Recent content by Ken Wharton

Hi Lucas -- it sounds like you're reading all this pretty carefully. Yes, the aim is much more a "reformulation" than an interpretation. I think the goal should be to explain the quantum phenomena themselves, not the mathematics of QM. And yes, the hidden variables must certainly be part of...

Okay, lots to unpack here. First: the ontology itself, the part of it based in spacetime, is what Bell called the "local beables". Yes, in most retrocausal models there is a real ontology, some actual parameters associated with points or regions in spacetime. (For example, the fields in E&M...

Hi Lucas, Thanks for the question! I’d like to understand your perspective better, in part because it’s something I’ve heard elsewhere as well. I don’t see any daylight between all-at-once models (advocated by both Adlam and myself) and retrocausal models. But I take causation to be something...

Thanks, Lucas! I'm new to Physics Forums, so apologies in advance if I'm not clear on some of the norms here. I'm a physics professor at San Jose State U., working in quantum foundations since it became safe to do so -- in other words, since I got tenure in 2006. :-) This paper is probably...