
Mark Stuckey replied to the topic Mysteries of QM and SR Share a Common Origin: No Preferred Reference Frame in the forum 2019 International Workshop: Beyond Bell's theorem 5 months ago
Here is an 8min video making the point. It’s the last episode in a 10part video series for a general audience explaining the result https://youtu.be/kV3zGgdLJuw “Conclusion: Modern Physics is Comprehensive and Coherent”

Mark Stuckey replied to the topic In defense of a “singleworld” interpretation of quantum mechanics in the forum 2019 International Workshop: Beyond Bell's theorem 5 months, 2 weeks ago
Hi Jeff,
On p. 7 you write, “This intrinsic randomness allows new sorts of nonlocal probabilistic correlations for ‘entangled’ quantum states of separated systems.” We offer an explanation (couched in spacetime) of this fact in our post, Mysteries of QM and SR Share a Common Origin: No Preferred Reference Frame.
For example, in the simple…[Read more]

Mark Stuckey started the topic Mysteries of QM and SR Share a Common Origin: No Preferred Reference Frame in the forum 2019 International Workshop: Beyond Bell's theorem 5 months, 2 weeks ago
I gave this talk at the conference “Quantum Information Revolution: Impact to Foundations?” held at Linnaeus University, Sweden, 1013 June 2019:
It is based on this paper published in Entropy last month:
https://www.mdpi.com/10994300/21/7/692/pdf
The takehome message is that far from being…[Read more]


Mark Stuckey replied to the topic Is there an inconsistent friend? in the forum Workshop on Wigner’s Friend 2018 1 year, 1 month ago
Everyone,
Have a look at this Physics Forums Insight to see our take on Wigner’s friend.Richard,
When you get a chance, let us know if we have correctly characterized your view in that PF Insight. I can make changes anytime.Mark

Mark Stuckey replied to the topic Is there an inconsistent friend? in the forum Workshop on Wigner’s Friend 2018 1 year, 2 months ago
Thnx for the detailed response, Richard. Let me see if I totally understand it.
The state given by your Eq 13 applies to any of the three possibilities for the definite, single outcomes recorded by Xena and Yvonne in one world, i.e., heads or tails or tails+, respectively, prior to Zeus and Wigner making their measurements.
Eq 13 says that if…[Read more]

Mark Stuckey replied to the topic Is there an inconsistent friend? in the forum Workshop on Wigner’s Friend 2018 1 year, 2 months ago
Hi Richard,
I much prefer your presentation of FR in Quantum Theory and the Limits of Objectivity (2018), so I will refer to that. Looking at your Eq (13) and understanding that there exists an objective fact of the matter about what Xena and Yvonne have recorded for their measurements (h or t and + or , respectively), it seems unavoidable that…[Read more] 
Mark Stuckey replied to the topic Is there an inconsistent friend? in the forum Workshop on Wigner’s Friend 2018 1 year, 2 months ago
Thnx, Richard. I figured that was the answer, but I wanted to make sure before I fashioned a response (forthcoming).

Mark Stuckey replied to the topic Is there an inconsistent friend? in the forum Workshop on Wigner’s Friend 2018 1 year, 2 months ago
No one in the topic on Frauchiger and Renner (FR) “Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself” (2018) answered this question, so I’ll post it here.
FR talk about a measurement of h> – t> by Wbar on the isolated lab Lbar. What does this measurement mean? If Lbar is a quantum system for Wbar, then all possible Hilbert space…[Read more]

Mark Stuckey replied to the topic Response to Frauchiger and Renner in the forum Workshop on Wigner’s Friend 2018 1 year, 2 months ago
I read Frauchiger and Renner (FR) “Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself” (2018) and I’ve read several responses in this workshop, but I have a question that has not been answered.
FR talk about a measurement of h> – t> by Wbar on the isolated lab Lbar. What does this measurement mean? If Lbar is a quantum system for W…[Read more]

Mark Stuckey joined the group 2018 Workshop on Wigner’s Friend 1 year, 2 months ago

Mark Stuckey replied to the topic Does the psiepistemic view really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 4 years ago
Thnx for the reply, Yehonatan. You don’t need to concern yourself with the details of our approach, as you noted it doesn’t bear directly on your specific motives. I just wanted you to be aware of the fact that your 4D global perspective has company 🙂

Mark Stuckey replied to the topic Does the psiepistemic view really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 4 years ago
Yehonatan, I read your paper. Is it published someplace, so we can reference it? Your approach shares many of the values found in the Relational Blockworld. See http://www.ijqf.org/wps/wpcontent/uploads/2015/06/IJQF2015v1n3p2.pdf.

Mark Stuckey replied to the topic Does the psiepistemic view really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 4 years ago
Shan, there is no superdeterminism in retrocausality with global constraints. Superdeterminism entails a timeevolved story per the Newtonian schema (NS), i.e., invoking a physical mechanism that “causes” the experimentalist to make certain choices. In Wharton’s Lagrangian schema (LS), the explanation is spatiotemporally holistic, e.g., Fermat’s…[Read more]

Mark Stuckey replied to the topic Does the psiepistemic view really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 4 years ago
Ken, why do you think “realist psiepistemic view” is “an interesting choice of words”? The title of our last RBW paper in IJQF was “Relational blockworld: Providing a realist psiepistemic account of quantum mechanics” which we wrote after extensive correspondence with you.

Mark Stuckey replied to the topic Does the psiepistemic view really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 4 years ago
As Price & Wharton point out, once you consider QM to be giving 4D distributions in spacetime (Lagrangian schema), rather than timeevolved distributions in configuration space (Newtonian schema), mysteries like the MP are resolved trivially. This is a psiepistemic view.

Mark Stuckey commented on the post, Concerning Quadratic Interaction in the Quantum Cheshire Cat Experiment 4 years, 2 months ago
Wow, that typo was only on Physics Forums for 30 seconds before I caught and fixed it, literally. Obviously, the paper was accepted for publication in International Journal of Quantum Foundations.

Mark Stuckey wrote a new post, Concerning Quadratic Interaction in the Quantum Cheshire Cat Experiment 4 years, 4 months ago
We believe the weak interaction of the quantum Cheshire Cat experiment must be linear if the weak values are to support the quantum Cheshire Cat interpretation, i.e., that a particle and one of its properties are spatially separated. For example, even though Denkmayr et al. measured the proper weak values for quantum Cheshire Cat in their neutron interferometry experiment, they did so using a quadratic interaction. We show how the quadratic interaction in their experiment destroys the quantum Cheshire Cat interpretation. Indeed, if the quantum Cheshire Cat interpretation is established per the weak values alone, regardless of the degree of interaction, then Denkmayr et al.’s experiment would be a reductio against the interpretation.

Mark Stuckey replied to the topic General "Block Universe" Discussion in the forum Timesymmetric theories 4 years, 6 months ago
Hi Ian,
What’s wrong with HV’s? What do you find objectionable about the spacetimesource element and adynamical global constraint of RBW, for example? Or Ken’s classical fields and L = 0 constraint?
Just curious 🙂

Mark Stuckey replied to the topic General "Block Universe" Discussion in the forum Timesymmetric theories 4 years, 6 months ago
Like Ken, I don’t understand why people use (tacitly or explicity) a Block Universe (BW) for retrocausality then add a “pseudotime” or metatime to artificially create a dynamical notion of “causation.” If you want a robust Now/Becoming, it will cost you lots more formal machinery than a bare BW. But, if you’re willing to pay the price, you can…[Read more]
 Load More