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

Physics Letters A

Does indeterminism really yield the time arrow? A comment on A.C. Elitzur and S. Dolev [Phys. Lett. A 251 (1999) 89]

Krzysztof Rębilas

Published Feb 1, 2000• 2 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1016/s0375-9601(00)00056-6

Related papers

Determinism, indeterminism and the time arrow in contemporary science.

Daniel Madrid Morales

Boletín de la Asociación Matemática Venezolana•Jan 1, 2004•0 citations

Indeterminism, Time Arrow, and Prediction

Frederik Jozef Belinfante

AIP conference proceedings•Jan 1, 1974•0 citations

Indeterminism and time symmetry are incompatible: A Reply to Rȩbilas

Avshalom C. Elitzur, Shahar Dolev

arXiv:gr-qc/0012061•Physics Letters A•Feb 1, 2000•3 citations

Comment on "Quantum Solution to the Arrow-of-Time Dilemma"

Hrvoje Nikolić

In this paper we criticize the attempt of Maccone [Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 080401 (2009), arXiv:0802.0438] to solve the problem of the arrow of time.

arXiv:0912.1947•Dec 10, 2009•1 citation

Comment on "Cosmic Bell Test: Measurement Settings from Milky Way Stars"

Nathan Argaman

This Comment argues that two assumptions, which are presented as basic assumptions of Bell's theorem in [J. Handsteiner et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 060401 (2017)] and elsewhere, in fact follow from more basic premises. Measurement independence follows from (i) the use of free variables and (ii) the causal arrow of time. Determinism follows from (i) local causality and (ii) perfect correlations (predicted by quantum mechanics). In particular, it is pointed out that the measurement-independence violating toy model of [M.J.W. Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 250404 (2010)], is based on a retro-causal model. While this may be controversial, it should be possible to achieve concensus on the much simpler matter of what the basic assumptions of Bell's theorem are.

arXiv:1705.04140•May 11, 2017•0 citations

The Nature of Time in Relativistic Operational Reality

Diederik Aerts, Massimiliano Sassoli de Bianchi

Abstract In their recent articles Gruber, Block and Montemayor (2022: Front. Psychol., 13, 718505) and Buonomano and Rovelli (2022: arXiv:2110.01976) discuss the differences between time in physics and psychology. With the aim of commenting on their views, we first outline a few general aspects of relativity theory, and some of the core elements of our approach, referring the reader to Aerts (1996: Found. Phys., 26, 1627–1644; 2018: Found. Sci., 23, 511–547), Aerts and Aerts (2004: in A. C. Elitzur, S. Dolev and N. Kolenda (Eds), Quo Vadis Quantum Mechanics? Possible Developments in Quantum Theory in the 21st Century, pp. 153–207) and Aerts and Sassoli de Bianchi (2023: arXiv:2307.04764) for more details. In our approach, the ability of the experimenter to freely choose to perform or not to perform an experiment is explicitly considered and applied to the typical twin-paradox situation. This leads to the definition of a four-dimensional spacetime reality for each observer, a personal block universe. This is compatible with the existence of a local contextual present for each observer, travelling on their worldline, from their personal past to their personal future. Global spacetime becomes, as a corollary, a structure full of measurement-induced bifurcations towards the future, thus fundamentally nondeterministic. We analyze and highlight how this nondeterministic global reality is the one that follows from an operational approach inspired by quantum foundations, opening a way for an integration of relativity and quantum.

Timing & Time Perception•Jan 18, 2024•5 citations
This Comment argues that two assumptions, which are presented as basic assumptions of Bell's theorem in [J. Handsteiner et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 060401 (2017)] and elsewhere, in fact follow from more basic premises. Measurement independence follows from (i) the use of free variables and (ii) the causal arrow of time. Determinism follows from (i) local causality and (ii) perfect correlations (predicted by quantum mechanics). In particular, it is pointed out that the measurement-independence violating toy model of [M.J.W. Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 250404 (2010)], is based on a retro-causal model. While this may be controversial, it should be possible to achieve concensus on the much simpler matter of what the basic assumptions of Bell's theorem are.
Abstract In their recent articles Gruber, Block and Montemayor (2022: Front. Psychol., 13, 718505) and Buonomano and Rovelli (2022: arXiv:2110.01976) discuss the differences between time in physics and psychology. With the aim of commenting on their views, we first outline a few general aspects of relativity theory, and some of the core elements of our approach, referring the reader to Aerts (1996: Found. Phys., 26, 1627–1644; 2018: Found. Sci., 23, 511–547), Aerts and Aerts (2004: in A. C. Elitzur, S. Dolev and N. Kolenda (Eds), Quo Vadis Quantum Mechanics? Possible Developments in Quantum Theory in the 21st Century, pp. 153–207) and Aerts and Sassoli de Bianchi (2023: arXiv:2307.04764) for more details. In our approach, the ability of the experimenter to freely choose to perform or not to perform an experiment is explicitly considered and applied to the typical twin-paradox situation. This leads to the definition of a four-dimensional spacetime reality for each observer, a personal block universe. This is compatible with the existence of a local contextual present for each observer, travelling on their worldline, from their personal past to their personal future. Global spacetime becomes, as a corollary, a structure full of measurement-induced bifurcations towards the future, thus fundamentally nondeterministic. We analyze and highlight how this nondeterministic global reality is the one that follows from an operational approach inspired by quantum foundations, opening a way for an integration of relativity and quantum.