MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409297231 · doi:10.3390/physics7020011

On the Alleged Locality in the Schrödinger Picture. Comment on Vedral, V. Locality in the Schrödinger Picture of Quantum Mechanics. Physics 2024, 6, 793–800

2025· article· en· W4409297231 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Mechanics and Applications
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersMitacsHasler StiftungUniversity of OxfordSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungWolfson College, University of OxfordNational Science Foundation
KeywordsLocalityPhysicsSchrödinger's catQuantum nonlocalityTheoretical physicsPrinciple of localityQuantum mechanicsQuantumPhilosophyQuantum entanglement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In his recent paper, Vlatko Vedral claims that the Schrödinger picture can describe quantum systems as locally as the Heisenberg picture, relying on a product notation for the density matrix. Here, I refute that claim. I show that the so-called ‘local factors’ in the product notation do not correspond to individual systems and therefore fail to satisfy Einsteinian locality. Furthermore, the product notation does not track where local gates are applied. Finally, I expose internal inconsistencies in the argument: if, as is also stated, the Schrödinger-picture locality ultimately depends on the explicit bookkeeping of all operations, then the explanatory power of the product notation is de facto undermined.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.509
Threshold uncertainty score0.907

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.258 · 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