Quick Navigation

Topics

Quantum Algorithms

Objective quantum fields, retrocausality and ontology

arXiv
Authors: Peter D Drummond, Margaret D Reid

Year

2021

Paper ID

62071

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

110

Citations

N/A

Abstract

We compare different approaches to quantum ontology. In particular, we discuss an interpretation of quantum mechanics that we call objective quantum field theory (OQFT), which involves retrocausal fields. Here, objective implies the existence of fields independent of an observer, but not that the results of conjugate measurements are predetermined: the theory is contextual. The ideas and analyses of Einstein and Bohr through to more recent approaches to objective realism are discussed. We briefly describe measurement induced projections, the guided wave interpretation, many-universes, consistent histories, and modal theories. These earlier interpretations are compared with OQFT. We argue that this approach is compatible both with Bohr's quantum complementarity, and Einstein's objective realism.

Why This Paper Matters

  • It adds a 2021 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • We compare different approaches to quantum ontology.

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

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #62071 #78853 When irrelevance governs: dissi... #78852 Quantum Information-Theoretic A... #78851 Quantum-assisted rendezvous on ... #78850 An Instability of the Quantum M...

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

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.