Abstract Chapter 5 presents the constructive bias associated with Newtonian mechanics. Since Newtonian mechanics follows from QM (h goes to zero) and SR (c goes to infinity), which are both principle theories based on NPRF, we argue the constructive bias is ill-founded. In QM the constructive bias is reflected by Reichenbach’s Principle applied to the Bell state correlations, i.e., Bell state correlations should be explained causally. Zigzag or co-causation as an alternative associated with all-at-once retrocausality using colliders is introduced and dismissed using an analogy with SR.
Abstract Chapter 5 presents the constructive bias associated with Newtonian mechanics. Since Newtonian mechanics follows from QM (h goes to zero) and SR (c goes to infinity), which are both principle theories based on NPRF, we argue the constructive bias is ill-founded. In QM the constructive bias is reflected by Reichenbach’s Principle applied to the Bell state correlations, i.e., Bell state correlations should be explained causally. Zigzag or co-causation as an alternative associated with all-at-once retrocausality using colliders is introduced and dismissed using an analogy with SR.
Our account provides a local, realist and fully non-causal principle explanation for EPR correlations, contextuality, no-signalling, and the Tsirelson bound. Indeed, the account herein is fully consistent with the causal structure of Minkowski spacetime. We argue that retrocausal accounts of quantum mechanics are problematic precisely because they do not fully transcend the assumption that causal or constructive explanation must always be fundamental. Unlike retrocausal accounts, our principle explanation is a complete rejection of Reichenbach's Principle. Furthermore, we will argue that the basis for our principle account of quantum mechanics is the physical principle sought by quantum information theorists for their reconstructions of quantum mechanics. Finally, we explain why our account is both fully realist and psi-epistemic.
Stunning new observations and theories deepen the concept of causation. Quantum theory is one of the most striking discovery of contemporary physics, and it challenges many facets of older theories, even though it lies on many assumptions that could not be empirically experimented. In this paper, I will recall the views of Hume, Reichenbach and Einstein about the issue of causation, whereas I will focus on causal priority and temporal priority criteria in causation. Nevertheless, one task that I perform is the interpretation of these ideas by arguing them within the quantum scope. That is, trying to manifest Hume, Reichenbach and Einstein views of causation that I think as close, but I shall avoid putting straight cuts on where they differ. Direction of causal processes is dependent on the direction of time in Hume’s sense while Reichenbach explained the direction of time with irreversible processes, even if he follows the temporal priority criteria of Hume. It is stated that there is nothing faster than light by Einstein, as a result, a cause could not pass the upper limit of light. Crudely put, their thoughts all differ from the principles of quantum, because causation (causation might denote a different meaning in quantum realm) may be able to travel faster than light and the common cause principle between events is rejected in quantum realm.
It has been claimed that quantum mechanics is a non-local theory, i.e., that the predictions of quantum mechanics are at odds with a conception of the world where all the interactions are mediated by local mechanisms. The cited reason is the violation of the Bell inequality in cases where measurements are performed on quantum systems of particles that have interacted in the past. Quantum mechanics predicts that the state of the particles in such a system are correlated, a result obtained from considering a thought-experiment often known as EPR. In this thesis, I will argue that the violation of the Bell inequality in EPR forces us to either accept that causes sometimes act both backwards and forwards in time, or give up some widely-held assumptions about causal relations or the role of causal explanations. First, I will present three principles regarding causality that I take be widely accepted. I will then present the background for the claim the quantum mechanics is a non-local theory, and discuss the implications of non-local causal influences in light of the Special Theory of Relativity. One argument against a causal explanation of the EPR-correlations will be discussed, and different models for the causal structure of EPR will be assessed. I will argue that a retrocausal model – models that include instances of retrocausation, where the direction of causation is the opposite of the direction of time – is the only viable option if we want to uphold the three principles presented in chapter 1. I will discuss the plausibility of rejecting one of these principles, and argue that at least one of the can be restricted in a way that still accounts for our commitment to it. Finally, I will assess the non-local models against the retrocausal models, and argue that a retrocausal model offers interpretational advantages over the non-local alternatives.
In this piece, written for a general audience, we propose a mechanism for quantum entanglement. The key ingredient is collider bias. In the language of causal models, a collider is a variable causally influenced by two or more other variables. Conditioning on a collider typically produces non-causal correlations between its contributing causes. This phenomenon can produce associations analogous to Bell correlations, in suitable post-selected ensembles. Such collider artefacts may become real connections, resembling causality, if a collider is 'constrained' (e.g., by a future boundary condition). We consider the time-reversed analogues of these points in the context of retrocausal models of QM. Retrocausality yields a collider at the source of an EPR-Bell particle pair, and in this case constraint of the collider is possible by normal methods of experimental preparation. It follows that connections resembling causality may emerge across such colliders, from one branch of the experiment to the other. Our hypothesis is that this constrained retrocausal collider bias is the origin of entanglement. This piece is based on a suggestion first made in arXiv:2101.05370v4 [quant-ph], and is an ancestor of an essay now published online in Aeon magazine [Price & Wharton 2023a]. In an updated version of the argument in arXiv:2309.10969 [quant-ph] we (i) demonstrate its application in a real Bell experiment; and (ii) show that we can do without an explicit postulate of retrocausality
In the paper we compare three principles accounting for correlations, namely Reichenbach's Common Cause Principle, Bell's Local Causality Principle, and Einstein's Reality Criterion and relate them to the Bell inequalities. We show that there are two routes connecting the principles to the Bell inequalities. In case of Reichenbach's Common Cause Principle and Bell's Local Causality Principle one assumes a non-conspiratorial joint common cause for a set of correlations. In case of Einstein's Reality Criterion one assumes strongly non-conspiratorial separate common causes for a set of perfect correlations. Strongly non-conspiratorial separate common causes for perfect correlations, however, form a non-conspiratorial joint common cause. Hence the two routes leading the Bell inequalities meet.
In this piece, written for a general audience, we propose a mechanism for quantum entanglement. The key ingredient is the familiar statistical phenomenon of collider bias, or Berkson's bias. In the language of causal models a collider is a variable causally influenced by two or more other variables. Conditioning on a collider typically produces non-causal associations between its contributing causes, even if they are actually independent. It is easy to show that this phenomenon can produce associations analogous to Bell correlations, in suitable post-selected ensembles. It is also straightforward that such collider artefacts may become real connections, resembling causality, if a collider is 'constrained' (e.g., by a future boundary condition). We consider the time-reversed analogues of these points in the context of retrocausal models of QM. Retrocausality yields a collider at the source of an EPR-Bell particle pair, and in this case constraint of the collider is possible by normal methods of experimental preparation. It follows that connections resembling causality may be expected to emerge across such colliders, from one branch of the experiment to the other. Our hypothesis is that this constrained retrocausal collider bias is the origin of entanglement. The piece is based on a suggestion first made in arXiv:2101.05370 [quant-ph].