Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 89 references

Crystallizing spacetime: a fundamentally classical framework for quantum gravity

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Pith's one-line read A classical spacetime that crystallizes in an extra time dimension reproduces both gravity and quantum statistics.

desk verdict A clear, ambitious speculative framework whose quantum 'emergence' is actually Born-rule insertion by construction; the weak-gravity relaxation simulations are real and worth a look. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10383 v1 pith:GOUYEIT6 submitted 2025-05-15 gr-qc

classification gr-qc
keywords crystallizingspacetimequantumgravitytauparameterworldlinesEPRnonlocalitydouble-slitinterferencemeasurementproblemgeneralrelativityrelaxation
open problems The Measurement Problem
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that gravity and the core quantum phenomena can both be derived from a single classical picture, without quantizing gravity. The picture is a four-dimensional spacetime that slowly crystallizes: as an external parameter $\tau$ increases, the metric and particle worldlines relax toward the familiar spacetime of general relativity. Two quantum examples, the EPR correlations of entangled photons and double-slit interference of a massive neutron, are modeled with worldlines that exchange influences along zigzag loops in $\tau$. If the framework is right, quantum weirdness is emergent rather than fundamental, and the measurement problem dissolves.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the external evolution parameter $\tau$ together with three laws: spacetime relaxation (Eq. (1)), which drives the metric toward matching the Einstein tensor to matter; crystallization $t_{\rm cryst}=\beta\tau$, which creates the growing formed past; and geodesic relaxation (Eq. (4)), which drives worldlines toward geodesics. Quantum phenomena are carried by closed excitation loops along worldlines: waves of excitation intensity travel around the loops and bring information from one measurement station to another through $\tau$, with the wave velocity in principle unbounded so feedback can be effectively instantaneous. These intensities, combined with a collapse law for polarizer state vectors and a hidden random variable, yield exactly the Born-rule probabilities for the EPR state and the interference pattern for the double slit.

What would settle it

A tabletop experiment that detects gravitationally induced entanglement between two masses initially in spatial superposition would directly contradict the framework's prediction that only a single definite worldline gravitates; likewise, showing that Bell-rule correlations decay when any assumed $\tau$-transport delay is made comparable to the light-crossing time would falsify the instantaneous-feedback implementation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a theory built from a fixed four-dimensional manifold, a $\tau$-dependent metric $g_{\mu\nu}(\tau)$, and $\tau$-dependent worldlines can reproduce general relativity and quantum statistics by relaxation alone. The metric relaxes according to $\kappa_{\rm str}\,\partial g_{\mu\nu}/\partial\tau = -(G_{\mu\nu} - 8\pi G T_{\mu\nu}/c^4)$, so that the $\tau\to\infty$ equilibrium is the Einstein field equations; worldlines obey an analogous geodesic relaxation law, and a crystallization hypersurface $t_{\rm cryst}=\beta\tau$ separates the formed past from the unformed future. On top of this, interaction models with excitation loops along worldlines reproduce the joint probabilities of the EPR state and the double-slit intensity pattern, with one randomly selected momentum-carrying worldline deciding each outcome. The paper concludes that this resolves the measurement problem, gives a physical mechanism for collapse outside ordinary spacetime, and yields concrete predictions such as the absence of gravitationally induced entanglement.

Load-bearing premise

The framework stands on the assumption that information can travel along worldlines in the hidden $\tau$ direction over arbitrarily short intervals, with no physical upper limit on the transport speed, so that the excitation state at one polarizer is available at a spacelike-separated polarizer almost instantly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the $\tau\to\infty$ limit the framework returns ordinary general relativity, and observers reading only $t,x,y,z$ see a static classical spacetime, so existing gravitational tests are consistent by construction.
  • Quantum collapse becomes a physical $\tau$-process that happens outside ordinary spacetime, removing the measurement problem.
  • The Born rule emerges from deterministic local $\tau$-dynamics, so Bell correlations are explained by zigzag information transport rather than action at a distance.
  • Gravitationally induced entanglement between superposed masses should not occur, because only a single momentum-carrying worldline gravitates.
  • It should in principle be possible to learn which slit a massive particle passed through by measuring its classical gravitational field, without destroying the interference pattern.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The unbounded $\tau$-transport speed effectively restores a preferred foliation, so the model's Bell predictions carry the cost of a hidden time that might be detectable as a preferred frame in precision experiments.
  • Extending the same relaxation logic to a full quantum field theory would require replacing standard QFT with $\tau$-evolving worldline bundles; the paper notes stochastic-quantization-style approaches as an inspiration but leaves a concrete four-dimensional embedding open.
  • The prediction of no gravitationally induced entanglement is the sharpest testable consequence: observing such entanglement in a tabletop experiment would falsify this framework and force any fundamentally classical alternative into even stricter hidden-$\tau$ constraints.
  • The single-worldline picture gives a concrete account of arrival times: measured detection times should follow geodesics even for initially delocalized states, which could be probed in neutron interferometry timing experiments.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a speculative framework, 'crystallizing spacetime', in which a four-dimensional Lorentzian manifold evolves under an external parameter tau. The metric relaxes via Eq. (1) toward the Einstein field equations, a crystallization hypersurface advances according to Eq. (3), and worldlines relax via Eq. (4) toward geodesics. Simulations in the weak-gravity limit show relaxation to the Newtonian potential for a static mass and for two orbiting masses. The paper then constructs models of EPR correlations and double-slit interference using tau-dependent worldline loops, excitation intensities, and zigzag action, claiming to reproduce quantum nonlocality and Born-rule statistics without quantizing gravity. It further claims to resolve the measurement problem, explains the flow of time, and makes three experimental predictions, most notably the absence of gravitationally induced entanglement.

Significance. If the framework fulfilled its claims, it would be significant as a classical completion of quantum mechanics and as an alternative to quantum gravity. The paper is commendably concrete in several respects: the postulates are stated openly; the weak-gravity simulations in Section 3 are reproducible from the parameter values; and the predictions are falsifiable. However, as detailed below, the quantum results are obtained by inserting the target Born-rule probabilities into the definitions of excitation intensities and collapse rules, and the information-transport mechanism that makes the EPR correlations work is an unrestricted superluminal-in-tau assumption. The central claim of emergence is therefore not established by the present manuscript.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Eqs. (11)-(15)] The Born rule is an input, not an output. Eq. (11) defines I_A(tau) = |P_A(tau)|^2 (n1^2 cos^2 alpha + n2^2 sin^2 alpha), which is exactly the quantum pass probability multiplied by |P_A|^2. The collapse law Eq. (12) sets s_A = sgn(I_A - r_A |P_A|^2), with r_A uniform in [0,1], so that P(pass) = I_A/|P_A|^2 at tau_A by construction. The same structure recurs in Eq. (14) for I_AB and in Eq. (15) for the joint probabilities. No derivation of these intensity formulas from the core relaxation laws Eqs. (1)-(4) or from the wave equation Eq. (66) is provided; the loop amplitudes are assembled from the very products of cosines that produce the quantum probabilities. Thus the model demonstrates that quantum statistics can be encoded in a classical-looking set of variables, not that they emerge from spacetime relaxation.
  2. [Section 5, Eqs. (16)-(22)] The double-slit model has the same circularity. Eq. (16) defines I_k as a loop sum, Eq. (17) explicitly identifies it with the path integral |sum_i e^{i phi_ik}|^2, and Eq. (18) then drives the worldline density toward proportionality with I_k. Consequently Eq. (21) states rho = Q I and Eq. (22) identifies p(xi_k) with the normalized quantum distribution. Since the reorientation dynamics in Eq. (18) is constructed so that its equilibrium is rho proportional to I, the Born-rule distribution is the enforced equilibrium condition, not a consequence of independent underlying dynamics. The phases phi_ik are imported from the de Broglie wavelength, and the in-phase excitation at the aperture is assumed; the model does not derive these from the equations of Sections 2 and 3.
  3. [Supplementary Information, Sec. 9.2, Eq. (66)] The load-bearing mechanism of 'fundamentally local' action is the transport along worldlines with arbitrarily large wave velocity. The text states that there is no physical restriction for how large the wave velocity can be chosen, allowing the feedback interval Delta tau to be made arbitrarily short and the intensity I to adjust instantaneously to distant coupling changes. This is what lets Bob's polarizer know Alice's outcome in the EPR model and what lets the double-slit bundle know phases over the whole aperture. No covariant formulation, preferred frame, or physical bound is specified. Without this assumption, the EPR correlations and the double-slit density would not form; with it, the framework effectively reintroduces instantaneous action at a distance in tau, so the claim to have eliminated nonlocal influences is not supported.
  4. [Section 2 and Conclusion] The central claim of unification is broader than what is demonstrated. Section 2 openly states that several core equations are postulated, and the quantum models require additional unconnected evolution laws, namely Eqs. (12), (18), (47), and (60), each with its own relaxation rate and hidden variables. The simulations of Section 3 cover only the weak-gravity limit and show relaxation to Newtonian gravity, not to full general relativity. The concluding statement that 'this work explains how gravitational phenomena ... and essential quantum phenomena ... can both emerge' therefore overstates the derivations; the presented framework is a collection of postulates and toy models rather than a derivation of quantum mechanics and general relativity from a common classical dynamics.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.1, after Eq. (1)] The claim that Eq. (1) is fully covariant is in tension with the crystallization condition tcryst = beta tau and with the coordinate dependence on tau; please clarify the status of the preferred foliation and how covariance is intended.
  2. [Section 8.4, Eq. (32)] The finite-difference stencil lists the (i, j-1, k) term twice and appears to omit the (i, j+1, k) term; please check and correct the discretization.
  3. [Section 5, Eq. (16)] The ranges of the sums over i and j and the definitions of K_i and K_j should be stated explicitly; it is also unclear why the approximation cos(phi_ik' - phi_k''j) is treated as uniform over the interval.
  4. [Supplementary Information, Eqs. (47) and (61)] The notation for the relaxation rate is inconsistent (kappa_meas, kmeas, and kmeas with a subscript); please unify the notation.
  5. [Section 6, Discussion] The claim that the framework predicts no gravitationally induced entanglement is based on the assumption that only the momentum-carrying worldline gravitates; this is an assumption of the double-slit model, not a general consequence of Eqs. (1)-(4), and should be framed accordingly.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The claimed emergence of quantum mechanics is built in by hand: the EPR intensities are defined as the target Born probabilities, and the double-slit intensity is defined as the path-integral modulus squared, so the quoted 'predictions' are the inputs renamed as outputs.

  1. self definitional [Section 4, Eqs. (11)-(13); SI 9.1.4, Eqs. (42)-(51)]
    "the coupling with polarizer vectors PA(τ) and PĀ(τ) gives rise to the following excitation intensities: IA(τ)=|PA(τ)|^2(n1^2 cos^2(α)+n2^2 sin^2(α)), IĀ(τ)=|PĀ(τ)|^2(n1^2 sin^2(α)+n2^2 cos^2(α)). ... The resulting probabilities for a pass or a deflection are: p(A)=n1^2 cos^2(α)+n2^2 sin^2(α), p(Ā)=n1^2 sin^2(α)+n2^2 cos^2(α), as expected from quantum theory."

    The intensity IA(τ) is defined, without derivation from the relaxation laws (1), (3), (4) or from the wave equation (10), as |PA(τ)|^2 multiplied by exactly the quantum Born probability for outcome A. The collapse rule (12) then sets sA(τ)=sgn(IA(τ)-rA|PA(τ)|^2) with rA uniform in [0,1], so P(pass)=IA/|PA|^2=n1^2 cos^2 α+n2^2 sin^2 α. Thus the 'predicted' probabilities (13) are literally the same function that was inserted as the intensity input (11); the model is fitted to reproduce the quantum statistics rather than deriving them. The same construction is repeated for Bob's joint probabilities via Eq. (14), where the intensity is again defined as the target squared amplitude.

  2. self definitional [Section 5, Eqs. (16)-(22)]
    "Eq. (17) matches the standard path integral expression |Σ_i e^{iφ_ik}|^2 of quantum mechanics, and is therefore proportional to the desired density ρP(ξk). ... ρP(ξk)=Q Ik(ξk), ... p(ξk)=ρP(ξk)/M=Ik(ξk)/(Σ_k I_k(ξ_k)∆ξ_k), which matches the expected probability distribution from standard quantum mechanics."

    The excitation intensity Ik is defined in Eq. (16)-(17) as the double sum of cosines that approximates exactly the standard path-integral modulus squared |Σ_i e^{iφ_ik}|^2, i.e. the target quantum probability. Equation (18) then drives the worldline density ρP to become proportional to Ik, and Eq. (22) reads off the probability as Ik normalized. So the 'predicted' interference pattern is the quantity inserted into the definition of Ik; the relaxation dynamics merely impose proportionality to that pre-chosen distribution. No independent derivation of Eq. (16) from the spacetime or geodesic relaxation equations is provided, so the Born-rule statistics are an input rather than an emergent outcome.

full rationale

The gravitational part of the paper is largely a transparent construction: Eq. (1) is explicitly postulated as a relaxation flow whose equilibrium is the Einstein field equations, and the weak-field simulations in Sections 3 and Methods are self-contained numerical demonstrations. That part is not circular, and the paper does not hide that the core equations are postulated. The circularity is concentrated in the paper's central claim that quantum phenomena 'emerge' from the classical framework. In the EPR model, the excitation intensities in Eqs. (11) and (14) are defined, by the choice of cos/sin coupling efficiencies, to be the squared amplitudes of the target quantum state; the collapse law then converts those intensities into exactly the quantum probabilities. In the double-slit model, Eq. (17) explicitly identifies the intensity with the path-integral probability, and Eq. (18) forces the worldline density to be proportional to that intensity, so Eq. (22) is the input Born rule written in different variables. Because both quantum demonstrations reduce by construction to the statistics being modeled, the claim to have 'reproduced' or 'explained' the Born rule is substantially circular. The fast-tau-transport assumption (SI 9.2) is a further load-bearing physical premise, but it is an assumption rather than a circular step. Self-citations to the author's earlier 4+1-formalism papers are not load-bearing here, since the present equations are stated and used explicitly. Overall score 8: the central quantum-statistical results are forced by the definitions, while the gravitational relaxation mechanism retains independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 6 invented entities

The framework rests on a large number of hand-chosen rates and postulated entities. The central quantum results are constructed from the target Born-rule probabilities, and the gravitational emergence is the equilibrium of a postulated flow equation. The new entities (tau, crystallization hypersurface, excitation loops, polarizer collapse, momentum-carrying worldline) have no independent evidence outside the framework itself.

free parameters (7)
  • kappa_str (spacetime relaxation rate) = 1 s*/m^2 (Fig. 2), 1 and 10 s*/m^2 (Fig. 3), 10^38 s*/m^2 (Fig. 5); described as tunable
    Sets the speed at which the metric relaxes to Einstein/Newtonian equilibrium; chosen per simulation and stated to be tunable so the dynamic region can be made arbitrarily small.
  • kappa_geo (geodesic relaxation rate) = 1.25 x 10^6 s*
    Sets worldline relaxation speed in the two-mass orbit simulation; chosen by hand.
  • beta (crystallization rate) = 10^23 s/s* (Fig. 2), 0.01 s/s* (Fig. 3), 10^-5 s/s* (EPR), 10^-14 s/s* (double-slit)
    Determines the crystallization hypersurface through tcryst = beta tau and is chosen differently in each simulation; the paper states it can be tuned arbitrarily.
  • kappa_meas (measurement collapse rate) = 50 (s*)^-1
    Sets the polarizer collapse speed in the EPR simulation; the paper notes kappa_meas can be chosen to obtain arbitrarily fast collapse.
  • kappa_ds (worldline reorientation rate) = 10^4 (s*)^-1
    Sets the double-slit worldline reorientation speed; chosen for the illustrative simulation.
  • Wave velocity v in Eq. (66) = arbitrarily large; chosen so feedback is effectively instantaneous
    No physical restriction is assumed, so information can cross spacelike separations in arbitrarily short Delta tau; this is load-bearing for the EPR correlations.
  • Hidden variables rA and rB = 0.2785 and 0.5469 in the illustrative example; uniform random by assumption
    Random numbers between 0 and 1 that decide measurement outcomes; their distribution is assumed uniform and the probabilities are matched to the constructed intensities.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Core evolution laws Eqs. (1), (4), (12), (18), (47), and (60) are postulated rather than derived.
    Section 2 explicitly states that several core equations are postulated upfront; the EPR and double-slit relaxation laws are designed to produce the desired outcomes.
  • domain assumption A fixed four-dimensional Lorentzian manifold with a tau-dependent metric underlies physics.
    Section 2.1: 'Crystallizing spacetime is conceptualized as a fixed four-dimensional Lorentzian manifold M endowed with a metric g(tau).'
  • domain assumption Equilibrium at tau going to infinity gives Einstein field equations and geodesic motion.
    Follows by construction from Eqs. (1) and (4); the paper assumes worldlines and metric reach equilibrium.
  • ad hoc to paper Statistical independence is violated through a common future and retrocausal zigzag action, and this is physically admissible.
    Section 6 and SI 9.3: the framework 'fully relaxes the statistical independence assumption' via future-input-dependence; no independent evidence is provided.
  • standard math Weak-gravity linearization and the dropping of time derivatives in the relaxation PDEs are valid approximations.
    Section 8.1 uses standard linearized gravity; restricting to cases where time derivatives of the potential can be ignored is an approximation stated in the text.
invented entities (6)
  • External evolution parameter tau (with unit s*)
    purpose: Drives spacetime and worldline relaxation, crystallization, and retrocausal information transfer; also explains the flow of time.
    A new unobservable parameter beyond spacetime; no direct handle outside the framework.
  • Crystallization hypersurface Sigma(tau) with tcryst = beta tau
    purpose: Defines the boundary between formed and unformed worldlines; explains sequential observation and the arrow of time.
    Postulated in Eq. (3); no independent evidence is provided.
  • Excitation intensity I and excitation loops along worldlines
    purpose: Carry information between spacelike separated measurements and between slits and screen, enabling EPR correlations and interference without action at a distance.
    Introduced in Sections 4 and 5 and SI 9.1-9.2; the wave-on-a-loop with arbitrary velocity is not independently verified.
  • Polarizer state vectors PA, PbarA and their collapse dynamics
    purpose: Implement measurement collapse and outcomes in the EPR model.
    Evolution laws (12) and (47) are postulated; no independent evidence is provided.
  • Momentum-carrying worldline selected randomly within a bundle
    purpose: Determines the single measurement outcome and the gravitational field in the double-slit model; avoids a superposition of gravity.
    Assumed in Section 5; no dynamics are specified for how the selection occurs.
  • Worldline bundles for particles
    purpose: Represents a particle as many interacting worldlines, producing interference statistics.
    Postulated in Section 5 and in the author's prior work; not independently observed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Crystallizing spacetime: a fundamentally classical framework for quantum gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GOUYEIT6

@misc{pith2026250510383,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Crystallizing spacetime: a fundamentally classical framework for quantum gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GOUYEIT6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10383}
}
abstract

Conventional approaches to quantum gravity regard quantum principles, such as nonlocality and superposition, as fundamental properties of nature and therefore argue that gravity must also be quantized. In contrast, this work introduces a theory of crystallizing spacetime, which offers an alternative perspective: that both gravitational and quantum mechanical observations can be explained within a fundamentally classical framework operating beyond traditional spacetime. The theory proposes a spacetime relaxation mechanism wherein a dynamically evolving four-dimensional spacetime, populated by dynamic worldlines, relaxes as a function of the parameter $\tau$ into a standard spacetime consistent with general relativity. Simulations in the weak-gravity limit illustrate this process of spacetime and worldline relaxation. Additionally, models are developed showing that two hallmark quantum phenomena -- nonlocality in an EPR experiment and double-slit interference of a massive particle -- can be reproduced in this fundamentally classical framework by implementing Costa de Beauregard's concept of zigzag action along worldlines. The resulting crystallizing spacetime framework not only resolves the measurement problem but also provides a compelling basis for a unified theory of matter and gravity. Since this framework is grounded in concepts analogous to realism, locality, and determinism at its foundations, it brings Einstein's long-sought intuitive worldview within reach.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.10383 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of crystallizing spacetime. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spacetime relaxation for a static mass in the weak-gravity approximation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spacetime and geodesic relaxation in the weak-gravity regime. The Newtonian potential Φ, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A fundamentally classical model for EPR nonlocality within the crystallizing spacetime framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A fundamentally classical model for double-slit interference of a massive particle within the crys [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Spatial coordinates are normalized by l0. Time is normalized by t0 = 2πL v 2 init = √ 48π Gρ0 , the duration for each mass to complete a 2π orbit. The gravitational potential Φ is normalized by Φ0 = 4πGρ0l 2 0 , where ρ0 = M/l3 0 is the normalization constant for the d…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Illustration of interaction loops with their coupling efficiencies contributing to the excitation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Illustration of interaction loops with their coupling efficiencies contributing to the excitation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Illustration of fundamentally classical transfer of information as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Dean Rickles and C´ ecile M. DeWitt. The Role of Gravitation in Physics: report from the 1957 Chapel Hill conference. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur F¨ orderung der Wissenschaften, Berlin, 2011

  2. [2]

    A road map for feynman’s adventures in the land of gravitation

    Marco Di Mauro, Salvatore Esposito, and Adele Naddeo. A road map for feynman’s adventures in the land of gravitation. The European Physical Journal H , 46(1), August 2021. 29

  3. [3]

    Marletto and V

    C. Marletto and V. Vedral. Why we need to quantise everything, including gravity. npj Quantum Information, 3(1), July 2017

  4. [4]

    L. L. Salcedo. Absence of classical and quantum mixing. Physical Review A, 54(4):3657–3660, October 1996

  5. [5]

    Daniel R. Terno. Inconsistency of quantum—classical dynamics, and what it implies. Foundations of Physics, 36(1):102–111, January 2006

  6. [6]

    H. D. Zeh. Feynman’s interpretation of quantum theory. The European Physical Journal H, 36(1):63–74, June 2011

  7. [7]

    Nonquantum gravity

    Stephen Boughn. Nonquantum gravity. Foundations of Physics, 39(4):331–351, February 2009

  8. [8]

    Is quantum gravity necessary? Class

    S Carlip. Is quantum gravity necessary? Class. Quantum Gravity , 25(15):154010, jul 2008

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    Rosenfeld

    L. Rosenfeld. On quantization of fields. Nuclear Physics, 40:353–356, January 1963

  2. [10]

    Galley, Flaminia Giacomini, and John H

    Thomas D. Galley, Flaminia Giacomini, and John H. Selby. Any consistent coupling between classical gravity and quantum matter is fundamentally irreversible. Quantum, 7(1142), 2023

  3. [11]

    A postquantum theory of classical gravity? Physical Review X , 13(4):041040, December 2023

    Jonathan Oppenheim. A postquantum theory of classical gravity? Physical Review X , 13(4):041040, December 2023

  4. [12]

    Gravitationally induced decoherence vs space-time diffusion: testing the quantum nature of gravity

    Jonathan Oppenheim, Carlo Sparaciari, Barbara ˇSoda, and Zachary Weller-Davies. Gravitationally induced decoherence vs space-time diffusion: testing the quantum nature of gravity. Nature Communi- cations, 14(1), December 2023

  5. [13]

    Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical

    Wojciech Hubert Zurek. Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical. Rev. Mod. Phys., 75(3):715–775, may 2003

  6. [14]

    Singh, and Hendrik Ulbricht

    Angelo Bassi, Kinjalk Lochan, Seema Satin, Tejinder P. Singh, and Hendrik Ulbricht. Models of wave- function collapse, underlying theories, and experimental tests. Rev. Mod. Phys. , 85(2):471–527, apr 2013

  7. [15]

    Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics

    Maximilian Schlosshauer. Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys., 76(4):1267–1305, feb 2005

  8. [16]

    Conceptual problems in quantum gravity and quantum cosmology

    Claus Kiefer. Conceptual problems in quantum gravity and quantum cosmology. ISRN Math. Phys. , 2013:1–17, aug 2013

  9. [17]

    C. J. Isham. Canonical quantum gravity and the problem of time. NATO Sci. Ser. C , 409:157–287, 1993

  10. [18]

    Quantum gravity: a progress report

    S Carlip. Quantum gravity: a progress report. Rep. Prog. Phys., 64(8):885–942, jul 2001

  11. [19]

    Bell’s theorem for temporal order

    Magdalena Zych, Fabio Costa, Igor Pikovski, and ˇCaslav Brukner. Bell’s theorem for temporal order. Nat. Commun., 10(1), aug 2019

  12. [20]

    J. S. Bell. On the einstein podolsky rosen paradox. Physics, 1(3):195–200, nov 1964

  13. [21]

    An experimental test of non-local realism

    Simon Gr¨ oblacher, Tomasz Paterek, Rainer Kaltenbaek, ˇCaslav Brukner, Marek ˙Zukowski, Markus Aspelmeyer, and Anton Zeilinger. An experimental test of non-local realism. Nature, 446(7138):871– 875, apr 2007

  14. [22]

    Testing the speed of ‘spooky action at a distance’

    Daniel Salart, Augustin Baas, Cyril Branciard, Nicolas Gisin, and Hugo Zbinden. Testing the speed of ‘spooky action at a distance’. Nature, 454(7206):861–864, aug 2008. 30

  15. [23]

    Impossibility of covariant deterministic nonlocal hidden-variable extensions of quantum theory

    Nicolas Gisin. Impossibility of covariant deterministic nonlocal hidden-variable extensions of quantum theory. Phys. Rev. A , 83(2), feb 2011

  16. [24]

    Lorentz-invariant, retrocausal, and deterministic hidden variables

    Aur´ elien Drezet. Lorentz-invariant, retrocausal, and deterministic hidden variables. Found. Phys. , 49(10):1166–1199, sep 2019

  17. [25]

    Quantum correlations and quantum non-locality: A review and a few new ideas

    Marco Genovese and Marco Gramegna. Quantum correlations and quantum non-locality: A review and a few new ideas. Appl. Sci., 9(24):5406, dec 2019

  18. [26]

    Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice

    Xiao-Song Ma, Johannes Kofler, Angie Qarry, Nuray Tetik, Thomas Scheidl, Rupert Ursin, Sven Ramelow, Thomas Herbst, Lothar Ratschbacher, Alessandro Fedrizzi, Thomas Jennewein, and Anton Zeilinger. Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 1...

  19. [27]

    Marissa Giustina, Marijn A. M. Versteegh, S¨ oren Wengerowsky, Johannes Handsteiner, Armin Hochrainer, Kevin Phelan, Fabian Steinlechner, Johannes Kofler, Jan- ˚Ake Larsson, and Carlos Abell´ an et al. Significant-loophole-free test of bell’s theorem with entangled photons. Ph...

  20. [28]

    Bell’s Theorem

    Wayne Myrvold, Marco Genovese, and Abner Shimony. Bell’s Theorem. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, spring 2024 edition, 2024. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2024/ entries/bell-theorem/

  21. [29]

    Assumptions underlying bell’s inequalities

    Angel G Valdenebro. Assumptions underlying bell’s inequalities. European Journal of Physics , 23(5):569–577, September 2002

  22. [30]

    Couder, S

    Y. Couder, S. Proti` ere, E. Fort, and A. Boudaoud. Walking and orbiting droplets. Nature, 437(7056):208–208, September 2005

  23. [31]

    Single-particle diffraction and interference at a macroscopic scale

    Yves Couder and Emmanuel Fort. Single-particle diffraction and interference at a macroscopic scale. Phys. Rev. Lett., 97(15), oct 2006

  24. [32]

    Levinsen, and Tomas Bohr

    Anders Andersen, Jacob Madsen, Christian Reichelt, Sonja Rosenlund Ahl, Benny Lautrup, Clive Elle- gaard, Mogens T. Levinsen, and Tomas Bohr. Double-slit experiment with single wave-driven particles and its relation to quantum mechanics. Phys. Rev. E , 92(1), jul 2015

  25. [33]

    Einstein, B

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen. Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review, 47(10):777–780, May 1935

  26. [34]

    N. Bohr. Discussion with einstein on epistemological problems in atomic physics. In Paul Arthur Schilpp (ed.), The Library of Living Philosophers, Volume 7. Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist , pages 199–241, 1949

  27. [35]

    The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics , volume p

    Max Jammer. The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics , volume p. 116. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1974

  28. [36]

    K. B. Wharton and N. Argaman. Colloquium : Bell’s theorem and locally mediated reformulations of quantum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys., 92(2), may 2020

  29. [37]

    Nonlocality, superposition, and time in the 4+1 formalism

    Filip Strubbe. Nonlocality, superposition, and time in the 4+1 formalism. Entropy, 25(11):1493, October 2023

  30. [38]

    A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of ”hidden” variables

    David Bohm. A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of ”hidden” variables. i. Phys. Rev., 85(2):166–179, jan 1952

  31. [39]

    The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

    Gerard ’t Hooft. The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics . Springer International Publishing, 2016. 31

  32. [40]

    Discrete mathematics and physics on the planck-scale exemplified by means of a class of ’cellular network models’ and their dynamics

    Manfred Requardt. Discrete mathematics and physics on the planck-scale exemplified by means of a class of ’cellular network models’ and their dynamics. Arxiv, May 1996

  33. [41]

    Equivalence relations between deterministic and quantum mechanical systems

    Gerard’t Hooft. Equivalence relations between deterministic and quantum mechanical systems. Journal of Statistical Physics , 53(1–2):323–344, October 1988

  34. [42]

    James B. Hartle. Generalizing quantum mechanics for quantum spacetime. arxiv, 2006

  35. [43]

    The causal set approach to quantum gravity

    Sumati Surya. The causal set approach to quantum gravity. Living Reviews in Relativity , 22(1), September 2019

  36. [44]

    Quantum theory as an emergent phenomenon: Foundations and phenomenology

    Stephen L Adler. Quantum theory as an emergent phenomenon: Foundations and phenomenology. Journal of Physics: Conference Series , 361:012002, May 2012

  37. [45]

    On the origin of gravity and the laws of newton

    Erik Verlinde. On the origin of gravity and the laws of newton. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2011(4), April 2011

  38. [46]

    Thermodynamics of spacetime: The einstein equation of state

    Ted Jacobson. Thermodynamics of spacetime: The einstein equation of state. Physical Review Letters, 75(7):1260–1263, August 1995

  39. [47]

    Quantum models as classical cellular automata

    Hans-Thomas Elze. Quantum models as classical cellular automata. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 845:012022, May 2017

  40. [48]

    Emergence of quantum mechanics from a sub-quantum statistical mechanics

    Gerhard Gr¨ ossing. Emergence of quantum mechanics from a sub-quantum statistical mechanics. Inter- national Journal of Modern Physics B , 28(26):1450179, October 2014

  41. [49]

    A real ensemble interpretation of quantum mechanics

    Lee Smolin. A real ensemble interpretation of quantum mechanics. Foundations of Physics, 42(10):1239– 1261, June 2012

  42. [50]

    Quantization of events in the event-universe and the emergence of quantum mechanics

    Oded Shor, Felix Benninger, and Andrei Khrennikov. Quantization of events in the event-universe and the emergence of quantum mechanics. Scientific Reports, 13(1), October 2023

  43. [51]

    Emergent quantum mechanics and the origin of quantum non-local correla- tions

    Ricardo Gallego Torrom´ e. Emergent quantum mechanics and the origin of quantum non-local correla- tions. International Journal of Theoretical Physics , 56(10):3323–3339, August 2017

  44. [52]

    C. D. Broad. Religion, philosophy and psychical research . New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1953

  45. [53]

    George F. R. Ellis and Tony Rothman. Time and spacetime: The crystallizing block universe. Int. J. Theor. Phys., 49(5):988–1003, feb 2010

  46. [54]

    Single-photon double-slit interference in the 4+1 formalism

    Filip Strubbe. Single-photon double-slit interference in the 4+1 formalism. Universe, 8(10):511, sep 2022

  47. [55]

    M´ echanique quantique

    O Costa de Beauregard. M´ echanique quantique. Comptes Rendus Acad´ emie des Sciences , 236:1632–1634, 1953

  48. [56]

    Disentangling the quantum world

    Huw Price and Ken Wharton. Disentangling the quantum world. Entropy, 17(12):7752–7767, nov 2015

  49. [57]

    Bancal, S

    J-D. Bancal, S. Pironio, A. Ac´ ın, Y-C. Liang, V. Scarani, and N. Gisin. Quantum non-locality based on finite-speed causal influences leads to superluminal signalling. Nat. Phys., 8(12):867–870, oct 2012

  50. [58]

    C. M. Elliott, M. Hairer, and M. R. Scott. Stochastic partial differential equations on evolving surfaces and evolving riemannian manifolds, 2012

  51. [59]

    Lectures on the Ricci Flow

    Peter Topping. Lectures on the Ricci Flow . Cambridge University Press, October 2006

  52. [60]

    Ricci flow with surgery on three-manifolds

    Grisha Perelman. Ricci flow with surgery on three-manifolds. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.math/0303109, 2003. 32

  53. [61]

    Numerical methods for finding stationary gravitational solutions

    ´Oscar J C Dias, Jorge E Santos, and Benson Way. Numerical methods for finding stationary gravitational solutions. Classical and Quantum Gravity , 33(13):133001, June 2016

  54. [62]

    Community detection on networks with ricci flow

    Chien-Chun Ni, Yu-Yao Lin, Feng Luo, and Jie Gao. Community detection on networks with ricci flow. Scientific Reports, 9(1), July 2019

  55. [63]

    R¨ uter, David Hilditch, Marcus Bugner, and Bernd Br¨ ugmann

    Hannes R. R¨ uter, David Hilditch, Marcus Bugner, and Bernd Br¨ ugmann. Hyperbolic relaxation method for elliptic equations. Physical Review D, 98(8):084044, October 2018

  56. [64]

    A numerical approach to space-time finite elements for the wave equation

    Matthew Anderson and Jung-Han Kimn. A numerical approach to space-time finite elements for the wave equation. Journal of Computational Physics , 226(1):466–476, September 2007

  57. [65]

    Christodoulou and B

    D. Christodoulou and B. G. Schmidt. Convergent and asymptotic iteration methods in general relativity. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 68(3):275–289, October 1979

  58. [66]

    Solving pdes in space-time: 4d tree-based adaptivity, mesh-free and matrix-free ap- proaches

    Masado Ishii, Milinda Fernando, Kumar Saurabh, Biswajit Khara, Baskar Ganapathysubramanian, and Hari Sundar. Solving pdes in space-time: 4d tree-based adaptivity, mesh-free and matrix-free ap- proaches. In Proceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Comput...

  59. [67]

    Numerical relativity: a review

    Luis Lehner. Numerical relativity: a review. Classical and Quantum Gravity , 18(17):R25–R86, August 2001

  60. [68]

    Solving the einstein constraints numerically on compact three-manifolds using hyperbolic relaxation

    Fan Zhang and Lee Lindblom. Solving the einstein constraints numerically on compact three-manifolds using hyperbolic relaxation. Physical Review D, 109(6):064002, March 2024

  61. [69]

    Parisi and Y

    G. Parisi and Y. Wu. Perturbative theory without gauge fixing. Sci. Sinica 24, 483 , 1981

  62. [70]

    General probabilistic theories: An introduction.Physics Reports, 1033:1–64, September 2023

    Martin Pl´ avala. General probabilistic theories: An introduction.Physics Reports, 1033:1–64, September 2023

  63. [71]

    Anton Zeilinger, Roland G¨ ahler, C. G. Shull, Wolfgang Treimer, and Walter Mampe. Single- and double-slit diffraction of neutrons. Reviews of Modern Physics , 60(4):1067–1073, October 1988

  64. [72]

    What does it take to solve the measurement problem? J

    Jonte R Hance and Sabine Hossenfelder. What does it take to solve the measurement problem? J. Phys. Commun., 6(10):102001, oct 2022

  65. [73]

    Rethinking superdeterminism

    Sabine Hossenfelder and Tim Palmer. Rethinking superdeterminism. Front. Phys., 8, may 2020

  66. [74]

    The cellular automaton interpretation of quantum mechanics, 2014

    Gerard ’t Hooft. The cellular automaton interpretation of quantum mechanics, 2014

  67. [75]

    Realism and causality

    Eliahu Cohen, Marina Cortˆ es, Avshalom Elitzur, and Lee Smolin. Realism and causality. i. pilot wave and retrocausal models as possible facilitators. Phys. Rev. D , 102(12), dec 2020

  68. [76]

    Lapsing quickly into fatalism: Bell on backward causation

    Travis Norsen and Huw Price. Lapsing quickly into fatalism: Bell on backward causation. Entropy, 23(2):251, February 2021

  69. [77]

    retrocausation

    Ruth E. Kastner. Is there really “retrocausation” in time-symmetric approaches to quantum mechanics? In AIP Conference Proceedings, volume 1841, 2017

  70. [78]

    Consciousness in the universe

    Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose. Consciousness in the universe. Physics of Life Reviews, 11(1):39–78, March 2014

  71. [79]

    Making space and time for consciousness in physics

    Bernard Carr. Making space and time for consciousness in physics. In Paul Dennison (ed.), Perspectives on Consciousness. New York: Nova Science, pp. 319-350 , 2021

  72. [80]

    Stueckelberg

    E.C.G. Stueckelberg. Remarque ` a propos de la cr´ eation de paires de particules en th´ eorie de relativit´ e. Helv. Phys. Acta , 14:588–594, 1941. 33

  73. [81]

    Horwitz and C

    L.P. Horwitz and C. Piron. Relativistic dynamics. Helv. Phys. Acta , 48:316–326, 1973

  74. [82]

    A 4+1 formalism for the evolving stueckelberg-horwitz-piron metric

    Martin Land. A 4+1 formalism for the evolving stueckelberg-horwitz-piron metric. Symmetry, 12(10):1721, oct 2020

  75. [83]

    John G. Cramer. The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Physics, 58(3):647– 687, jul 1986

  76. [84]

    Marletto and V

    C. Marletto and V. Vedral. Gravitationally induced entanglement between two massive particles is sufficient evidence of quantum effects in gravity. Phys. Rev. Lett., 119(24), dec 2017

  77. [85]

    Fuchs, Dennis G

    Tim M. Fuchs, Dennis G. Uitenbroek, Jaimy Plugge, Noud van Halteren, Jean-Paul van Soest, Andrea Vinante, Hendrik Ulbricht, and Tjerk H. Oosterkamp. Measuring gravity with milligram levitated masses. Science Advances, 10(8), February 2024

  78. [86]

    Tabletop experiments for quantum gravity: a user’s manual

    Daniel Carney, Philip C E Stamp, and Jacob M Taylor. Tabletop experiments for quantum gravity: a user’s manual. Class. Quantum Gravity , 36(3):034001, jan 2019

  79. [87]

    Testing the foundation of quantum physics in space via interferometric and non-interferometric experiments with mesoscopic nanoparticles

    Giulio Gasbarri, Alessio Belenchia, Matteo Carlesso, Sandro Donadi, Angelo Bassi, Rainer Kaltenbaek, Mauro Paternostro, and Hendrik Ulbricht. Testing the foundation of quantum physics in space via interferometric and non-interferometric experiments with mesoscopic nanoparticle...

  80. [88]

    Distinguishable consequence of classical gravity on quantum matter

    Serhii Kryhin and Vivishek Sudhir. Distinguishable consequence of classical gravity on quantum matter. Physical Review Letters, 134(6):061501, February 2025

  81. [89]

    Bell’s theorem: The naive view of an experimentalist

    Alain Aspect. Bell’s theorem: The naive view of an experimentalist. In Quantum [Un]speakables, pages 119–153. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2002. 34

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.