http://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.02589v2.pdf

What I have done in this lecture is trivial. I’ve taken some ordinary quantum phenomena and quantum protocols, and by invoking ER=EPR I’ve reinterpreted them in terms of the geometry of Einstein-Rosen bridges. No new phenomena were discovered other than the correlation with what infalling observers see, and whether they can meet behind the horizons of the ERB. The interesting thing is that such a translation is at all possible. The current source of all wisdom, AdS/CFT, has provided tremendous inspiration and knowledge about quantum gravity, but it is not all there is. Why is it that in AdS/CFT we never have to talk about those questions that the Relative State Formulation addresses? There is a reason: the existence of an asymptotic boundary. The theory is set up so that an outside “uber-observer” can manipulate the CFT, and make measurements on it, but the uber-observer is not part of the system. For the purposes of the uber-observer the Copenhagen Interpretation (and the collapse of the wave function) is a sufficient framework. Such an uber-observer makes things easy but unsatisfying. Sooner or later we will have to give up the security of an asymptotically cold boundary, and formulate a theory in which the universe is a highly interconnected network of entangled subsystems, with no preferred uber-observer. I expect that when this happens ER=EPR will take its place as one of the cornerstones of the new theory. What all of this suggests to me, and what I want to suggest to you, is that quantum mechanics and gravity are far more tightly related than we (or at least I) had ever imagined. The essential nonlocalities of quantum mechanics—the need for instantaneous communication in order to classically simulate entanglement—parallels the nonlocal potentialities of general relativity: ER=EPR.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::