scientific American. The interview was published on April 8, 2025, under the title "Quantum Physics Is on the Wrong Track, Says Breakthrough Prize Winner Gerard 't Hooft." [2]

In addition to emphasizing that quantum physics is heading in the wrong direction, the theoretical physicist outlined a number of aspects of the wrong track, one of which is the following: «And people refuse to drop the idea that quantum mechanics is some strange kind of supernatural feature of the particles that we will never understand. No! We will understand, but we need to step backward first, and that’s always my message in science in general: before you understand something, just take a few steps back. Maybe you have to make a big march back, all the way back to the beginning». [2]

Expressing full agreement with the position of the theoretical physicist that it is necessary to return to the beginning, I want to emphasize that I made the same emphasis in my author's monograph "Substance. Atom. Theory of Everything" [28], and I also repeatedly express this idea in a number of subsequent scientific works devoted to the application of the geometric format of the self-consistent concept I proposed on the ontology of the principle of complementarity to answers to a number of basic intractable questions of theoretical physics. [4]

A sufficient number of applications show the effectiveness and dominant significance of the geometric approach in identifying those points where something went in the wrong direction, looking at what has been achieved from a new focus of vision and obtaining the necessary answers concerning unanswered questions of theoretical physics: the concept of a magnetic monopole, charges and their quantization, the structure of an atom, gravity, quantum entanglement, a hydromagnetic dynamo, and much more. [31]-[34]

This article is devoted to the application of the proposed geometric format to the issue related to the phenomena of "EPR" and "ER bridge". To illuminate this topic, we will return to the historical period of the creation of GTR and Quantum Mechanics, which marked the beginning of the next period of development of modern physics, and we will begin the analysis with the phenomenon of "ER bridge".

In 1915, A. Einstein published the equations of GTR [5], [6]. A few months later, the German astrophysicist K. Schwarzschild found a simple and beautiful solution for them, which became known as "Schwarzschild space". [7]. The geometry of the solution indicated that the space has the form of two parallel sheets connected to each other by a bridge in the form of a "neck" or a double vortex funnel in the place where the mass-energy is concentrated.

формате PDF (1984Кб)