aqora

Schrödinger, Stein Theory and the Physical Reality Beneath Quantum Mathematics

I. Pearson

Oct 28, 20260 citations

Why entanglement?

Huw Price, K. B. Wharton

In this piece, written for a general audience, we propose a mechanism for quantum entanglement. The key ingredient is collider bias. In the language of causal models, a collider is a variable causally influenced by two or more other variables. Conditioning on a collider typically produces non-causal correlations between its contributing causes. This phenomenon can produce associations analogous to Bell correlations, in suitable post-selected ensembles. Such collider artefacts may become real connections, resembling causality, if a collider is 'constrained' (e.g., by a future boundary condition). We consider the time-reversed analogues of these points in the context of retrocausal models of QM. Retrocausality yields a collider at the source of an EPR-Bell particle pair, and in this case constraint of the collider is possible by normal methods of experimental preparation. It follows that connections resembling causality may emerge across such colliders, from one branch of the experiment to the other. Our hypothesis is that this constrained retrocausal collider bias is the origin of entanglement. This piece is based on a suggestion first made in arXiv:2101.05370v4 [quant-ph], and is an ancestor of an essay now published online in Aeon magazine [Price & Wharton 2023a]. In an updated version of the argument in arXiv:2309.10969 [quant-ph] we (i) demonstrate its application in a real Bell experiment; and (ii) show that we can do without an explicit postulate of retrocausalityIn this piece, written for a general audience, we propose a mechanism for quantum entanglement. The key ingredient is collider bias. In the language of causal models, a collider is a variable causally influenced by two or more other variables. Conditioning on a collider typically produces non-causal correlations between its contributing causes. This phenomenon can produce associations analogous to Bell correlations, in suitable post-selected ensembles. Such collider artefacts may become real connections, resembling causality, if a collider is 'constrained' (e.g., by a future boundary condition). We consider the time-reversed analogues of these points in the context of retrocausal models of QM. Retrocausality yields a collider at the source of an EPR-Bell particle pair, and in this case constraint of the collider is possible by normal methods of experimental preparation. It follows that connections resembling causality may emerge across such colliders, from one branch of the experiment to the other. Our hypothesis is that this constrained retrocausal collider bias is the origin of entanglement. This piece is based on a suggestion first made in arXiv:2101.05370v4 [quant-ph], and is an ancestor of an essay now published online in Aeon magazine [Price & Wharton 2023a]. In an updated version of the argument in arXiv:2309.10969 [quant-ph] we (i) demonstrate its application in a real Bell experiment; and (ii) show that we can do without an explicit postulate of retrocausality

arXiv:2212.06986Dec 14, 20220 citations

Schrödinger's interpretation of quantum mechanics and the relevance of Bohr's experimental critique

Slobodan Perović

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern PhysicsMar 14, 200626 citations

Neither Wave nor Particle: The Third State of Quantum Reality

Ali Bourizk

"This essay is a popularized, accessible perspective intended for a general audience. It synthesizes the rigorous technical derivations of a six-part series into a conceptual narrative without complex mathematics."

Oct 27, 20260 citations

Two Remarks on Schrödinger's Quantum Theory

Paul Sophus Epstein

Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesMar 1, 19272 citations

Publisher’s Note: “System–bath entanglement theorem with Gaussian environments” [J. Chem. Phys. 152, 034102 (2020)]

Peng-Li Du, Yao Wang, Rui‐Xue Xu +2 more

This article was originally published online on 16 January 2020 with a typographical error. The word “dissipaton” was incorrectly typed as “dissipation” in the third line of the abstract and in the fourth line of the last paragraph in Sec. I. AIP Publishing apologizes for this error.All online versions of the article were corrected on 21 January 2020; the article is correct as it appears in the printed version of the journal.

The Journal of Chemical PhysicsJan 25, 20210 citations

Quantum Theory's Reality Problem

Abstract

Related papers

Quantum Theory's Reality Problem

Abstract

Related papers