Recent content by RUTA

I started research in quantum foundations in 1994, so I sometimes use the specialized terminology that comes with the field. Sorry.

The exact definition is: So, it's not just c and d but "any set of events on a spacelike hypersurface," which would cover any hidden variables. That's why we wrote: and concluded:

To violate SI (NSD) there has to be a correlation between measurement settings and the hidden variables of the quantum system. If you don't invoke hidden variables (and we don't), then what is correlated with the measurement settings to violate SI? By L we mean "no spooky actions at a...

You're welcome :-) As we point out in the paper, LF doesn't get you anything new beyond Bell. We state for example: NSD is statistical independence and L is locality exactly per Bell, so QM violating the LF inequality is the same as QM violating Bell's inequality. Both NSD and L involve hidden...

Yes, they start from an operationalist perspective exactly like Einstein did with his 1905 SR paper. Wiltsche, McDevitt and I are working to justify that by basing all of physics in phenomenology directly. Yes, in that same paper we wrote: [Grangier et al., 2024] reach a similar conclusion...

Let me first point out that the quantum reconstruction program is not producing an interpretation of QM, it is producing a reconstruction of the Hilbert space kinematics of QM via empirical and mathematical facts. In doing so, it has advanced QM from an operational theory providing structural...

If you're willing to accept a principle explanation in lieu of a constructive explanation for polarization-entangled photons, try this one:

What do you mean by "a quantum object"?

In 1996, Rovelli made the same analogy: That is, he challenged the foundations of physics community to reconstruct the Hilbert space kinematics of QM like Einstein reconstructed the Lorentz transformation kinematics of Maxwell's equations. Hardy was the first to successfully answer Rovelli's...

Some in the quantum reconstruction program have aligned themselves with QBism as explained in these two papers: Berghofer, P.: Defending the quantum reconstruction program. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 14, 47 (2024). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13194-024-00608-2...

Here is a nice explanation of the PBR theorem by Maudlin: He only acknowledges the assumption of statistical independence, so you need to read the PF threads in post #14 above.

So, you need this assumption in addition to the more fundamental assumption that we're looking for a probability theory to start with, which is (as shown by the QRP) the real mystery. His ISP must replace Darrigol's correspondence requirement, which is intuitive per the QRP (see Darrigol's...

dBB has the pilot wave for superluminal influence in accord with the predictions of QM. I have not seen Barandes propose any corresponding mechanism. And he replaces causality with ... ? I was just repeating what Jacob said in the video. The mystery of the Bell-inequality-violating...

The (current) quantum reconstruction program (QRP) began with Hardy's reconstruction of QM "From Five Reasonable Axioms" (https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0101012) in 2001. For a history of such attempts see: "Information and the Reconstruction of Quantum Physics," G. Jaeger, Annalen der Physik...

Turns out the probabilistic (indeterministic) nature of quantum mechanics (QM) follows from the discrete outcomes. I can't explain all the details in a short post here, but you can see more starting at about the 6-min mark in my video: Just ignore the context. I'm going to refer to work by...