MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415164091 · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ae131e

Which theories have a measurement problem?

2025· article· en· W4415164091 on OpenAlexaff
Nick Ormrod, V. Vilasini, Jonathan Barrett

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Journal of Physics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Mechanics and Applications
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilAgence Nationale de la RechercheEPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in Additive ManufacturingJohn Templeton FoundationSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSuperluminal motionTheory of relativityQuantum measurementAbsolutenessMeasurement problemQuantumWeak measurementDoubly special relativity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It is shown that any theory that has certain properties has a measurement problem, in the sense that it makes predictions that are incompatible with measurement outcomes being absolute (that is, unique and non-relational). These properties are Bell Nonlocality , Information Preservation , and Local Dynamics . The result is extended by deriving Local Dynamics from No Superluminal Influences , Separable Dynamics , and Consistent Embeddings . These results are achieved using a framework of perspectival theories that generalizes the notion of a Heisenberg cut beyond quantum theory. As well as explaining why the existing Wigner’s-friend-inspired no-go theorems hold for quantum theory, the results also shed light on whether a future theory of physics might overcome the measurement problem. In particular, they suggest the possibility of a theory in which absoluteness is maintained, but without rejecting relativity theory (as in Bohm theory) or embracing objective collapses (as in GRW theory).

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 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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Journal of PhysicsSame topicQuantum Mechanics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207