MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2775010261 · doi:10.1098/rspa.2017.0596

The complex and quaternionic quantum bit from relativity of simultaneity on an interferometer

2017· article· en· W2775010261 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Mechanics and Applications
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteWestern University
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilFoundational Questions InstituteJohn Templeton Foundation
KeywordsSimultaneityTheory of relativityQuantumSubspace topologyGeneral relativityRelational quantum mechanicsKochen–Specker theoremRendering (computer graphics)Problem of time

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The patterns of fringes produced by an interferometer have long been important testbeds for our best contemporary theories of physics. Historically, interference has been used to contrast quantum mechanics with classical physics, but recently experiments have been performed that test quantum theory against even more exotic alternatives. A physically motivated family of theories are those where the state space of a two-level system is given by a sphere of arbitrary dimension. This includes classical bits, and real, complex and quaternionic quantum theory. In this paper, we consider relativity of simultaneity (i.e. that observers may disagree about the order of events at different locations) as applied to a two-armed interferometer, and show that this forbids most interference phenomena more complicated than those of complex quantum theory. If interference must depend on some relational property of the setting (such as path difference), then relativity of simultaneity will limit state spaces to standard complex quantum theory, or a subspace thereof. If this relational assumption is relaxed, we find one additional theory compatible with relativity of simultaneity: quaternionic quantum theory. Our results have consequences for current laboratory interference experiments: they have to be designed carefully to avoid rendering beyond-quantum effects invisible by relativity of simultaneity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.010
Scholarly communication0.0020.007
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering SciencesSame topicQuantum Mechanics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207