An Interpretation of Relativistic Spin Entanglement Using Geometric Algebra
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Entangled states are often given as one of the most bizarre examples of “weirdness” described as inherent to quantum mechanics. The present work reinterprets entanglement as not being a property of states at all, but rather as a relationship between the reference frames in which the states reside, which proposes to reduce “weirdness” of interpretation. Using the geometric Algebra of Physical Space, it has been shown that a classical form of the Dirac equation can be satisfied by any eigenspinor, which is a Lorentz transformation operator describing the relative velocity and relative orientation of the rest frame of a system as seen from a particular lab frame from which it is described. The real linear nature of the Dirac equation means any real linear superposition of such eigenspinors are also solutions. Thus, with entanglement modelled as an operator consisting of a linear superposition of rotation operators describing the possible relative orientations of a particular particle frame and the frame from which it is observed, it too can satisfy a bipartite form of the Dirac equation. To investigate this model, the present work applies relativistic boost transformations to the entangling operator in various ways, including as an identical boost of both parts in the same direction, and also as equal and oppositely-directed boosts. The resulting “entangling eigenspinors” are then analyzed in various ways, including the application to specific spin states — only to discover that doing this results in a reduction of the information, which can be interpreted as a reduction in the amount of entanglement. By comparing this to the treatment of the Dirac equation in APS, it may be concluded that the application of the entangling eigenspinor to a state — which models the typical approach of simply boosting an entangled state — gives an incomplete account of what is happening. The full information is thus contained within the entangling eigenspinor, justifying the interpretation of the entanglement in terms of geometric information relating the reference frames, rather than as a property of the state.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".