Realism and causality. I. Pilot wave and retrocausal models as possible facilitators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Of all basic principles of classical physics, realism should arguably be the last to be given up when seeking a better interpretation of quantum mechanics. We examine the de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory as a well-developed example of a realistic theory. We present three challenges to a naive reading of pilot wave theory, each based on a system of several entangled particles. With the help of a coarse graining of pilot wave theory into a discrete system, we show how these challenges can be answered. However, this comes with a cost. In the description of individual systems, particles appear to scatter off empty branches of the wave function as if they were particles and conversely travel through particles as if they were waves. More generally, the ``particles'' of pilot wave theory are led by the guidance equation to move in ways no classical particle would, involving apparent violations of the principles of inertia and momentum conservation. We next argue that the aforementioned cost can be avoided within a retrocausal model. In the proposed version of the pilot wave theory, the particle is guided by a combination of advanced and retarded waves. The resulting account for quantum physics seems to have greater heuristic power, demands less damage to intuition, and moreover provides some general hints regarding spacetime and causality. This is the first of two papers. In the second [E. Cohen, M. Cort\^es, A. C. Elitzur, and L. Smolin, Realism and causality. II. Retrocausality in energetic causal sets, Phys. Rev. D 102, 124028 (2020).], we show that, in the context of an explicit model, retrocausality, with respect to an effective, emergent spacetime metric, can coexist with a strict irreversibility of causal processes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".