Prespacetime journal

Physics needs a physical theory of observation

Chris Fields

Published Oct 31, 2012• 0 citations

Abstract

The ubiquitous assumption that ``systems'' can be taken as ``given'' is wrong. Viewing observation physically as entanglement allows this assumption to be dropped. In the framework that results, initial conditions play no role, time is emergent, observers are ubiquitous, and both ``systems'' and the theories that describe them are purely model-theoretic entities.

Related papers

Atomicity in Distributed Quantum Computing

Zhicheng Zhang, Mingsheng Ying

Atomicity is a ubiquitous assumption in distributed computing, under which actions are indivisible and appear sequential. In classical computing, this assumption has several theoretical and practical guarantees. In quantum computing, although atomicity is still commonly assumed, it has not been seriously studied, and a rigorous basis for it is missing. Classical results on atomicity do not directly carry over to distributed quantum computing, due to new challenges caused by quantum entanglement and the measurement problem from the underlying quantum mechanics. In this paper, we initiate the study of atomicity in distributed quantum computing. A formal model of (non-atomic) distributed quantum system is established. Based on the Dijkstra-Lamport condition, the system dynamics and observable dynamics of a distributed quantum system are defined, which correspond to the quantum state of and classically observable events in the system, respectively. Within this framework, we prove that local actions can be regarded as if they were atomic, up to the observable dynamics of the system.

arXiv:2404.18592Apr 29, 20241 citation

Entanglement is necessary for emergent classicality

Jonathan G. Richens, John H. Selby, Sabri W. Al-Safi

May 22, 20172 citations

A Challenge to Quantum Entanglement by Experiment and Theory

Eric Stanley Reiter

It is argued on both experimental and theoretical grounds that quantum entanglement, which has been taken to explain consciousness, is an illusion.

Cosmos and historyOct 17, 20160 citations

An effect-theoretic reconstruction of quantum theory

John van de Wetering

An often used model for quantum theory is to associate to every physical system a C ∗ -algebra. From a physical point of view it is unclear why operator algebras would form a good description of nature. In this paper, we find a set of physically meaningful assumptions such that any physical theory satisfying these assumptions must embed into the category of finite-dimensional C ∗ -algebras. These assumptions were originally introduced in the setting of effectus theory, a categorical logical framework generalizing classical and quantum logic. As these assumptions have a physical interpretation, this motivates the usage of operator algebras as a model for quantum theory.In contrast to other reconstructions of quantum theory, we do not start with the framework of generalized probabilistic theories and instead use effect theories where no convex structure and no tensor product needs to be present. The lack of this structure in effectus theory has led to a different notion of pure maps. A map in an effectus is pure when it is a composition of a compression and a filter. These maps satisfy particular universal properties and respectively correspond to `forgetting' and `measuring' the validity of an effect.We define a pure effect theory (PET) to be an effect theory where the pure maps form a dagger-category and filters and compressions are adjoint. We show that any convex finite-dimensional PET must embed into the category of Euclidean Jordan algebras. Moreover, if the PET also has monoidal structure, then we show that it must embed into either the category of real or complex C ∗ -algebras, which completes our reconstruction.

arXiv:1801.05798CompositionalityDec 18, 201924 citations

Emergence of time and Observable physics

D. Xu

This is a philosophy paper rather than mathematical physics work. I will publish it in some other place.

arXiv:0706.3475Jun 23, 20070 citations

Je kodaňská interpretace kvantové mechaniky tabu?

Jan Fikatchek

This article analyzes the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics with regard to its historical role, logical consistency, and ontological assumptions. It argues that the Copenhagen interpretation has been extraordinarily successful as a practical framework connecting the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics with experimental results, but that its positivist restriction to observable quantities does not provide a complete physical explanation of quantum wave behaviour. The analysis of other interpretations suggests that no interpretation of quantum mechanics, including the Copenhagen interpretation, can avoid some form of hidden entity. The central argument is based on the double-slit experiment: probability or mere possibility cannot by themselves physically cause interference, and therefore some real wave-like entity must exist whose effect is only probabilistically described by the wave function. The wave function is therefore not understood as a physical wave itself, but as an epistemic description of the interaction between a particle and a deeper hidden wave structure. The Copenhagen interpretation need not be simply rejected; rather, it can be understood as a successful simplification of a deeper interpretation. It accurately describes measurable results, but it does not explain the real mechanism that produces them. The article suggests that inspiration for such a deeper view can be found in quantum field theory: particles are perturbations of fields, and quantum entanglement may indicate the existence of a deeper nonlocal field of entanglement.

Jun 24, 20260 citations