Recent content by Morbert

The latter Zeilinger paper maps nicely onto section VIII of Barandes's new prospects paper. We have 7 subsystems: particles 1,2,3,4 (which we will relabel P, Q, R, S) and Alice, Bob, and Charles (A, B, and C respectively). The initial state, before any preparation into Bell states...

Some links that might be relevant. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.16935 In section VIII the formalism is applied to a basic EPR scenario. https://shared.jacobbarandes.com/documents/double-slit-interference-unistochastic-lecture-notes Lecture notes on the double-slit experiment...

I just don't see the interpretational challenge. At each time the system is in a definite configuration, with a likelihood given by the dynamics.

The configuration space isn't Markovian or non-Markovian. It's the ordinary configuration space of classical physics.

You just read off the ontology from the configuration space on the stochastic side of the correspondence.

Objective collapse and no-objective-collapse theories disagree about what happens in the realm of superobservers. Barandes's interpretation is staunchly in the no-objective-collapse camp in this regard. And I wouldn't agree that it doesn't reach the level of a standard interpretation. The...

Note that causal locality here refers to Barandes's principle, not Bell's principle of local causality.

Yes. The question is whether the Bell sense actually captures the notion of nonlocal influence if dynamics are non-Markovian. From "La Nouvelle Cuisine" If dynamics are non-Markovian, then the full specification of beables in region 3 will not sufficiently specify what happens in the backward...

@Sambuco said it well here: In Barandes's reformulation, the derived conditional probabilities can pertain directly to microphysical configurations of the measured system. This permits a stronger inference from the no-signalling principle: That microphysical systems, spacelike-separated for the...

@selfsimilar Your concerns are somewhat vague. As a starting point: Do you accept that the above approach is consistent with the predictions of textbook QM?

Why does it seem like this to you?

In this formalism, entanglement is not encoded in the configurations. It is encoded in the dynamics ##\Gamma##. So e.g. considering the usual initial state ##\ket{\psi^-}_{12}\ket{\psi^-}_{34}## at time ##0##, and tracing over ##2## and ##3##, we have the transition matrix...

From the paper: I suspect this is the part of the paper that will be most alien to readers (apart from the algebraic QFT which will be esoteric to readers in general). But I think this is not surprising as this thermal interpretation aspect is also the most novel aspect of the paper.

The interpretation would be the conceptualization of a quantum system as a system with a definite classical configuration, evolving stochastically in accordance with non-Markovian dynamics.

From section 3.9 "The decoherent-histories framework" in "The Emergent Multiverse" by Wallace