Order:
  1. New Slant on the EPR-Bell Experiment.Peter Evans, Huw Price & Ken Wharton - 2013 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 64 (2):297-324.
    The best case for thinking that quantum mechanics is nonlocal rests on Bell's Theorem, and later results of the same kind. However, the correlations characteristic of Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR)–Bell (EPRB) experiments also arise in familiar cases elsewhere in quantum mechanics (QM), where the two measurements involved are timelike rather than spacelike separated; and in which the correlations are usually assumed to have a local causal explanation, requiring no action-at-a-distance (AAD). It is interesting to ask how this is possible, in the light (...)
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  2.  4
    Entanglement Swapping and Action at a Distance.Huw Price & Ken Wharton - 2021 - Foundations of Physics 51 (6):1-24.
    A 2015 experiment by Hanson and Delft colleagues provided further confirmation that the quantum world violates the Bell inequalities, being the first Bell test to close two known experimental loopholes simultaneously. The experiment was also taken to provide new evidence of ‘spooky action at a distance’. Here we argue for caution about the latter claim. The Delft experiment relies on entanglement swapping, and our main claim is that this geometry introduces an additional loophole in the argument from violation of the (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  3.  7
    Spacetime Path Integrals for Entangled States.Ken Wharton & Narayani Tyagi - 2021 - Foundations of Physics 52 (1):1-23.
    Although the path-integral formalism is known to be equivalent to conventional quantum mechanics, it is not generally obvious how to implement path-based calculations for multi-qubit entangled states. Whether one takes the formal view of entangled states as entities in a high-dimensional Hilbert space, or the intuitive view of these states as a connection between distant spatial configurations, it may not even be obvious that a path-based calculation can be achieved using only paths in ordinary space and time. Previous work has (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4.  2
    Fundamental is Non-Random.Ken Wharton - 2019 - In Anthony Aguirre, Brendan Foster & Zeeya Merali (eds.), What is Fundamental? Springer Verlag. pp. 135-146.
    Although we use randomness when we don’t know any better, a principle of indifference cannot be used to explain anything interesting or fundamental. For example, in thermodynamics it can be shown that the real explanatory work is being done by the Second Law, not the equal a priori probability postulate. But to explain the interesting Second Law, many physicists try to retreat to a “random explanation,” which fails. Looking at this problem from a different perspective reveals a natural solution: boundary-based (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark