Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1707.06324 · Foundations of Physics

An Ontology of Nature with Local Causality, Parallel Lives, and Many Relative Worlds

Mordecai Waegell

Published Oct 22, 2018• 9 citations
arXivHTMLPDF
DOI
10.1007/s10701-018-0222-8

Related papers

The Ontology of Many‐Worlds : Modality and Time

大介 加地

•Jan 1, 1999•0 citations

How the Many Worlds Interpretation brings Common Sense to Paradoxical Quantum Experiments

Kelvin J. McQueen, Lev Vaidman A

The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics (MWI) states that the world we live in is just one among many parallel worlds. It is widely believed that because of this commitment to parallel worlds, the MWI violates common sense. Some go so far as to reject the MWI on this basis. This is despite its myriad of advantages to physics (e.g. consistency with relativity theory, mathematical simplicity, realism, determinism, etc.). Here, we make the case that common sense in fact favors the MWI. We argue that causal explanations are commonsensical only when they are local causal explanations. We present several quantum mechanical experiments that seem to exhibit nonlocal "action at a distance". Under the assumption that only one world exists, these experiments seem immune to local causal explanation. However, we show that the MWI, by taking all worlds together, can provide local causal explanations of the experiments. The MWI therefore restores common sense to physical explanation.

arXiv:2202.01438•Feb 3, 2022•0 citations

The Relational Ontology of Contemporary Physics

Francesca Vidotto

arXiv:2201.00907•Synthese Library/Synthese library•Jan 1, 2022•6 citations

Bell’s concept of local causality does not preclude Bell correlations in local realist field ontologies

Andrew Laidlaw

Introduction: Bell’s concept of local causality assumes more than local action. It also presumes an ontology of point particles. Bell correlations are feasible in nonlinear field ontologies with quantised interactions between suitably correlated participants. Materials and methods: Local causality is unsatisfactory for many reasons, not just Bell’s Theorem. The EPR paradox is due to metaphysical overcommitment to point models. An alternative, distributed concept of long-range interaction is appropriate for field ontologies. Inherently distributed field interaction quanta modify the causal structure of relations between observables. Results: Causal structure of Bell measurements in de Broglie–Bohm EPR experiments: Causal analysis of local realist field models violates Bell Inequalities without violating local action. Experimental Tests: Testable consequences include an observable range dependence of the coherence time of Bell states. Conclusions: Local realist field ontologies are not ruled out by the existence of Bell correlations in nature. The only “conflict” between quantum mechanics and relativity is because lightcone causal analysis effectively presumes a particle ontology.

Academia quantum.•Jun 26, 2026•0 citations

THE DUAL-STATE NATURE OF INANIMATE MATTER: TOWARD A UNIVERSAL ONTOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE

Panchenko

•Aug 6, 2026•0 citations

Guiding our interpretation of quantum theory by principles of causation and inference

David Schmid

A key aim of quantum foundations is to characterize the sense in which nature goes beyond classical physics. Understanding nonclassicality is one of our best avenues towards finding a satisfactory interpretation of quantum theory. By determining which classical principles cannot be satisfied in any empirically adequate physical theory, we begin to see which principles can be preserved, which in turn gives us insight into the ontology of the world. These insights then guide us in determining which questions to ask and which experiments to perform next. Furthermore, it is these nonclassical aspects of nature that give rise to new technologies such as the speed-ups of quantum computation or the security of quantum key distribution. \n \nThe gold standard for establishing that a phenomenon is truly nonclassical is to prove that it violates the principle of local causality or the principle of noncontextuality. Much of this thesis reports on my research relating to these two principles. This research primarily involves (i) finding new justifications for our notions of nonclassicality; (ii) refining their fundamental definitions; (iii) quantifying and characterizing their various manifestations; and (iv) finding applications where nonclassical phenomena act as resources for information processing. \n \nUltimately, all of this work on nonclassicality is woven together into a novel framework for physical theories introduced by myself, John Selby, and Rob Spekkens. Its main advantage over preexisting frameworks is that it maintains a clear distinction between which elements of a given physical theory directly describe causal processes, and which refer only to one’s inferences about causal processes. This clarifies a number of confusions in the literature which arose precisely because previous frameworks scrambled causal and inferential concepts. Furthermore, local causality and noncontextuality emerge in this framework as the assumptions that the causal and inferential structures (respectively) that are operationally observed must be respected in the underlying ontology. This work constitutes a first step in developing a new interpretation of quantum theory—the first interpretation designed to satisfy the spirit of both local causality and noncontextuality.

•Jul 7, 2021•1 citation
The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics (MWI) states that the world we live in is just one among many parallel worlds. It is widely believed that because of this commitment to parallel worlds, the MWI violates common sense. Some go so far as to reject the MWI on this basis. This is despite its myriad of advantages to physics (e.g. consistency with relativity theory, mathematical simplicity, realism, determinism, etc.). Here, we make the case that common sense in fact favors the MWI. We argue that causal explanations are commonsensical only when they are local causal explanations. We present several quantum mechanical experiments that seem to exhibit nonlocal "action at a distance". Under the assumption that only one world exists, these experiments seem immune to local causal explanation. However, we show that the MWI, by taking all worlds together, can provide local causal explanations of the experiments. The MWI therefore restores common sense to physical explanation.
Introduction: Bell’s concept of local causality assumes more than local action. It also presumes an ontology of point particles. Bell correlations are feasible in nonlinear field ontologies with quantised interactions between suitably correlated participants. Materials and methods: Local causality is unsatisfactory for many reasons, not just Bell’s Theorem. The EPR paradox is due to metaphysical overcommitment to point models. An alternative, distributed concept of long-range interaction is appropriate for field ontologies. Inherently distributed field interaction quanta modify the causal structure of relations between observables. Results: Causal structure of Bell measurements in de Broglie–Bohm EPR experiments: Causal analysis of local realist field models violates Bell Inequalities without violating local action. Experimental Tests: Testable consequences include an observable range dependence of the coherence time of Bell states. Conclusions: Local realist field ontologies are not ruled out by the existence of Bell correlations in nature. The only “conflict” between quantum mechanics and relativity is because lightcone causal analysis effectively presumes a particle ontology.
A key aim of quantum foundations is to characterize the sense in which nature goes beyond classical physics. Understanding nonclassicality is one of our best avenues towards finding a satisfactory interpretation of quantum theory. By determining which classical principles cannot be satisfied in any empirically adequate physical theory, we begin to see which principles can be preserved, which in turn gives us insight into the ontology of the world. These insights then guide us in determining which questions to ask and which experiments to perform next. Furthermore, it is these nonclassical aspects of nature that give rise to new technologies such as the speed-ups of quantum computation or the security of quantum key distribution. \n \nThe gold standard for establishing that a phenomenon is truly nonclassical is to prove that it violates the principle of local causality or the principle of noncontextuality. Much of this thesis reports on my research relating to these two principles. This research primarily involves (i) finding new justifications for our notions of nonclassicality; (ii) refining their fundamental definitions; (iii) quantifying and characterizing their various manifestations; and (iv) finding applications where nonclassical phenomena act as resources for information processing. \n \nUltimately, all of this work on nonclassicality is woven together into a novel framework for physical theories introduced by myself, John Selby, and Rob Spekkens. Its main advantage over preexisting frameworks is that it maintains a clear distinction between which elements of a given physical theory directly describe causal processes, and which refer only to one’s inferences about causal processes. This clarifies a number of confusions in the literature which arose precisely because previous frameworks scrambled causal and inferential concepts. Furthermore, local causality and noncontextuality emerge in this framework as the assumptions that the causal and inferential structures (respectively) that are operationally observed must be respected in the underlying ontology. This work constitutes a first step in developing a new interpretation of quantum theory—the first interpretation designed to satisfy the spirit of both local causality and noncontextuality.