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:1911.10990

Against 'Particle Metaphysics' and 'Collapses' within the Definition of Quantum Entanglement

Christian DE RONDE, César Massri

Published Nov 21, 2019• 2 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

In this paper we argue against the orthodox definition of quantum entanglement which has been explicitly grounded on several "common sense" (metaphysical) presuppositions and presents today serious formal and conceptual drawbacks. This interpretation which some researchers in the field call "minimal", has ended up creating a narrative according to which QM talks about "small particles" represented by pure states (in general, superpositions) which --each time someone attempts to observe what is going on-- suddenly "collapse" to a single measurement outcome. After discussing the consequences of applying 'particle metaphysics' within the definition of entanglement we turn our attention to two recent approaches which might offer an interesting way out of this metaphysical conundrum. Both approaches concentrate their efforts in going beyond the notion of 'system'. While the first, called device-independent approach, proposes an operational anti-metaphysical scheme in which language plays an essential role; the second approach, takes an essentially metaphysical path which attempts to present a new non-classical representation grounded on intensive relations which, in turn, imposes the need to reconsider the definition and meaning of quantum entanglement.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1911.10990

Related papers

Against Collapses, Purity and Separability Within the Definition of Quantum Entanglement

Christian DE RONDE, César Massri

In this paper we we will argue against the orthodox definition of quantum entanglement which has been implicitly grounded on several widespread (metaphysical) presuppositions which have no relation whatsoever to the formalism of QM. We will show how these presuppositions have been introduced through a naive interpretation of the quantum mathematical structure which assumes dogmatically that the theory talks about "small particles" represented by pure states (in general, superpositions) which suddenly "collapse" when a measurement takes place. In the second part of this paper we will present a non-collapse approach to QM which makes no use whatsoever of particle metaphysics, escaping the need to make reference to space-time separability or the restriction to certain predictions of definite valued binary properties. Our paper ends up concluding the essential need to redefine the notion of quantum entanglement, at least in the cases of: i) non-collapse interpretations of QM; or, ii) any other interpretation which abandons the idea that QM makes reference to "small particles".

arXiv:1808.10030•Aug 25, 2018•0 citations

Everything is Entangled in Quantum Mechanics: Are the Orthodox Measures Physically Meaningful?

Christian DE RONDE, Raimundo Fernández Mouján, César Massri

Even though quantum entanglement is today's most essential concept within the new technological era of quantum information processing, we do not only lack a consistent definition of this kernel notion, we are also far from understanding its physical meaning [35]. These failures have lead to many problems when attempting to provide a consistent measure or quantification of entanglement. In fact, the two main lines of contemporary research within the orthodox literature have created mazes where inconsistencies and problems are found everywhere. While the operational-instrumentalist approach has failed to explain how inequalities are able to distinguish the classical from the quantum, the geometrical approach has failed to provide a consistent meaningful account of their entropic measure. Taking distance from orthodoxy, in this work we address the quantification and measure of quantum entanglement by considering a recently presented objective-invariant definition in terms of the coding of intensive relations [21] which allows to escape the widespread relativist account of bases and factorizations [24, 25]. Going beyond the orthodox dualistic reference to "quantum particles" and "clicks" in detectors, we will argue that this new line of research is capable not only to evade the many open problems which appear within the mainstream literature, but is also able to present a consistent and coherent physical understanding of entanglement. The main conclusion of this work is that in quantum mechanics -- contrary to what is generally presupposed -- all operational expressions found within the laboratory are intrinsically entangled.

arXiv:2405.05756•May 9, 2024•0 citations

The Logos Categorical Approach to Quantum Mechanics: III. Relational Potential Coding and Quantum Entanglement Beyond Collapses, Pure States and Particle Metaphysics

Christian DE RONDE, César Massri

In this paper we consider the notion of quantum entanglement from the perspective of the logos categorical approach [26, 27]. Firstly, we will argue that the widespread distinctions, on the one hand, between pure states and mixed states, and on the other, between separable states and entangled states, are completely superfluous when considering the orthodox mathematical formalism of QM. We will then argue that the introduction of these distinctions within the theory of quanta is due to another two completely unjustified metaphysical presuppositions, namely, the idea that there is a "collapse" of quantum states when being measured and the idea that QM talks about "elementary particles". At distance from these distinctions and taking the logos approach as a standpoint, we will propose an objective formal account of the notion of entanglement in terms of potential coding which introduces the necessary distinction between intensive relations and effective relations. We will also discuss how this new definition of entanglement provides an anschaulich content to this --supposedly "spooky"-- quantum relational feature.

arXiv:1807.08344•Jul 22, 2018•1 citation

Understanding Quantum Mechanics (Beyond Metaphysical Dogmatism and Naive Empiricism)

Christian DE RONDE

Quantum Mechanics (QM) has faced deep controversies and debates since its origin when Werner Heisenberg proposed the first mathematical formalism capable to operationally account for what had been recently discovered as the new field of quantum phenomena. Today, even though we have reached a standardized version of QM which is taught in Universities all around the world, there is still no consensus regarding the conceptual reference of the theory and, if or if not, it can refer to something beyond measurement outcomes. In this work we will argue that the reason behind the impossibility to reach a meaningful answer to this question is strictly related to the 20th Century Bohrian-positivist re-foundation of physics which is responsible for having introduced within the theory of quanta a harmful combination of metaphysical dogmatism and naive empiricism. We will also argue that the possibility of understanding QM is at plain sight, given we return to the original framework of physics in which the meaning of understanding has always been clear.

arXiv:2009.00487•Sep 1, 2020•2 citations

Measuring Quantum Superpositions (Or, "It is only the theory which decides what can be observed.")

Christian DE RONDE

In this work we attempt to confront the orthodox widespread claim present in the foundational literature of Quantum Mechanics (QM) according to which 'superpositions are never actually observed in the lab'. In order to do so, we begin by providing a critical analysis of the famous measurement problem which, we will argue, was originated by the strict application of the empirical-positivist requirements to subsume the quantum formalism under their specific understanding of 'theory'. In this context, the ad hoc introduction of the projection postulate (or measurement rule) can be understood as a necessary requirement coming from a naive empiricist standpoint which presupposes that observations are self evident givens of "common sense" experience --independent of metaphysical (categorical) presuppositions. We then turn our attention to two "non-collapse" interpretations of QM --namely, modal and many worlds-- which even though deny that the "collapse" is a real physical process anyhow retain the measurement rule as a necessary element of the theory. In contraposition, following Einstein's claim according to which "it is only the theory which decides what can be observed", we propose a return to the realist representational understanding of 'physical theories' in which 'observation' is considered as derived from theoretical presuppositions. It is from this standpoint that we discuss a new non-classical conceptual representation which allows us to understand quantum phenomena in an intuitive (anschaulicht) manner. Leaving behind the projection postulate, we discuss the general physical conditions for measuring and observing quantum superpositions.

arXiv:2007.01146•Jul 2, 2020•2 citations

Against "Reality" in Physics

S. P. Boughn

The concept of "reality" is often raised in the context of philosophical foundations of physics or interpretations of quantum mechanics. When this term is so raised, it is a warning to me that I am about to be led down a rabbit hole. Such diversions usually lead nowhere unless you consider endless discussions of Schrodinger's cat, wave function collapse, quantum non-locality, and parallel universes to be useful. A prime example is the famous Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen paper wherein they concluded that the quantum wave function cannot provide a complete description of physical reality. In this essay I suggest that, in physics discourse, the term "reality" should be avoided at all costs.

arXiv:1903.08673•Mar 20, 2019•1 citation
In this paper we argue against the orthodox definition of quantum entanglement which has been explicitly grounded on several "common sense" (metaphysical) presuppositions and presents today serious formal and conceptual drawbacks. This interpretation which some researchers in the field call "minimal", has ended up creating a narrative according to which QM talks about "small particles" represented by pure states (in general, superpositions) which --each time someone attempts to observe what is going on-- suddenly "collapse" to a single measurement outcome. After discussing the consequences of applying 'particle metaphysics' within the definition of entanglement we turn our attention to two recent approaches which might offer an interesting way out of this metaphysical conundrum. Both approaches concentrate their efforts in going beyond the notion of 'system'. While the first, called device-independent approach, proposes an operational anti-metaphysical scheme in which language plays an essential role; the second approach, takes an essentially metaphysical path which attempts to present a new non-classical representation grounded on intensive relations which, in turn, imposes the need to reconsider the definition and meaning of quantum entanglement.
In this paper we we will argue against the orthodox definition of quantum entanglement which has been implicitly grounded on several widespread (metaphysical) presuppositions which have no relation whatsoever to the formalism of QM. We will show how these presuppositions have been introduced through a naive interpretation of the quantum mathematical structure which assumes dogmatically that the theory talks about "small particles" represented by pure states (in general, superpositions) which suddenly "collapse" when a measurement takes place. In the second part of this paper we will present a non-collapse approach to QM which makes no use whatsoever of particle metaphysics, escaping the need to make reference to space-time separability or the restriction to certain predictions of definite valued binary properties. Our paper ends up concluding the essential need to redefine the notion of quantum entanglement, at least in the cases of: i) non-collapse interpretations of QM; or, ii) any other interpretation which abandons the idea that QM makes reference to "small particles".
Even though quantum entanglement is today's most essential concept within the new technological era of quantum information processing, we do not only lack a consistent definition of this kernel notion, we are also far from understanding its physical meaning [35]. These failures have lead to many problems when attempting to provide a consistent measure or quantification of entanglement. In fact, the two main lines of contemporary research within the orthodox literature have created mazes where inconsistencies and problems are found everywhere. While the operational-instrumentalist approach has failed to explain how inequalities are able to distinguish the classical from the quantum, the geometrical approach has failed to provide a consistent meaningful account of their entropic measure. Taking distance from orthodoxy, in this work we address the quantification and measure of quantum entanglement by considering a recently presented objective-invariant definition in terms of the coding of intensive relations [21] which allows to escape the widespread relativist account of bases and factorizations [24, 25]. Going beyond the orthodox dualistic reference to "quantum particles" and "clicks" in detectors, we will argue that this new line of research is capable not only to evade the many open problems which appear within the mainstream literature, but is also able to present a consistent and coherent physical understanding of entanglement. The main conclusion of this work is that in quantum mechanics -- contrary to what is generally presupposed -- all operational expressions found within the laboratory are intrinsically entangled.
In this paper we consider the notion of quantum entanglement from the perspective of the logos categorical approach [26, 27]. Firstly, we will argue that the widespread distinctions, on the one hand, between pure states and mixed states, and on the other, between separable states and entangled states, are completely superfluous when considering the orthodox mathematical formalism of QM. We will then argue that the introduction of these distinctions within the theory of quanta is due to another two completely unjustified metaphysical presuppositions, namely, the idea that there is a "collapse" of quantum states when being measured and the idea that QM talks about "elementary particles". At distance from these distinctions and taking the logos approach as a standpoint, we will propose an objective formal account of the notion of entanglement in terms of potential coding which introduces the necessary distinction between intensive relations and effective relations. We will also discuss how this new definition of entanglement provides an anschaulich content to this --supposedly "spooky"-- quantum relational feature.
Quantum Mechanics (QM) has faced deep controversies and debates since its origin when Werner Heisenberg proposed the first mathematical formalism capable to operationally account for what had been recently discovered as the new field of quantum phenomena. Today, even though we have reached a standardized version of QM which is taught in Universities all around the world, there is still no consensus regarding the conceptual reference of the theory and, if or if not, it can refer to something beyond measurement outcomes. In this work we will argue that the reason behind the impossibility to reach a meaningful answer to this question is strictly related to the 20th Century Bohrian-positivist re-foundation of physics which is responsible for having introduced within the theory of quanta a harmful combination of metaphysical dogmatism and naive empiricism. We will also argue that the possibility of understanding QM is at plain sight, given we return to the original framework of physics in which the meaning of understanding has always been clear.
In this work we attempt to confront the orthodox widespread claim present in the foundational literature of Quantum Mechanics (QM) according to which 'superpositions are never actually observed in the lab'. In order to do so, we begin by providing a critical analysis of the famous measurement problem which, we will argue, was originated by the strict application of the empirical-positivist requirements to subsume the quantum formalism under their specific understanding of 'theory'. In this context, the ad hoc introduction of the projection postulate (or measurement rule) can be understood as a necessary requirement coming from a naive empiricist standpoint which presupposes that observations are self evident givens of "common sense" experience --independent of metaphysical (categorical) presuppositions. We then turn our attention to two "non-collapse" interpretations of QM --namely, modal and many worlds-- which even though deny that the "collapse" is a real physical process anyhow retain the measurement rule as a necessary element of the theory. In contraposition, following Einstein's claim according to which "it is only the theory which decides what can be observed", we propose a return to the realist representational understanding of 'physical theories' in which 'observation' is considered as derived from theoretical presuppositions. It is from this standpoint that we discuss a new non-classical conceptual representation which allows us to understand quantum phenomena in an intuitive (anschaulicht) manner. Leaving behind the projection postulate, we discuss the general physical conditions for measuring and observing quantum superpositions.
The concept of "reality" is often raised in the context of philosophical foundations of physics or interpretations of quantum mechanics. When this term is so raised, it is a warning to me that I am about to be led down a rabbit hole. Such diversions usually lead nowhere unless you consider endless discussions of Schrodinger's cat, wave function collapse, quantum non-locality, and parallel universes to be useful. A prime example is the famous Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen paper wherein they concluded that the quantum wave function cannot provide a complete description of physical reality. In this essay I suggest that, in physics discourse, the term "reality" should be avoided at all costs.