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

Epilogue

Valerio Scarani

Published Aug 7, 2019• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Abstract We first stress that nonlocality forces changes on our view of the world. One can adopt the orthodox view that one should not even attempt to describe individual events; or one can opt for a properly-speaking nonlocal model, with very unpleasant features like influences propagating at infinite speed in our space-time; or one can go all the way to some form of determinism. Then, the hope is formulated that the field of nonlocality, having reached maturity, may serve as starting point for future discoveries.

DOI
10.1093/oso/9780198788416.003.0012

Related papers

Photons as observer transitions in the event oriented world view

Wolfgang Baer

Hugh Everett’s “Relative State” model [1] of the observing element in quantum theory is expanded in the Event Oriented World View [2] and used to show how inertial interactions suggested by “Mach’s Principle” can resolve the wave particle duality. I argue that bullet like Photons are not ontologically real but have been introduced as interpretation aids for experiments based upon an outdated concept of the observing mechanisms in such observers. However denying the reality of photons is only one consequence of a more fundamental shift from object to event oriented physical theories. I will show how adopting the concept that all systems are observers and providing an event model for those observers, will give quantum theory a paradox free ontological context. This context can, for example, provide an ontological explanation for the apparent random hits of individual matter-radiation interactions in the dual slit experiment. Almost a century of attempts to find an acceptable interpretation for quantum theory have failed because mere interpretations do not go far enough. Namely they do not treat the physical observer and his observations as incorporated into a single event. Event oriented physics suggests an observer is an activity cycle and Hilbert Space is a set of actual detector/actuator arrays, through which all knowledge is obtained. These arrays separate physical reality from the display of observable measurement results, inside such observing activities. By assuming arrays are fundamentally describable as mass and charge densities, gravity and electricity are coupled together by internal material forces between mass and charge. Electromagnetic influences can only change the dynamic state of an observing activity when charge-mass forces produce compensating changes in the gravito-inertial field. Gravito-inertial field fluctuations limit the ability of an atom to make a transition that exactly matches the energy available in a stimulating electric field. Thus the propensity of photon absorption is determined by the field intensity but the actual transition is determined by quasirandom gravito-inertial fluctuations. Disturbances in the electromagnetic-field propagates as waves, but are observed as well localized phenomena falsely suggesting particles exist in the field.

Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE•Sep 10, 2015•1 citation

On the intuitive understanding of nonlocality as implied by quantum theory

David Böhm, Basil J. Hiley

Foundations of Physics•Mar 1, 1975•178 citations

An intrinsic causality principle in histories-based quantum theory: a proposal

Fay Dowker B, Rafael D. Sorkin

Abstract Relativistic causality (RC) is the principle that no cause can act outside its future light cone, but any attempt to formulate this principle more precisely will depend on the foundational framework that one adopts for quantum theory. Adopting a histories-based (or ‘path integral’) framework, we relate RC to a condition we term ‘Persistence of Zero’ (PoZ), according to which an event E of measure zero remains forbidden if one forms its conjunction with any other event associated to a spacetime region that is later than or spacelike to that of E. We also relate PoZ to the Bell inequalities by showing that, in combination with a second, more technical condition it leads to the quantal counterpart of Fine’s patching theorem in much the same way as Bell’s condition of local causality leads to Fine’s original theorem. We then argue that RC per se has very little to say on the matter of which correlations can occur in nature and which cannot. From the point of view we arrive at, histories-based quantum theories are nonlocal in spacetime, and fully in compliance with RC.

arXiv:2305.16828•Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical•Oct 13, 2023•2 citations

Quantum Nonlocality and the Challenge to Scientific Realism

Christopher Norris

Foundations of Science•Mar 1, 2000•17 citations

Mermin habitually answers opinions, real and abstract

Michael Nauenberg

In his Reference Frame “What’s Bad About This Habit” (Physics Today, May 2009, page 8), N. David Mermin discusses what is real and what is abstract in physics—but without first defining what he means by those terms. The lack of definition is another bad habit that diminishes his otherwise interesting comments. In physics, we can give a concrete definition of “real”: phenomena or events that can be recorded by a device. The process of recording involves an irreversible transition that generally requires an interaction with a macroscopic device. The device can be our brains, but with some reservations, because sometimes we see or remember imaginary events that never happened. But “acquisition of knowledge or information,” pace Werner Heisenberg, although it occurs, is not relevant. Or as Richard Feynman remarked, “Nature … behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not.” 1 1. R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol. 3, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1965), p. 3–7 By the above definition of reality, Mermin is correct to point out that operators in Hilbert space and quantum wavefunctions are abstractions. I also believe that one should not lose any more sleep over the collapse of a wavefunction than over the change of any probability function after one of the possible outcomes has been recorded. But it does not follow, for example, that because electromagnetic fields are operators in Hilbert space, the manifestations of those fields are also abstractions or that the spacetime continuum where those fields are located is devoid of reality. Ironically, Mermin’s article appears in an issue of Physics Today whose cover and associated article show photographs of the spectacular magnetic field lines located in space (the Sun’s corona) and recorded in time in a UV image taken by a NASA spacecraft. The fields are made visible by the radiation of charged particles, in a similar way that planets and their orbits are observed by the reflection of solar radiation or that subatomic particles are seen by tracks left in a cloud or a spark chamber. Likewise, in the two-slit experiment, the effect of quantum interference with single photons can be recorded; consequently, the manifestations of the associated quantum wavefunction that predicts the interference are also real.Mermin claims that “spacetime is an abstract four-dimensional mathematical continuum of points that approximately represent phenomena,” and that it “is nothing more than an extremely effective way to represent relations between distinct events.” But spacetime points do not represent phenomena; instead, they represent the locations of phenomena, which are determined by measurements of the relative distances and the time intervals between events. Mermin remarks that his point of view “may also be easiest to see in quantum physics, where time and space refer ultimately to the time and place at which information is acquired or, if you prefer, at which a measurement is made.” But in both quantum and classical mechanics, the location in spacetime is also obtained by measurements, as are other characteristics of the event. Hence, in accordance with our concrete definition of reality, spacetime is real, although special relativity tells us that our measurements of position and time are frame dependent.Mermin is also concerned with the habit of attaching reality to “spooky actions at a distance” associated with the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect. But what is measured in the associated experiments are correlations that are predicted by quantum theory to occur at any distance of separation for the entangled particle states. That includes the case in which the distance becomes vanishingly small, and then such concerns as “nonlocality” and “faster-than-light influences” are not relevant. What would be really spooky is if those correlations depended on distance, because it would show that quantum mechanics is flawed. However, measurements demonstrate that the correlations do not depend on distance; thus they confirm again that the manifestations of quantum entanglement are not abstractions.Bad habits in the interpretation of such quantum phenomena usually originate from attempts to impose on the microscopic world views of reality learned from classical physics.REFERENCESection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCE <<1. R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol. 3, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1965), p. 3–7 , Google Scholar© 2009 American Institute of Physics.

Physics Today•Sep 1, 2009•0 citations

Mechanisms of Nonlocality and Its Implications to Physics and the Study of ConsciousnessMechanisms of Nonlocality and Its Implications to Physics and the Study of Consciousness

Simon M. McCrea

Contemporary Psychology•Jan 1, 2008•0 citations
Abstract We first stress that nonlocality forces changes on our view of the world. One can adopt the orthodox view that one should not even attempt to describe individual events; or one can opt for a properly-speaking nonlocal model, with very unpleasant features like influences propagating at infinite speed in our space-time; or one can go all the way to some form of determinism. Then, the hope is formulated that the field of nonlocality, having reached maturity, may serve as starting point for future discoveries.
Hugh Everett’s “Relative State” model [1] of the observing element in quantum theory is expanded in the Event Oriented World View [2] and used to show how inertial interactions suggested by “Mach’s Principle” can resolve the wave particle duality. I argue that bullet like Photons are not ontologically real but have been introduced as interpretation aids for experiments based upon an outdated concept of the observing mechanisms in such observers. However denying the reality of photons is only one consequence of a more fundamental shift from object to event oriented physical theories. I will show how adopting the concept that all systems are observers and providing an event model for those observers, will give quantum theory a paradox free ontological context. This context can, for example, provide an ontological explanation for the apparent random hits of individual matter-radiation interactions in the dual slit experiment. Almost a century of attempts to find an acceptable interpretation for quantum theory have failed because mere interpretations do not go far enough. Namely they do not treat the physical observer and his observations as incorporated into a single event. Event oriented physics suggests an observer is an activity cycle and Hilbert Space is a set of actual detector/actuator arrays, through which all knowledge is obtained. These arrays separate physical reality from the display of observable measurement results, inside such observing activities. By assuming arrays are fundamentally describable as mass and charge densities, gravity and electricity are coupled together by internal material forces between mass and charge. Electromagnetic influences can only change the dynamic state of an observing activity when charge-mass forces produce compensating changes in the gravito-inertial field. Gravito-inertial field fluctuations limit the ability of an atom to make a transition that exactly matches the energy available in a stimulating electric field. Thus the propensity of photon absorption is determined by the field intensity but the actual transition is determined by quasirandom gravito-inertial fluctuations. Disturbances in the electromagnetic-field propagates as waves, but are observed as well localized phenomena falsely suggesting particles exist in the field.
Abstract Relativistic causality (RC) is the principle that no cause can act outside its future light cone, but any attempt to formulate this principle more precisely will depend on the foundational framework that one adopts for quantum theory. Adopting a histories-based (or ‘path integral’) framework, we relate RC to a condition we term ‘Persistence of Zero’ (PoZ), according to which an event E of measure zero remains forbidden if one forms its conjunction with any other event associated to a spacetime region that is later than or spacelike to that of E. We also relate PoZ to the Bell inequalities by showing that, in combination with a second, more technical condition it leads to the quantal counterpart of Fine’s patching theorem in much the same way as Bell’s condition of local causality leads to Fine’s original theorem. We then argue that RC per se has very little to say on the matter of which correlations can occur in nature and which cannot. From the point of view we arrive at, histories-based quantum theories are nonlocal in spacetime, and fully in compliance with RC.
In his Reference Frame “What’s Bad About This Habit” (Physics Today, May 2009, page 8), N. David Mermin discusses what is real and what is abstract in physics—but without first defining what he means by those terms. The lack of definition is another bad habit that diminishes his otherwise interesting comments. In physics, we can give a concrete definition of “real”: phenomena or events that can be recorded by a device. The process of recording involves an irreversible transition that generally requires an interaction with a macroscopic device. The device can be our brains, but with some reservations, because sometimes we see or remember imaginary events that never happened. But “acquisition of knowledge or information,” pace Werner Heisenberg, although it occurs, is not relevant. Or as Richard Feynman remarked, “Nature … behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not.” 1 1. R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol. 3, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1965), p. 3–7 By the above definition of reality, Mermin is correct to point out that operators in Hilbert space and quantum wavefunctions are abstractions. I also believe that one should not lose any more sleep over the collapse of a wavefunction than over the change of any probability function after one of the possible outcomes has been recorded. But it does not follow, for example, that because electromagnetic fields are operators in Hilbert space, the manifestations of those fields are also abstractions or that the spacetime continuum where those fields are located is devoid of reality. Ironically, Mermin’s article appears in an issue of Physics Today whose cover and associated article show photographs of the spectacular magnetic field lines located in space (the Sun’s corona) and recorded in time in a UV image taken by a NASA spacecraft. The fields are made visible by the radiation of charged particles, in a similar way that planets and their orbits are observed by the reflection of solar radiation or that subatomic particles are seen by tracks left in a cloud or a spark chamber. Likewise, in the two-slit experiment, the effect of quantum interference with single photons can be recorded; consequently, the manifestations of the associated quantum wavefunction that predicts the interference are also real.Mermin claims that “spacetime is an abstract four-dimensional mathematical continuum of points that approximately represent phenomena,” and that it “is nothing more than an extremely effective way to represent relations between distinct events.” But spacetime points do not represent phenomena; instead, they represent the locations of phenomena, which are determined by measurements of the relative distances and the time intervals between events. Mermin remarks that his point of view “may also be easiest to see in quantum physics, where time and space refer ultimately to the time and place at which information is acquired or, if you prefer, at which a measurement is made.” But in both quantum and classical mechanics, the location in spacetime is also obtained by measurements, as are other characteristics of the event. Hence, in accordance with our concrete definition of reality, spacetime is real, although special relativity tells us that our measurements of position and time are frame dependent.Mermin is also concerned with the habit of attaching reality to “spooky actions at a distance” associated with the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect. But what is measured in the associated experiments are correlations that are predicted by quantum theory to occur at any distance of separation for the entangled particle states. That includes the case in which the distance becomes vanishingly small, and then such concerns as “nonlocality” and “faster-than-light influences” are not relevant. What would be really spooky is if those correlations depended on distance, because it would show that quantum mechanics is flawed. However, measurements demonstrate that the correlations do not depend on distance; thus they confirm again that the manifestations of quantum entanglement are not abstractions.Bad habits in the interpretation of such quantum phenomena usually originate from attempts to impose on the microscopic world views of reality learned from classical physics.REFERENCESection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCE <<1. R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol. 3, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1965), p. 3–7 , Google Scholar© 2009 American Institute of Physics.