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

Cambridge University Press eBooks

Self-intervening Networks

George Jaroszkiewicz

Published Jul 13, 2023• 0 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1017/9781009401432.022

Related papers

Quantized self-intervening detector networks

George Jaroszkiewicz

A range of quantum optics experiments is discussed in which the apparatus can be modified by detector outcomes during the course of any run. Starting with a single beamsplitter network, we work our way through a series of more complex scenarios, culminating with a proposed self-intervening experiment which could provide evidence for the existence of the Heisenberg cut, the supposed boundary between classical and quantum physics.

arXiv:0904.1609•Apr 9, 2009•0 citations

Self Replication and Signalling

Indranil Chakrabarty, Prashant ., Binayak Samadder Choudhury

arXiv:0706.1735•International Journal of Theoretical Physics•Jun 22, 2007•2 citations

Self-intervening Networks

George Jaroszkiewicz

Introduction In this chapter, we discuss some of the differences between apparatus and systems under observation (SUOs). The discussion is phrased in terms of self–intervening networks , wherein partial quantum outcomes in an early stage of an apparatus can alter future configurations of that apparatus. To explain what we mean, we introduce the following classification of experiments. Note that reference to apparatus here includes real and virtual detectors, and real and virtual modules. Virtual detectors and modules are mathematical fictions that are introduced into the formalism for convenience. Type-Zero Experiments Many important experiments involve signal propagation through “empty space.” We classify these as type zero (T0). The feature of T0 experiments qualifying for this classification is that the observer has no control of the modules in the information void. Examples are experiments in astrophysics, where the observer can choose which source to observe and how they observe it, but has no influence on the physical properties of whatever lies between source and detector. If there are gas clouds between source and detector, the observer can only recognize that fact after the experimental data are analyzed. An important modern variant of T0 experiments involves map location via the Global Positioning System (GPS): signals sent from Earth to geostationary satellites and received by mobile devices back on Earth have traveled through Earth's atmosphere and through empty space, where special relativistic and general relativistic effects have to be taken into account (Ashby, 2002). Before the rise of experimental science, most “experiments” were based on visual observations, which are principally of T0 classification. The advent of the telescope and the microscope did not change things in this respect. Indeed, it has been suggested that science did not progress in antiquity precisely because of the philosophical principle that the only valid experiments could be of T0, as these do not introduce the artificiality of constructed modules into observation, which (it was argued) would give a false perspective on “reality.” The logic of that argument is superb, but it is a dead-end principle in science. Several sciences such as geology, archaeology, and, indeed, cosmology started off with periods of basic observation rather than experimentation. During such initial stages of these sciences, the observations could be classified as T0 experiments.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 28, 2017•0 citations

THINKING SYSTEMS

AUGUST STERN

Elsevier eBooks•Jan 1, 2000•0 citations

Introducing the Dynamic Continuum: Wardality, the Governance of Continuous-Variable Spatial Configurations

Hugh Nigel Abraham

The measurement problem in contemporary physics presents an acute structural challenge to probability conservation during continuous-variable phase transitions. Traditional frameworks treat the wave function as an abstract probability distribution prone to discontinuous collapse upon external observation. This paper resolves the paradox by introducing Wardality, a scale-invariant geometric mechanism that ensures the global conservation of total probability amplitudes across continuous spacetime volumes, as fully described in Refined Spacetime Theory (RST). Rather than evaluating the vacuum as a passive background, this framework establishes that spatial configurations actively participate in wave propagation via the Temporal Wave Configuration Vector. By treating the measurement apparatus and the intervening vacuum substrate as a unified volumetric network, this model provides a self-contained, deterministic explanation for retrocausal anomalies. This framework is validated against the established boundaries of John Wheeler’s delayed-choice and quantum eraser experiments, eliminating non-local "action-at-a-distance" interpretations in favour of local, continuous coordinate realignment. Wardality is presented here as a self-contained, narrowly-scoped proposal; its claims stand or fall on the mathematics and predictions given here, independent of the wider schema.

•Jul 3, 2026•0 citations

Information and Interaction

Ian T. Durham, Dean P. Rickles

The frontiers collection•Dec 10, 2016•22 citations
Introduction In this chapter, we discuss some of the differences between apparatus and systems under observation (SUOs). The discussion is phrased in terms of self–intervening networks , wherein partial quantum outcomes in an early stage of an apparatus can alter future configurations of that apparatus. To explain what we mean, we introduce the following classification of experiments. Note that reference to apparatus here includes real and virtual detectors, and real and virtual modules. Virtual detectors and modules are mathematical fictions that are introduced into the formalism for convenience. Type-Zero Experiments Many important experiments involve signal propagation through “empty space.” We classify these as type zero (T0). The feature of T0 experiments qualifying for this classification is that the observer has no control of the modules in the information void. Examples are experiments in astrophysics, where the observer can choose which source to observe and how they observe it, but has no influence on the physical properties of whatever lies between source and detector. If there are gas clouds between source and detector, the observer can only recognize that fact after the experimental data are analyzed. An important modern variant of T0 experiments involves map location via the Global Positioning System (GPS): signals sent from Earth to geostationary satellites and received by mobile devices back on Earth have traveled through Earth's atmosphere and through empty space, where special relativistic and general relativistic effects have to be taken into account (Ashby, 2002). Before the rise of experimental science, most “experiments” were based on visual observations, which are principally of T0 classification. The advent of the telescope and the microscope did not change things in this respect. Indeed, it has been suggested that science did not progress in antiquity precisely because of the philosophical principle that the only valid experiments could be of T0, as these do not introduce the artificiality of constructed modules into observation, which (it was argued) would give a false perspective on “reality.” The logic of that argument is superb, but it is a dead-end principle in science. Several sciences such as geology, archaeology, and, indeed, cosmology started off with periods of basic observation rather than experimentation. During such initial stages of these sciences, the observations could be classified as T0 experiments.
The measurement problem in contemporary physics presents an acute structural challenge to probability conservation during continuous-variable phase transitions. Traditional frameworks treat the wave function as an abstract probability distribution prone to discontinuous collapse upon external observation. This paper resolves the paradox by introducing Wardality, a scale-invariant geometric mechanism that ensures the global conservation of total probability amplitudes across continuous spacetime volumes, as fully described in Refined Spacetime Theory (RST). Rather than evaluating the vacuum as a passive background, this framework establishes that spatial configurations actively participate in wave propagation via the Temporal Wave Configuration Vector. By treating the measurement apparatus and the intervening vacuum substrate as a unified volumetric network, this model provides a self-contained, deterministic explanation for retrocausal anomalies. This framework is validated against the established boundaries of John Wheeler’s delayed-choice and quantum eraser experiments, eliminating non-local "action-at-a-distance" interpretations in favour of local, continuous coordinate realignment. Wardality is presented here as a self-contained, narrowly-scoped proposal; its claims stand or fall on the mathematics and predictions given here, independent of the wider schema.