You're viewing papers too quickly. Please wait a moment.<br>This helps keep the archive available for everyone.
Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Foundations
Entanglement Theory Quantum Correlations
Quantum Entropy Information Measures
Quantum Simulation
Time Symmetric Quantum Theory Without Retrocausality? A Reply to Tim Maudlin
arXiv
Authors: Matthew S. Leifer
Year
2017
Paper ID
44035
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
95
Citations
N/A
Abstract
In arXiv:1707.08641, Tim Maudlin claims to construct a counterexample to the result of Proc. Roy. Soc. A vol. 473, iss. 2202, 2017 (arXiv:1607.07871), in which it was shown that no realist model satisfying a certain notion of time-symmetry (in addition to three other assumptions) can reproduce the predictions of quantum theory without retrocausality (influences travelling backwards in time). In this comment, I explain why Maudlin's model is not a counterexample because it does not satisfy our time-symmetry assumption. I also explain why Maudlin's claim that one of the Lemmas we used in our proof is incorrect is wrong.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Quantum Simulation research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2017 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- In arXiv:1707.08641, Tim Maudlin claims to construct a counterexample to the result of Proc.
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.