Recent content by Sambuco

I think it is because, ultimately, it is not really an "interpretation," since it proposes that the evolution is non-unitary as a consequence of limitations in measuring time with real clocks. Lucas.

In these extended Wigner's friend scenarios, that role is played by the outcomes of the measurements performed by the friends located inside the laboratories. This is stated explicitly in Bong's paper: "Within the definitions of L and NSD, c, d play the formal role of the hidden variables λ in...

Absolutely! I agree that it isn't a groundbreaking paper, but I think it has some merit (I explain a bit more below). Since one has to start somewhere, the author adopts an initial stance based on certain "classical" intuitions and sees where that leads, and... ...upon observing that this...

I read that in the paper and it caught my attention, given that the assumptions behind the LF theorem are mathematically less restrictive than those for Bell's theorem, i.e., there are situations where Bell's inequalities are violated but the LF inequalities are satisfied. Of course, I agree...

Thanks again @RUTA for your reply! I read the paper, but I still can't fully grasp how your approach overcome the local friendliness (LF) no-go theorem. In your paper, you rightly point out that the theorem is based on four assumptions: absoluteness of observed events (AOE), locality (L), non...

Yes, in a sense, the aim of the work is to find a common (interpretation-independent) way to define the measurement problem based on a intuitive/näive/classical notion of probability, starting from the premise that QM is a theory providing probabilities for the occurrence of specific events...

Yes, the end Daumer's paper surprised me too: "And it is perhaps also worth asking the editors of Nature how, at a time when, rightly, papers on Intelligent Design are consistently rejected by peer-reviewed journals, an essay like Zeilinger’s is not." I have read Zeillinger's paper, and it...

Of course it is compatible. What the paper I shared aims to show is that if one accepts certain preconceptions from classical theories as true, it implies that the event space is broad enough to render Kolmogorov's axioms incompatible with quantum mechanics. Ultimately, it is a somewhat...

Yeahhhhh!!!!!! That's the key! Before the BSM on photons 2 and 3, the state of the entire system is: i) |Ψ〉1234 (before BSM) = |Ψ−〉12⨂|Ψ−〉34 = 1/2(|Ψ+〉14⨂|Ψ+〉23 − |Ψ−〉14⨂|Ψ−〉23 − |Φ+〉14⨂|Φ+〉23 + |Φ−〉14⨂|Φ−〉23) which does not show any entanglement between photons from the pairs (1,2) and (3,4)...

Totally agree! But they are the same states! To be more explicit: i) |Ψ〉1234 = |Ψ−〉12⨂|Ψ−〉34 = 1/2(|Ψ+〉14⨂|Ψ+〉23 − |Ψ−〉14⨂|Ψ−〉23 − |Φ+〉14⨂|Φ+〉23 + |Φ−〉14⨂|Φ−〉23) ii) |Ψ〉1256 = |Ψ−〉12⨂|Ψ−〉56 = 1/2(|Ψ+〉16⨂|Ψ+〉25 − |Ψ−〉16⨂|Ψ−〉25 − |Φ+〉16⨂|Φ+〉25 + |Φ−〉16⨂|Φ−〉25) iii) |Ψ〉5634 = |Ψ−〉56⨂|Ψ−〉34 =...

Nothing that can't be fixed with a pinch of retrocausality :smile: Lucas.

I know, but I asked you because I have the impression that many of those reconstructions start from an operationalist perspective, e.g. Höhn starts assuming a kind of relational interpretation. Yes, I’ve read the paper and that section in particular. I got the impression that your approach is...

Why is the electron forced to reappear with such frequency? Is it due to ##\frac{\hbar}{mc^2} \sim 10^{-21} \text{ s}##? Lucas.

I think the idea being conveyed is that, ultimately, what underlies what we call the "measurement problem" is a specific statistical pattern, one that is inherent to QM and constitutes a fundamental feature of it. From this perspective, the "problem" arises from the need, on the part of those...

I am not sure whether we agree or not :smile: For example, in Goebel's paper, they write the initial state (before the BSM) twice, first in eq. (1) and then again in eq. (2) using a Bell-state basis for photons 1 through 4. If we agree on this, there is nothing more to discuss. Lucas.