Time Series, Stochastic Processes and Completeness of Quantum Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most of physical experiments are usually described as repeated measurements of some random variables. The experimental data registered by on-line computers form time series of outcomes. The frequencies of different outcomes are compared with the probabilities provided by the algorithms of quantum theory (QT). In spite of statistical predictions of QT a claim was made that the theory provided the most complete description of the data and of the underlying physical phenomena. This claim could be easily rejected if some fine structures, averaged out in standard statistical descriptive analysis, were found in the time series of experimental data. To search for these structures one has to use more subtle statistical tools which were developed to study time series produced by various stochastic processes. In this talk we review some of these tools. As an example we show how the standard descriptive statistical analysis of the data is unable to reveal a fine structure in a simulated sample of AR(2) stochastic process. We emphasize once again that the violation of Bell inequalities gives no information on the completeness or the non locality of QT. The appropriate way to test the completeness of quantum theory is to search for fine structures in time series of experimental data by means of the purity tests or by studying the autocorrelation and partial autocorrelation functions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".