International Journal of Quantum Foundations

  • Volume 4, Issue 3, pages 210-222

    R. E. Kastner [Show Biography] and John G. Cramer [Show Biography]

    function toggleb1() {
    var ele1 = document.getElementById(“togglebiography1”);
    var text1 = […]

  • Volume 4, Issue 1, pages 142-146

    Louis Marchildon [Show Biography]

    function toggleb1() {
    var ele1 = document.getElementById(“togglebiography1”);
    var text1 = document.getElementById(“displaybiography1”);
    if(ele1.style.display == “block”) {
    ele1.style.display = “none”;
    text1.innerHTML = “Show”;
    }
    else {
    ele1.style.display = “block”;
    text1.innerHTML = “Hide”;
    }
    }

    function togglep() {
    var ele = document.getElementById(“togglepapers”);
    var text = document.getElementById(“displaypapers”);
    if(ele.style.display == “block”) {
    ele.style.display = “none”;
    text.innerHTML = “Most Relevant Papers”;
    }
    else {
    ele.style.display = “block”;
    text.innerHTML = “Most Relevant Papers”;
    }
    }

    Louis Marchildon is Professor of Physics (Emeritus) at Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières (UQTR). He obtained his B.Sc. and M.Sc. from UQTR, and his Ph.D. from Yale University in 1978. After postdoctoral work at Institut des hautes études scientifiques (France), he returned to UQTR where, in addition to research in relativity, he collaborated with a group investigating dielectric properties of materials. His book Quantum Mechanics: From Basic Principles to Numerical Methods and Applications was published by Springer in 2002. He served as President of the Canadian Association of Physicists in 2007-2008. He has now been working on quantum foundations for more than 15 years, and is also interested in science popularization.

    Kastner (this issue) and Kastner and Cramer (arXiv:1711.04501) argue that the Relativistic Transactional Interpretation (RTI) of quantum mechanics provides a clear definition of absorbers and a solution to the measurement problem. I briefly examine how RTI stands with respect to unitarity in quantum mechanics. I then argue that a specific proposal to locate the origin of nonunitarity is flawed, at least in its present form.

    Full Text Download (137k) | View Submission Post

    • Prof. Marchildon’s objections are based on numerous misunderstandings, which I’ve tried to correct in emails (apparently unsuccessfully). I will try again here.
      First, he is still looking for empirical predictions from RTI that differ from standard quantum theory. But as I’ve repeatedly noted in an email exchange with him, RTI is empirically equivalent to standard QED (up to the non-unitary transition); **this is a theorem**, as noted in Kastner/Cramer 2017 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.04501).
      The only sense in which RTI differs from standard QM/QED is in predicting collapse (i.e. predicting that we will get definite outcomes, which we DO in fact get). In contrast, the unitary-only theory fails to predict what we see; i.e., definite outcomes. Thus, to the extent that it differs from standard QM/QED (i,e only in predicting the measurement transition), RTI is empirically corroborated; while the unitary-only theory is not.
      Now for the next problem: Prof. Marchildon states that “he charge is not associated with the amplitude of a physical process”. But this assertion is exactly contradicted by Feynman, the founder of QED, who correctly noted that the charge is the amplitude for an electron (or positron) to emit a real photon. The fact that each Feynman diagram represents a term in a sum in no way refutes this interpretation of the coupling amplitude. Such sums express situations in which no real photon was in fact emitted (usually because the photons are off-shell and/or their emission would violate the conservation laws). But the amplitude still functions as Feynman stated.
      Prof. Marchildon’s remaining objections are also off-target. Getting specific behavior for the mesoscopic realm (including Buckeyballs) obviously requires detailed calculations based on the detailed structure of whatever molecules are being used, and those calculations will be done with standard QM (with which RTI is **empirically equivalent**). A molecule that for example is subject to excitation by extraneous photons will be a source of loss of unitarity (leading to ‘which-way information’) even according to standard QM. It’s just that standard QM won’t be able to explain why.
      Regarding hypothetical coupling constants that don’t exist: the idea that one could imagine a large electromagnetic coupling constant that does not in fact exist in our world, and that this should be a refutation of a physical theory about our world, leads to absurdities. I can imagine a world in which real photons have large finite rest mass, thus ‘refuting’ the theory of relativity as it applies to our world, since then photons will fail to travel on null cones. Does this mean that relativity is wrong?
      In any case, as is explicitly shown in Kastner/Cramer 2017 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.04501) , the basic coupling amplitude between fields is not the only arbiter of the non-unitary transition. Marchildon has overlooked transition amplitudes, which contribute to the probability that a measurement-type interaction will take place. This issue is explicitly discussed in the above paper, in the form of decay rates, which depend on both the coupling constant and specific transitions between atomic states. Thus, transition probabilities are crucial aspects of the (time-dependent) probability of a measurement transition, and contribute factors that greatly decrease the basic coupling probability of 1/137.
      The same observation applies to the strong force coupling, in which the probability of non-unitarity is always greatly decreased by the relevant transition probabilities. Finally, the suggestion that the strong coupling constant might exceed unity in no way refutes the interpretation of RTI, since that only occurs for extreme separation between quarks, and could be seen as expressing a critical transition zone, beyond the limit of quark confinement, in which enormous energies have to be injected. In this extreme zone, you have to put in so much energy that you create new quarks, which corresponds very nicely to exceeding what would be a coupling of unity for a single quark.
      In conclusion, I can find no substantive objections presented in Marchildon’s discussion. I hope I’ve corrected the misunderstandings he expresses here.

    • Follow-up regarding the issue of a physically meaningful probability: the essential point is that the full physical probability of a non-unitary measurement transition is always given by the square of the [coupling constant times the transition amplitude] for the relevant transition. And this is always time-dependent (i.e. a decay rate applying to the emitting atom, taking into account the specific absorbing atoms present). This has all been shown explicitly and quantitatively in Kastner/Cramer 2017 referenced above (eqs (10) and (11), https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.04501.pdf). Thus, absorption is indeed clearly and quantitatively defined in RTI–it’s right there in the above equations–contrary to Marchildon’s ongoing claims. Marchildon’s focus only on part of the account (i.e. just the factor of the square of the coupling constant) has apparently led to confusion. Perhaps my discussion of the coupling constant separately, in heuristic terms, might have contributed to this confusion. But the quantitative and unambiguous account of absorption at the relativistic level is indeed there in eqs (10, 11), for anyone who wants to see it.

  • Volume 4, Issue 1, pages 117-127

    Andreas Schlatter [Show Biography]

    function toggleb1() {
    var ele1 = document.getElementById(“togglebiography1”);
    var text1 = document.getElementById(“displaybiography1”);
    if(ele1.style.display == “block”) {
    ele1.style.display = “none”;
    text1.innerHTML = “Show”;
    }
    else {
    ele1.style.display = “block”;
    text1.innerHTML = “Hide”;
    }
    }

    Born in Zurich, Switzerland, Andreas Schlatter was educated at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, where he studied mathematics. He got his PhD in 1994 with work in partial differential equations. He subsequently held a research position at Princeton University, where he did further work mainly on the Yang-Mills heat equation. In 1997 Andreas joined the Asset Management industry and pursued a distinguished career over twenty years, which brought him into the Executive Committee of one of the world’s large Asset Management firms. Today Andreas does consulting work and holds a number of independent board seats. Andreas has been doing research and published during his professional life, mainly in the area of Quantum Foundations and Relativity but also in Finance.

    There are so called MOND corrections to the general relativistic laws of gravity, able to explain phenomena like the rotation of large spiral galaxies or gravitational lensing by certain galaxy clusters. We show that these corrections can be derived in the framework of synchronizing thermal clocks. We develop a general formula, which reproduces the deep MOND correction at large scales and defines the boundary-acceleration beyond which corrections are necessary.

    Full Text Download (903k) | View Submission Post

  • Volume 4, Issue 1, pages 1-116

    Per Östborn [Show Biography]

    function toggleb1() {
    var ele1 = document.getElementById(“togglebiography1”);
    var text1 = document.getElementById(“displaybiography1”);
    if(ele1.style.display == “block”) {
    ele1.style.display = “none”;
    text1.innerHTML = “Show”;
    }
    else {
    ele1.style.display = “block”;
    text1.innerHTML = “Hide”;
    }
    }

    function togglep() {
    var ele = document.getElementById(“togglepapers”);
    var text = document.getElementById(“displaypapers”);
    if(ele.style.display == “block”) {
    ele.style.display = “none”;
    text.innerHTML = “Most Relevant Papers”;
    }
    else {
    ele.style.display = “block”;
    text.innerHTML = “Most Relevant Papers”;
    }
    }

    Born in Lund, Sweden, Per Östborn was educated at Lund University. He got his PhD at the Division of Mathematical Physics in 2003. The subject of the dissertation was phase transitions toward synchrony in large lattices of limit cycle oscillators. Such phase transitions are examples of phase transitions in non-equilibrium systems. More recently he has held a cross-disciplinary research position at the Department of Archaeology and Ancient History at Lund University. He has developed and used network-based methods to analyze the diffusion of innovations in antiquity. Per works outside academia as well, mostly with environmental issues relating to transport. Interest in the philosophical foundations was the reason why he started to study physics, but this is his first publication in this field.

    We derive the Hilbert space formalism of quantum mechanics from epistemic principles. A key assumption is that a physical theory that relies on entities or distinctions that are unknowable in principle gives rise to wrong predictions. An epistemic formalism is developed, where concepts like individual and collective knowledge are used, and knowledge may be actual or potential. The physical state S corresponds to the collective potential knowledge. The state S is a subset of a state space S = {Z}, such that S always contains several elements Z, which correspond to unattainable states of complete potential knowledge of the world. The evolution of S cannot be determined in terms of the individual evolution of the elements Z, unlike the evolution of an ensemble in classical phase space. The evolution of S is described in terms of sequential time n belonging to N, which is updated according to n -> n+1 each time potential knowledge changes. In certain experimental contexts C, there is knowledge at the start of the experiment at time n that a given series of properties P, P’,… will be observed within a given time frame, meaning that a series of values p, p’,… of these properties will become known. At time n, it is just known that these values belong to predefined, finite sets {p},{p’},… In such a context C, it is possible to define a complex Hilbert space HC on top of S, in which the elements are contextual state vectors Sc. Born’s rule to calculate the probabilities to find the values p,p’,… is derived as the only generally applicable such rule. Also, we can associate a self-adjoint operator P with eigenvalues {p} to each property P observed within C. These operators obey [P, P’] = 0 if and only if the precise values of P and P’ are simultaneoulsy knowable. The existence of properties whose precise values are not simultaneously knowable follows from the hypothesis that collective potential knowledge is always incomplete, corresponding to the above-mentioned statement that S always contains several elements Z.

    Full Text Download (1137k) | View Submission Post

  • Volume 3, Issue 4, pages 119-125

    Andreas Schlatter [Show Biography]

    function toggleb1() {
    var ele1 = document.getElementById(“togglebiography1”);
    var text1 = document.getElementById(“displaybiography1”);
    if(ele1.style.display == “block”) {
    ele1.style.display = “none”;
    text1.innerHTML = “Show”;
    }
    else {
    ele1.style.display = “block”;
    text1.innerHTML = “Hide”;
    }
    }

    Born in Zurich, Switzerland, Andreas Schlatter was educated at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, where he studied mathematics. He got his PhD in 1994 with work in partial differential equations. He subsequently held a research position at Princeton University, where he did further work mainly on the Yang-Mills heat equation. In 1997 Andreas joined the Asset Management industry and pursued a distinguished career over twenty years, which brought him into the Executive Committee of one of the world’s large Asset Management firms. Today Andreas does consulting work and holds a number of independent board seats. Andreas has been doing research and published during his professional life, mainly in the area of Quantum Foundations and Relativity but also in Finance.

    We assign to the radiation vacuum the role of a universal observer with a corresponding universal clock. By demanding that the thermal clock of a gravitationally accelerated observer in its local rest frame marches in step with the universal one, we derive relations between energy content and geometry of space-time.

    Full Text Download (589k) | View Submission Post

  • Volume 3, Issue 4, pages 100-118

    Leonardo Chiatti [Show Biography]

    function toggleb1() {
    var ele1 = document.getElementById(“togglebiography”);
    var text1 = document.getElementById(“displaybiography”);
    if(ele1.style.display == “block”) {
    ele1.style.display = “none”;
    text1.innerHTML = “Show”;
    }
    else {
    ele1.style.display = “block”;
    text1.innerHTML = “Hide”;
    }
    }

    Graduated in physics at Rome University “La Sapienza” in 1985, discussing a thesis on spin in stochastic mechanics under the guide of Marcello Cini. His interest focus on the conceptual foundations of quantum mechanics and their relation to areas as quantum dissipative phenomena, quantum cosmology and the spectrum of elementary particles. During ‘90s, he was involved in MQC Project aiming to produce superpositions of quantum states in mesoscopic systems (rf-SQUIDs). Successively, his interest enlarged to medical physics and currently he serves as physicist in chief at ASL Medical Physics Laboratory in Viterbo, Italy. Along the past decade he has been, in collaboration with Ignazio Licata, a proponent of de Sitter quantum cosmology. Together, they have proposed an “objective” view of quantum discontinuity as an “a-dynamic” aspect of interaction. This approach identifies the reduction of wave function with the physical phenomenon of the “quantum leap”.

    The customary description of radiation processes provided by Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) allows the quantitative derivation of many physical observables, in line with experiments. This extraordinary empirical success, however, leaves open the problem of the ontology of these processes. We identify these with the discontinuities of the evolution of the quantum state of the source, the so-called quantum jumps (QJ). Adopting a time-symmetrical view of the QJ borrowed from the transactional approach, the phenomena of radiation emission and absorption by an electron acquire an adynamic aspect, associated with their emergence from an atemporal background. The QJ activates the progressive generation of the electron timeline, along which its asymptotic state evolves. This causation process is of the formal type, and its dynamic “shadow” on the time domain is constituted by an interval during which the electron is self-interacting. Instead, in the absence of further interaction with external fields the asymptotic state is “on shell” i.e. not self-interacting. These ideas are used to constraint the value of the fine structure constant and of the cosmological constant, and to illustrate some less-known properties of electroweak decays.

    Full Text Download (258k) | View Submission Post

  • Volume 3, Issue 3, pages 78-99

    Tom Campbell [Show Biography], Houman Owhadi [Show Biography], Joe Sauvageau [Show Biography], and David Watkinson [Show Biography]

    function toggleb1() {
    var ele1 = document.getElementById(“togglebiography1”);
    var text1 = document.getElementById(“displaybiography1”);
    if(ele1.style.display == “block”) {
    ele1.style.display = “none”;
    text1.innerHTML = “Show”;
    }
    else {
    ele1.style.display = “block”;
    text1.innerHTML = “Hide”;
    }
    }

    function toggleb2() {
    var ele2 = document.getElementById(“togglebiography2”);
    var text2 = document.getElementById(“displaybiography2”);
    if(ele2.style.display == “block”) {
    ele2.style.display = “none”;
    text2.innerHTML = “Show”;
    }
    else {
    ele2.style.display = “block”;
    text2.innerHTML = “Hide”;
    }
    }

    function toggleb3() {
    var ele3 = document.getElementById(“togglebiography3”);
    var text3 = document.getElementById(“displaybiography3”);
    if(ele3.style.display == “block”) {
    ele3.style.display = “none”;
    text3.innerHTML = “Show”;
    }
    else {
    ele3.style.display = “block”;
    text3.innerHTML = “Hide”;
    }
    }

    function toggleb4() {
    var ele3 = document.getElementById(“togglebiography4”);
    var text3 = document.getElementById(“displaybiography4”);
    if(ele3.style.display == “block”) {
    ele3.style.display = “none”;
    text3.innerHTML = “Show”;
    }
    else {
    ele3.style.display = “block”;
    text3.innerHTML = “Hide”;
    }
    }

    //

    Tom Campbell, born in the USA in 1944, earned his BS degree (Cum Laude) in 1966 with majors in both Mathematics and Physics. While an undergraduate, Tom became the president of his fraternity and chief Justice of the college’s student court.  Tom was awarded a master’s degree in Physics from Purdue university in 1968 after which PhD work commenced at the University of Virginia with a specialization in experimental nuclear physics.  Campbell was an analyst with Army technical intelligence for a decade before moving into the research and development of technology supporting defensive missile systems.  He also worked as a consultant for NASA within the Ares I program assessing and solving problems of system risk and survivability to insure crew survivability and mission success.  Campbell published a trilogy My Big TOE (MBT) in 2003 that offered a fully complete cosmology based on the simulation hypothesis including a theory of consciousness, and a derivation of both relativity and Quantum Mechanics from one overarching set of principles.  Furthermore, Campbell’s theory eliminates any nonlocal “weirdness”…. replacing it with a completely rational and logical causal process as found in all other subsets of science.  MBT has been successful at solving many outstanding fundamental paradoxes within physics in particular, science in general, and within several other major fields of study including: philosophy (cosmology, epistemology, ontology), psychology (mind models), mathematics (cellular automata and evolution as process fractals), medicine (mind-body connection), biology (math & other anomalies), and theology (source). In October 2016, Campbell presented, in Los Angeles CA (MBT-LA), a set of quantum experiments that would support his theory if they worked as predicted (available on DVD upon request or on YouTube).   Fortunately, these experiments are relatively inexpensive and not particularly difficult to perform.

    Houman Owhadi is Professor of Applied & Computational Mathematics and Control and Dynamical Systems in the Computing and Mathematical Sciences Department at the California Institute of Technology. His work lies at the interface between applied mathematics, probability and statistics. At the center of his work are fundamental problems such as the optimal quantification of uncertainties in presence of limited information, statistical inference/game theoretic approaches to numerical approximation and algorithm design, multiscale analysis with non-separated scales, and the geometric integration of structured stochastic systems.

    Joe Sauvageau received a M.A, and Ph.D. from Stony Brook University in New York in Applied Physics in 1987. He is currently serving as a Senior Systems Manager at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, CA in the Astronomy, Physics and Space Technology Office. His career experience has spanned scientific pursuits as a government scientist at NIST studying superconducting quantum devices; industrial physics and engineering development in the semiconductor, optoelectronics and photonics industries; and leading the optical engineering design, development and deployment of next generation optical instruments including visible and infrared imaging sensors for space and airborne applications. He was the recipient of the Rotary National Award for Space Achievement (RNASA) Stellar Award in 2013, Aviation Week Technical Program Excellence Award and an IEEE Outstanding Engineer of the Year Award in 2012 associated with the design and development of a multispectral sensor payload currently in geosynchronous orbit. He has also served in various senior management positions ranging from start-ups through Fortune 500 companies and he has held positions on several Technical Advisory Boards. His publication portfolio includes four patents and a multitude of articles and technical reports in journals.

    In 1964, David Watkinson went to the University of North Carolina on a navy scholarship to major in physics and mathematics. In his junior year, he visited Dr. J. B. Rhine’s Parapsychology laboratory at nearby Duke University and became so interested in that field of study that he graduated with a degree in psychology. Having developed programming and 2D/3D animation skills, Watkinson was recruited to work on feature films which led to a long career in Hollywood and some time as a Visiting Assistant Professor in the UCLA Graduate School of Film. During that time, Watkinson became interested in virtual reality technology while writing about it for Videography Magazine. Watkinson was finally able to combine his interest in virtual reality simulations, parapsychology and physics when he formed a group to study physicist Tom Campbell’s TOE which unifies all three fields. In pursuing that study, Watkinson visited physicist Marlan Scully and his team at Texas A&M to discuss Scully’s Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser. During the visit, Watkinson became aware of an important variation of the Double Slit experiment that had never been performed. That led Watkinson to get involved with Campbell and the other authors in an effort to promote interest in performing multiple experiments to test the simulation hypothesis.

    Can the theory that reality is a simulation be tested? We investigate this question based on the assumption that if the system performing the simulation is finite (i.e. has limited resources), then to achieve low computational complexity, such a system would, as in a video game, render content (reality) only at the moment that information becomes available for observation by a player and not at the moment of detection by a machine (that would be part of the simulation and whose detection would also be part of the internal computation performed by the Virtual Reality server before rendering content to the player). Guided by this principle we describe conceptual wave/particle duality experiments aimed at testing the simulation theory.

    Full Text Download (378k) | View Submission Post

  • Volume 3, Issue 2, pages 31-64

    Jean Bricmont [Show Biography]

    function toggleb() {
    var ele = document.getElementById(“togglebiography”);
    var text = document.getElementById(“displaybiography”);
    if(ele.style.display == “block”) {
    ele.style.display = “none”;
    text.innerHTML = “Show”;
    }
    else {
    ele.style.display = “block”;
    text.innerHTML = “Hide”;
    }
    }

    I was born 12 April 1952 in Belgium; I got my phD in 1977 at the University of Louvain in Belgium. I worked at Rutgers and Princeton universities and have been a professor of theoretical physics at the university of Louvain, but I am now retired. I worked on statistical mechanics, the renormalization group and nonlinear partial differential equations. I am also interested in making sense of quantum mechanics, see http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319258874.

    The goal of this paper is to explain how the views of Albert Einstein, John Bell and others, about nonlocality and the conceptual issues raised by quantum mechanics, have been rather systematically misunderstood by the majority of physicists.

    Full Text Download (385k) | View Submission Post

  • Volume 3, Issue 2, pages 24-30

    Umberto Lucia [Show Biography]

    function toggleb() {
    var ele = document.getElementById(“togglebiography”);
    var text = document.getElementById(“displaybiography”);
    if(ele.style.display == “block”) {
    ele.style.display = “none”;
    text.innerHTML = “Show”;
    }
    else {
    ele.style.display = “block”;
    text.innerHTML = “Hide”;
    }
    }

    Umberto Lucia was born in Alessandria (Italy) on April 25th 1966. He obtained the M.Sc. in Physics (Università di Torino, Italy); the Ph.D. in Energetics (Università di Firenze, Italy); the M.R.A. in Condensed Matter Physics (Università di Ferrara, Italy). He was a fellowship in Nuclear physics and Mathematical physics at Università di Torino, in thermal properties of matter at Università di Ferrara, in applied physics at Italian National Institute of Matter (INFM) in Genova, he worked as applied researcher in technology transfer at INFM for 4 years, and, after having taught Physics at Secondary Schools, and having developed his researches in thermodynamics at his own home for more than ten years, in 2011 he passed the selections for Assistant Professor of Thermal Engineering and Energy Systems at the Politecnico di Torino, where, now, he teaches Applied thermodynamics and heat transfer, and Physical bases of thermal therapies, and develops studies and researches in Irreversible thermodynamics, biosystems thermodynamics, quantum thermodynamics, and biothermoeconomics.
    His scientific interest is to improve the irreversible thermodynamic approach to biosystems with particular regards to the control of ions fluxes by controlling the molecular machines and the macromolecules interactions inside the living systems. To do so, it is fundamental the thermodynamic analysis of quantum systems, with particular regards to irreversibility in atoms and molecules. So, he studies the quantum irreversibility in atoms in interactions with photons and external fields, in order to control the cancer growth. For him, quantum and irreversible thermodynamics could represent a new approach to non linear and complex problems as cancer.

    Atoms continuously interact with the photons of the electromagnetic fields in their environment. This electromagnetic interaction is the consequence of the thermal nonequilibrium. It introduces an element of randomness to atomic and molecular motion, which brings to the decreasing of path probability required for microscopic reversibility of evolution. In any atomic electron-photon interaction an energy footprint is given to the atom, and the emitted photon looses energy. The emission of radiation isn’t time reversible and this causes the irreversibility in macroscopic systems.

    Full Text Download (164k) | View Submission Post

  • Volume 3, Issue 1, pages 17-23

    Heinrich Päs [Show Biography]

    function toggleb1() {
    var ele1 = document.getElementById(“togglebiography1”);
    var text1 = document.getElementById(“displaybiography1”);
    if(ele1.style.display == “block”) {
    ele1.style.display = “none”;
    text1.innerHTML = “Show”;
    }
    else {
    ele1.style.display = “block”;
    text1.innerHTML = “Hide”;
    }
    }

    function togglep() {
    var ele = document.getElementById(“togglepapers”);
    var text = document.getElementById(“displaypapers”);
    if(ele.style.display == “block”) {
    ele.style.display = “none”;
    text.innerHTML = “Most Relevant Papers”;
    }
    else {
    ele.style.display = “block”;
    text.innerHTML = “Most Relevant Papers”;
    }
    }

    Born in Bremen, Germany, Prof. Heinrich Päs studied physics and philosophy at Bremen University and at the University of Heidelberg, where he obtained his PhD for research carried out at the Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik. He held postdoc positions at the University of Valencia, Vanderbilt University, University of Würzburg and University of Hawai’i. In 2007 he was an assistant professor at the University of Alabama before he joined Technische Universität Dortmund as a professor of theoretical physics. Prof. Päs works mainly on neutrino phenomenology but has recently broadened his research area to various aspects of the foundations of space, time and the quantum measurement process. His research was on the cover of the Scientific American as well as New Scientist magazine. He is the author of the popular science book “The Perfect Wave – with Neutrinos at the Boundary of Space and Time” (Harvard University Press 2014).
    A minimal approach to the measurement problem and the quantum-to-classical transition assumes a universally valid quantum formalism, i.e. unitary time evolution governed by a Schroedinger-type equation. As had been pointed out long ago, in this view the measurement process can be described by decoherence which results in a “Many-Worlds” or “Many-Minds” scenario according to Everett and Zeh. A silent assumption for decoherence to proceed is however, that there exists incomplete information about the environment our object system gets entangled with in the measurement process. This paper addresses the question where this information is traced out and – by adopting recent approaches to model consciousness in neuroscience – argues that a rigorous interpretation results in a modern perspective on the von-Neumann-Wigner interpretation — namely that the information that is or is not available in the consciousness of the observer is crucial for the definition of the environment (i.e. the unknown degrees of freedom in the remainder of the Universe). As such the Many-Worlds-Interpretation while being difficult or impossible to probe in physics may become testable in psychology.

    Full Text Download (154k) | View Submission Post

  • Volume 3, Issue 1, pages 1-16

    Diederik Aerts [Show Biography] and Massimiliano Sassoli de Bianchi [Show Biography]

    function toggleb1() {
    var ele1 = document.getElementById(“togglebiography1”);
    var text1 = document.getElementById(“displaybiography1”);
    if(ele1.style.display == “block”) {
    ele1.style.display = “none”;
    text1.innerHTML = “Show”;
    }
    else {
    ele1.style.display = “block”;
    text1.innerHTML = “Hide”;
    }
    }

    function toggleb2() {
    var ele2 = document.getElementById(“togglebiography2”);
    var text2 = document.getElementById(“displaybiography2”);
    if(ele2.style.display == “block”) {
    ele2.style.display = “none”;
    text2.innerHTML = “Show”;
    }
    else {
    ele2.style.display = “block”;
    text2.innerHTML = “Hide”;
    }
    }

    function toggleb3() {
    var ele3 = document.getElementById(“togglebiography3”);
    var text3 = document.getElementById(“displaybiography3”);
    if(ele3.style.display == “block”) {
    ele3.style.display = “none”;
    text3.innerHTML = “Show”;
    }
    else {
    ele3.style.display = “block”;
    text3.innerHTML = “Hide”;
    }
    }

    function togglep() {
    var ele = document.getElementById(“togglepapers”);
    var text = document.getElementById(“displaypapers”);
    if(ele.style.display == “block”) {
    ele.style.display = “none”;
    text.innerHTML = “Most Relevant Papers”;
    }
    else {
    ele.style.display = “block”;
    text.innerHTML = “Most Relevant Papers”;
    }
    }

    Diederik Aerts received his MSc in Mathematical Physics in 1975, from Brussels Free University (Vrije Universiteit Brussel-VUB). For his doctorate he worked at the University of Geneva with Constantin Piron, on the Foundations of Quantum Theory, obtaining his Ph.D. in Theoretical Physics in 1981 from VUB, with Jean Reignier. In 1976, he started working as a researcher for the Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research (NFWO), where in 1985 he became a tenured researcher. Since 1995, he has been director of the VUB’s Center Leo Apostel for Interdisciplinary Studies (CLEA), where researchers of different disciplines work on interdisciplinary projects, and in 2000 he was appointed professor at the VUB. From 1990, he has been a board member of the ‘Worldviews group’, founded by the late philosopher Leo Apostel. In 1997, he became Editor-in-Chief of the international journal Foundations of Science (FOS). He was the scientific and artistic coordinator of the ‘Einstein meets Magritte’ conference, where some of the world’s leading scientists and artists gathered to reflect about science, nature, human action and society. He is also head of the research group Foundations of the Exact Sciences (FUND). His work centers on different foundational aspects of quantum mechanics, both from the axiomatic and interpretational point of views, and in more recent times he has investigated the applications of quantum structures to new domains. In particular, he is one of the recognized pioneers of the emerging field called ‘quantum cognition’, which applies the mathematical formalism of quantum theory to model cognitive phenomena. For more information, see the author’s personal website (http://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/aerts) or Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diederik_Aerts).

    Massimiliano Sassoli de Bianchi graduated in physics from the University of Lausanne (UNIL), Switzerland, in 1989. From 1990 to 1991, he was an Assistant of Constantin Piron, at the Department of Theoretical Physics (DPT) of the University of Geneva (UNIGE). In 1992, he joined the Institute of Theoretical Physics (IPT) at the Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL), and there he obtained his Ph.D. degree in physics in 1995, with Philippe A. Martin. Since 1996, he has been working in the private sector and as an independent researcher. He is the director of the Laboratorio di Autoricerca di Base (LAB), in Lugano, Switzerland, and a research fellow at the the VUB’s Center Leo Apostel for Interdisciplinary Studies (CLEA). He is also the editor of the Italian journal AutoRicerca. His research activities focus primarily on quantum scattering theory, the foundations of quantum mechanics, consciousness studies, and more recently also quantum cognition. For more information, see the author’s personal website (http://www.massimilianosassolidebianchi.ch).

    The purpose of the present note is twofold. Firstly, we highlight the similarities between the ontologies of Kastner’s possibilist transactional interpretation (PTI) of quantum mechanics — an extension of Cramer’s transactional interpretation — and the authors’ hidden-measurement interpretation (HMI). Secondly, we observe that although a weighted symmetry breaking (WSB) process was proposed in the PTI, to explain the actualization of incipient transactions, no specific mechanism was actually provided to explain why the weights of such symmetry breaking are precisely those given by the Born rule. In other words, PTI, similarly to decoherence theory, provides a physical basis for the transition from a pure state to a fully reduced density matrix state, but doesn’t explain a quantum measurement in a complete way. On the other hand, the recently derived extended Bloch representation (EBR) — a specific implementation the HMI — precisely provides such missing piece of explanation, i.e., a qualitative description of the WSB as a process of actualization of hidden measurement-interactions and, more importantly, a quantitative prediction of the values of the associated weights that is compatible with the Born rule of probabilistic assignment. Therefore, from the PTI viewpoint, the EBR provides the missing link for a complete description of a quantum measurement.

    Full Text Download (745k) | View Submission Post

  • Volume 2, Issue 4, pages 137-148

    Howard M. Wiseman [Show Biography], Eleanor G. Rieffel [Show Biography] and Eric G. Cavalcanti [Show Biography]

    function toggleb1() {
    var ele1 = document.getElementById(“togglebiography1”);
    var text1 = document.getElementById(“displaybiography1”);
    if(ele1.style.display == “block”) {
    ele1.style.display = “none”;
    text1.innerHTML = “Show”;
    }
    else {
    ele1.style.display = “block”;
    text1.innerHTML = “Hide”;
    }
    }

    function toggleb2() {
    var ele2 = document.getElementById(“togglebiography2”);
    var text2 = document.getElementById(“displaybiography2”);
    if(ele2.style.display == “block”) {
    ele2.style.display = “none”;
    text2.innerHTML = “Show”;
    }
    else {
    ele2.style.display = “block”;
    text2.innerHTML = “Hide”;
    }
    }

    //

    function togglep() {
    var ele = document.getElementById(“togglepapers”);
    var text = document.getElementById(“displaypapers”);
    if(ele.style.display == “block”) {
    ele.style.display = “none”;
    text.innerHTML = “Most Relevant Papers”;
    }
    else {
    ele.style.display = “block”;
    text.innerHTML = “Most Relevant Papers”;
    }
    }

    Howard Wiseman is a theoretical physicist known for his work in quantum foundations, quantum information, and quantum measurement and control. He did his BSc Hons (1991) and PhD (1992-4) with Gerard Milburn at the University of Queensland, and a postdoc (1994-6) with Dan Walls FRS at the University of Auckland. He has published over 200 refereed papers, and a 2010 Cambridge textbook (with Milburn). He has won the Bragg Medal (AIP), the Pawsey Medal (AAS), and the Malcolm Macintosh Medal (PM’s science prizes). He is a Fellow of the AAS, and of the American Physical Society. He has been Director of the Centre for Quantum Dynamics at Griffith University since 2007.
    Eleanor G. Rieffel explores algorithm design and fundamental questions in quantum computation as a leader of NASA’s QuAIL team. After receiving her Ph.D. in mathematics from UCLA, and serving as a mathematics post-doc at USC, she joined FXPAL where she performed research in diverse fields including quantum computation, applied cryptography, bioinformatics, and robotics. She joined NASA Ames Research Center in 2012 to work on their expanding quantum computing effort. Her book, Quantum Computing: A Gentle Introduction, with coauthor Wolfgang Polak was published by MIT press in the spring of 2011, and has received stellar reviews.
    Eric Cavalcanti is a theoretical physicist exploring the foundations of quantum theory and quantum information theory. After receiving his PhD in Physics from the University of Queensland in 2008, he has held postdoctoral positions at Griffith University and the University of Sydney, funded by single-author Australian Research Council grants for work on quantum foundations. Between 2013-2014 he was a Visiting Scholar at the Department of Computer Science in Oxford, and since 2015 he has been a Senior Lecturer at Griffith University.
    We address Gillis’ recent criticism of a series of papers (by different combinations of the present authors) on formulations of Bell’s theorem. Those papers intended to address an unfortunate gap of communication between two broad camps in the quantum foundations community that we identify as “operationalists” and “realists”. Here, we once again urge the readers to approach the question from an unbiased standpoint, and explain that Gillis’ criticism draws too heavily on the philosophical inclinations of one side of that debate — the realist camp. As part of that explanation we discuss intuition versus proof, look again at Bell’s formalizations of locality, and correct misstatements by Gillis of our views, and those of Bell and Einstein.

    Full Text Download (170k) | View Open Review

  • Volume 2, Issue 4, pages 127-142

    Takeshi Yamaguchi [Show Biography]

    //

    //

    Takeshi Yamaguchi was born in Maebashi City of Japan. After obtaining his degree in physics from Tohoku University, he joined to the research laboratory of Nikon. He studied light scattering from optical parts or various materials and after that he was in charge of research and development related to the semiconductor lithography for long time. He managed various research project, for example, the electron beam lithography development cooperated with IBM. He has been a vice president of Nikon Research Center of America and the director of research laboratory of Nikon precision department. He has been a visiting professor of Tohoku University in optics and quantum optics during industrial activity. He joined to Tokyo Institute of Technology in 2004 as a designated professor of nano-technology government project and retired in April 2016.

    A thought experiment regarding light-wave diffraction by a matter-wave lattice is proposed. Matter-wave diffraction by an optical-lattice is already a well-established experimental technology; therefore, the symmetrical phenomenon, i.e., light-wave diffraction by a matter-wave lattice, does not seem to be unlikely. If the diffracted light could be observed, it would suggest the presence of the matter-wave itself in three-dimensional space, whereas the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics that describes the wave-function as merely a mathematical tool representing the probability of a particle. Therefore this proposal should provide a good test to verify the reality of the wave-function.

    Full Text Download (891k) | View Submission Post

  • Volume 2, Issue 3, pages 121-126

    Ruth E. Kastner [Show Biography]

    //

    //

    Ruth E. Kastner received her B.S., cum laude with high honors in physics, and after picking up an M.S. in physics from the University of Maryland, College Park in 1992, decided to pursue her interest in the foundational aspects being studied at the UMCP Philosophy Department. She received her Ph.D. in Philosophy (History and Philosophy of Science) with J. Bub as her dissertation advisor in 1999. She has won two National Science Foundation awards for her study of interpretational issues in quantum theory, and is Research Associate in the Foundations of Physics Group at UMCP. She wrote the first book-length treatment of the Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge, 2012) and followed that with a conceptual presentation of TIQM for the general reader (Understanding Our Unseen Reality: Solving Quantum Riddles, Imperial College Press, 2015). She serves as Editor (with Jasmina Jeknic’-Dugic’ and George Jaroszkiewicz) for a forthcoming collection, Quantum Structural Studies (World Scientific, 2016). She has over two dozen peer-reviewed publications and regularly attends international conferences on Foundations of Physics, where she is often an invited speaker. She currently resides in upstate New York.

    It is shown that violation of the Born Rule leads to a breakdown of the correspondence between the quantum electromagnetic field and its classical counterpart. Specifically, the relationship of the quantum coherent state to the classical electromagnetic field turns out to imply that if the Born Rule were violated, this could result in apparent deviations from the energy conservation law applying to the field and its sources (Poynting’s Theorem). The result, which is fully general and independent of interpretations of quantum theory, suggests that the Born Rule is just as fundamental a law of Nature as are the field conservation laws.

    Full Text Download (201k) | View Submission Post

    • Ruth Kastner wrote on August 21, 2016 in a discussion forum arising out of the AAAS June 15-16 Retrocausality III Workshop at the University of San Diego
      e.g. https://vimeo.com/171013596
      https://vimeo.com/171178181 (Rod Sutherland)

      “However as Jack has pointed out, this involved violation of the Born Rule, and as I’ve pointed out, there would be in-principle empirically observable violations of Maxwell’s eqs if such violations involve coherent field states. This could serve as a test of Jack’s model, so I think he should embrace those predictions.”

      to which I replied:

      The Glauber coherent states defined here

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherent_states

      do not exist without the Born rule.

      This is the problem with your argument.

      The real problem here is to find the solution for

      post-quantum coherent “Frohlich”-? states 😉

      in which Sutherland’s complete post-quantum Lagrangian is used prior to his taking the quantum limit where he integrates over the final destiny <f| states and ad hoc inserts the Born rule as the weighting factor in his integral

      i.e. P(f|i) = ||^2 in his integral

      This procedure reduces the non-unitary nonlinear operator post-quantum Aharonov weak measurement Lagrangian to the linear operator unitary quantum evolution using only the retarded forward in time |i> evolution that Henry Stapp mistakenly thinks he can explain consciousness with.

      Henry Stapp also contradicts himself because any biasing of the Born rule is a direct violation of the core principle of orthodox quantum theory.

      That said

      Post-quantum Frohlich coherent states limit to quantum Glauber coherent states when Sutherland’s action-reaction Lagrangian is forced to zero.

      However, Ruth does have a point that in living matter it is the post-quantum Frohlich coherent states that should exist.

      There will be no problem with energy conservation as Sutherland proves quite generally.

      The coherent state obeys

      a|z> = z|z>

      a is the boson destruction operator

      z is the complex number coherent amplitude and phase like in ordinary classical electrical engineering in a given mode of the boson harmonic oscillator

      where

      da/dt = [H,a]

      H = Hermitian operator for the “energy”

      However in post-quantum theory

      da’/dt = [H’,a’]

      H’ is now a non-Hermitian nonlinear Aharonov weak measurement operator on the advanced destiny Hilbert spaces.

      This is a whole new mathematics that must be developed.

      I am sure the pure mathematicians have already done it somewhere in the literature.

    • Typo correction

      . P(f|i) = ||^2 in his integral

      should be

      . P(f|i) = ||^2 in his integral

    • Sorry it’s the bracket symbol not showing up – let me try again

      Typo correction

      . P(f|i) = ||^2 in his integral

      should be

      . P(f|i) = |(f|i)|^2 in his integral

  • Volume 2, Issue 3, pages 109-120

    Muhammad Adeel Ajaib [Show Biography]

    //

    //

    Dr. Muhammad Adeel Ajaib was born in Dubai, U.A.E, in 1983. He received his PhD in theoretical particle physics from the University of Delaware in 2014. In research, his topics of interests include supersymmetry, fundamental physics and overlapping ideas of various subfields in physics. His achievements include proposing a fundamental form of the Schrodinger equation. He also showed how a well known interaction in spintronics, called the Rashba interaction, can be obtained from a Lorentz violating operator in the Standard Model Extension. After completing his PhD, he worked at Ursinus college as visiting assintant professor for one year and is currently a lecturer in physics at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo.

    We show that the first order form of the Schrödinger equation proposed in [1] can be obtained from the Dirac equation in the non-relativistic limit. We also show that the Pauli Hamiltonian is obtained from this equation by requiring local gauge invariance. In addition, we study the problem of a spin up particle incident on a finite potential barrier and show that the known quantum mechanical results are obtained. Finally, we consider the symmetric potential well and show that the quantum mechanical expression for the quantized energy levels of a particle is obtained with periodic boundary conditions. Based on these conclusions, we propose that the equation introduced in [1] is the non-relativistic limit of the Dirac equation and more appropriately describes spin 1/2 particles in the non-relativistic limit.

    Full Text Download (338k) | View Submission Post

  • Volume 2, Issue 3, pages 89-108 Rodolfo Gambini [Show Biography] and Jorge Pullin [Show Biography]

    // // //
    Rodolfo Gambini was educated at the University of the Republic in Uruguay and the University of Paris. He was formerly professor at the University Simon Bolivar in Venezuela and is now a professor at the University of the Republic in Uruguay. He works mainly on quantum gravity and foundations of quantum mechanics these days. In the past he has worked in gravitational waves, quantum optics and Yang-Mills theory, having created with Antoni Trias the loop representation for gauge theories.
    Jorge Pullin studied at the Balseiro Institute in Argentina. He was a postdoctoral researcher at Syracuse University and the University of Utah. He became a professor at Penn State and in 2001 joined the Louisiana State University as the Horace Hearne Chair in Theoretical Physics. He mainly works on quantum gravity and the foundation of quantum mechanics these days, having made contributions in exact solutions of the Einstein equations and approximate and numerical techniques for modelling gravitational waves from the collision of black holes.
    We show that several interpretations of quantum mechanics admit an ontology of objects and events. This ontology reduces the breach between mind and matter. When humans act, their actions do not appear explainable in mechanical terms but through mental activity: motives, desires or needs that propel them to action. These are examples of what in the last few decades have come to be called “downward causation”. Basically, downward causation is present when the disposition of the whole to behave in a certain way cannot be predicted from the dispositions of the parts. The event ontology of quantum mechanics allow us to show that systems in entangled states present emergent new properties and downward causation. Full Text Download (201k) | View Submission Post

  • Volume 2, Issue 2, pages 67-88

    Aurélien Drezet [Show Biography]

    function toggleb() {
    var ele = document.getElementById(“togglebiography”);
    var text = […]

  • Volume 2, Issue 2, pages 47-66

    Michail Zak [Show Biography]

    function toggleb() {
    var ele = document.getElementById(“togglebiography”);
    var text = document.getElementById(“displaybiography”);
    if(ele.style.display == “block”) {
    ele.style.display = “none”;
    text.innerHTML = “Show”;
    }
    else {
    ele.style.display = “block”;
    text.innerHTML = “Hide”;
    }
    }

    function togglep() {
    var ele = document.getElementById(“togglepapers”);
    var text = document.getElementById(“displaypapers”);
    if(ele.style.display == “block”) {
    ele.style.display = “none”;
    text.innerHTML = “Most Relevant Papers”;
    }
    else {
    ele.style.display = “block”;
    text.innerHTML = “Most Relevant Papers”;
    }
    }

    Dr. Michail Zak was a Senior Research Scientist in Reasoning, Modeling, and Simulation Group at Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology. He has been working at JPL from 1977 to 2010 prior to his retirement. His area of expertise is nonlinear dynamics with application to advance modeling, information processing, foundation of turbulence, and physics of Life. His main achievements are: development of postinstability models in dynamics, establishment of non-Lipchitz dynamics as an extension of Newtonian dynamics to include behavior of Livings, and closure in turbulence. His recent interest is quantum computing and artificial intelligence. Dr. Zak published five monographs and over 200 scientific papers in mathematical, physical, biological and engineering journals.

    There has been proven that mathematical origins of randomness in quantum and Newtonian physics are coming from the same source that is dynamical instability. However in Newtonian physics this instability is measured by positive finite Liapunov exponents averaged over infinite time period, while in quantum physics the instability is accompanied by a loss of the Lipchitz condition and represented by an infinite divergence of trajectories in a singular point. Although from a mathematical viewpoint such a difference is significant, from physical viewpoint it does not justify division of randomness into “deterministic” (chaos) and “true” (quantum physics). The common origin of randomness in Newtonian and quantum physics presents a support of the correspondence principle that is being searched by quantum chaos theory.

    Full Text Download (245k) | View Submission Post

  • Volume 2, Issue 2, pages 32-46

    Avshalom C. Elitzur [Show Biography], Eliahu Cohen [Show Biography] and Tomer Shushi [Show Biography]

    function toggleb1() {
    var ele1 = document.getElementById(“togglebiography1”);
    var text1 = document.getElementById(“displaybiography1”);
    if(ele1.style.display == “block”) {
    ele1.style.display = “none”;
    text1.innerHTML = “Show”;
    }
    else {
    ele1.style.display = “block”;
    text1.innerHTML = “Hide”;
    }
    }

    function toggleb2() {
    var ele2 = document.getElementById(“togglebiography2”);
    var text2 = document.getElementById(“displaybiography2”);
    if(ele2.style.display == “block”) {
    ele2.style.display = “none”;
    text2.innerHTML = “Show”;
    }
    else {
    ele2.style.display = “block”;
    text2.innerHTML = “Hide”;
    }
    }

    function toggleb3() {
    var ele3 = document.getElementById(“togglebiography3”);
    var text3 = document.getElementById(“displaybiography3”);
    if(ele3.style.display == “block”) {
    ele3.style.display = “none”;
    text3.innerHTML = “Show”;
    }
    else {
    ele3.style.display = “block”;
    text3.innerHTML = “Hide”;
    }
    }

    function togglep() {
    var ele = document.getElementById(“togglepapers”);
    var text = document.getElementById(“displaypapers”);
    if(ele.style.display == “block”) {
    ele.style.display = “none”;
    text.innerHTML = “Most Relevant Papers”;
    }
    else {
    ele.style.display = “block”;
    text.innerHTML = “Most Relevant Papers”;
    }
    }

    Born in 1957 in Iran. PhD Tel-Aviv University under the supervision of Yakir Aharonov. Specializes in foundations of quantum mechanics, special and general relativity, and thermodynamic aspects of living systems. Together with Lev Vaidman has invented interaction-free measurement (1993); with Shahar Dolev – the quantum liar paradox (2006); with Eliahu Cohen – quantum oblivion (2013). Other publications deal with foundational issues in philosophy of mind, evolutionary theory and ethics. He is a founding member of Iyar, the Israeli Institute for Advanced Research.

    Born in Israel, 1986. Did his PhD in Tel-Aviv University under the supervision of Yakir Aharonov and Lev Vaidman. Currently, a postdoctoral research assistant at the University of Bristol and a member of Iyar, the Israeli Institute for Advanced Research. Mostly interested in quantum foundations, quantum information, cosmology and the relations between them.

    Born in Israel, 1989. Received his BA in Computer Science and Economics (Cum laude) from Bar-Illan University, and his MA in Theoretical Statistics (Cum laude) from University of Haifa. Recently, he submitted his PhD dissertation in Mathematics from University of Haifa, and currently starting a postdoc in fundamental aspects of quantum mechanics in the Physics Department of Ben-Gurion University.

    In the EPR experiment, each measurement addresses the question “What spin value has this particle along this orientation?” The outcome then proves that the spin value has been affected by the distant experimenter’s choice of spin orientation. We propose a new setting where the question is reversed: “What is the orientation along which this particle has this spin value?” It turns out that the orientation is similarly subject to nonlocal effects. To enable the reversal, each particle’s interaction with a beam-splitter at t1 leaves its spin orientation superposed. Then at t2, the experimenter selects an “up” or “down” spin value for this yet-undefined orientation. Only after the two particles undergo this procedure, the two measurements are completed, each particle having its spin value along a definite orientation. By Bell’s theorem, it is now the “choice” of orientation that must be nonlocally transmitted between the particles upon completing the measurement. This choice, however, has preceded the experimenter’s selection. This seems to lend support for the time-symmetric interpretations of QM, where retrocausality plays a significant role. We conclude with a brief comparison between these interpretations and their traditional alternatives, Copenhagen, Bohmian mechanics and the Many Worlds Interpretation.

    Full Text Download (257k) | View Submission Post

  • Volume 2, Issue 1, pages 17-31

    W. M. Stuckey [Show Biography], Michael Silberstein [Show Biography] and Timothy McDevitt [Show Biography]

    function toggleb1() {
    var ele1 = document.getElementById(“togglebiography1”);
    var text1 = document.getElementById(“displaybiography1”);
    if(ele1.style.display == “block”) {
    ele1.style.display = “none”;
    text1.innerHTML = “Show”;
    }
    else {
    ele1.style.display = “block”;
    text1.innerHTML = “Hide”;
    }
    }

    function toggleb2() {
    var ele2 = document.getElementById(“togglebiography2”);
    var text2 = document.getElementById(“displaybiography2”);
    if(ele2.style.display == “block”) {
    ele2.style.display = “none”;
    text2.innerHTML = “Show”;
    }
    else {
    ele2.style.display = “block”;
    text2.innerHTML = “Hide”;
    }
    }

    function toggleb3() {
    var ele3 = document.getElementById(“togglebiography3”);
    var text3 = document.getElementById(“displaybiography3”);
    if(ele3.style.display == “block”) {
    ele3.style.display = “none”;
    text3.innerHTML = “Show”;
    }
    else {
    ele3.style.display = “block”;
    text3.innerHTML = “Hide”;
    }
    }

    function togglep() {
    var ele = document.getElementById(“togglepapers”);
    var text = document.getElementById(“displaypapers”);
    if(ele.style.display == “block”) {
    ele.style.display = “none”;
    text.innerHTML = “Most Relevant Papers”;
    }
    else {
    ele.style.display = “block”;
    text.innerHTML = “Most Relevant Papers”;
    }
    }

    Mark Stuckey is a Professor of Physics at Elizabethtown College, Pennsylvania, USA. His PhD thesis was in relativistic cosmology from the University of Cincinnati working for Louis Witten in 1987. His work in relativistic cosmology contributed to a movement to correct misconceptions in the mass media and introductory astronomy textbooks about Big Bang cosmology. In 1994 he started study in foundations of physics with the goal of interpreting quantum mechanics in order to develop a new approach to fundamental physics. In 2005, he and a colleague in philosophy of science (Prof. Silberstein) achieved the first part of that goal by creating the Relational Blockworld (RBW) interpretation of quantum mechanics. In 2009, a colleague in mathematics (Prof. McDevitt) joined the collaboration and helped bring the goal to fruition with the development of an RBW approach to quantum gravity and the unification of physics based on modified lattice gauge theory. In 2012, the corresponding modification to Regge calculus in Einstein-deSitter cosmology was used to fit the Union2 Compilation supernova data as well as LambdaCDM without accelerating expansion, dark energy, or a cosmological constant. In 2015, RBW and its associated new approach to fundamental physics are well-developed and being brought to bear on the dark matter problem.

    Michael David Silberstein is a Full Professor of Philosophy at Elizabethtown College, a founding member of the Cognitive Science program and permanent Adjunct in the Philosophy Department at the University of Maryland, College Park, where he is also a faculty member in the Foundations of Physics Program and a Fellow on the Committee for Philosophy and the Sciences. His primary research interests are foundations of physics, foundations of cognitive science and foundations of complexity theory respectively. He is especially interested in how these branches of philosophy and science bear on more general questions of reduction, emergence and explanation. In 2005, he and a colleague in physics (Prof. Stuckey) created the Relational Blockworld (RBW) interpretation of quantum mechanics. In 2009, a colleague in mathematics (Prof. McDevitt) joined the collaboration and helped bring to fruition the development of an RBW approach to quantum gravity and the unification of physics based on modified lattice gauge theory. In 2012, the corresponding modification to Regge calculus in Einstein-deSitter cosmology was used to fit the Union2 Compilation supernova data as well as LambdaCDM without accelerating expansion, dark energy, or a cosmological constant. In 2015, RBW and its associated new approach to fundamental physics is being brought to bear on the dark matter problem.

    Tim McDevitt is Professor of Mathematics and Chair of the Department of Mathematical and Computer Sciences at Elizabethtown College. He earned his Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics in 1996 at the University of Virginia and has spent significant time working both in and outside of academia. He has been at Elizabethown College since 2005 and he enjoys engaging in interdisciplinary research with colleagues in other disciplines.

    In a July 2014 Nature Communications paper, Denkmayr et al. claim to have instantiated the so-called quantum Cheshire Cat experiment using neutron interferometry. Crucial to this claim are the weak values which must imply the quantum Cheshire Cat interpretation, i.e., “the neutron and its spin are spatially separated” in their experiment. While they measured the correct weak values for the quantum Cheshire Cat interpretation, the corresponding implications do not obtain because, as we show, those weak values were measured with both a quadratic and a linear magnetic field Bz interaction. We show explicitly how those weak values imply quantum Cheshire Cat if the Bz interaction is linear and then we show how the quadratic Bz interaction destroys the quantum Cheshire Cat implications of those weak values. Since both linear and quadratic Bz interactions contribute equally to the neutron intensity in this experiment, the deviant weak value implications are unavoidable. Because weak values were used successfully to compute neutron intensities for weak Bz in this experiment, it is clearly the case that one cannot make ontological inferences from weak values without taking into account the corresponding interaction strength.

    Full Text Download (336k) | View Submission Post

  • Load More