- Quantum physicist Maria Violaris explains that scientists haven’t managed to send particles back in time — yet.
- Quantum-computing researcher Estelle Inack says that it’s one thing to have a quantum computer, but another to extract the right answer for a complex calculation out of it.
- Theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder recounts that Albert Einstein didn’t reject the concept of entanglement as ‘spooky action at a distance’.
- Physicist Norma Sanchez believes that the two grand theories of general relativity and quantum physics can be reconciled — and is working on a type of quantum space-time that might do the job.
- Quantum computing won’t break all encryption — probably — says theoretical computer scientist Shweta Agrawal.
- There’s not yet one, perfect interpretation of what quantum mechanics says about the nature of reality, says physicist and philosopher Emily Adlam. We’re still “waiting for the stroke of inspiration that might open our eyes to the truth”.
Blogger Comments:
1. “Scientists haven’t managed to send particles back in time — yet.”
Here, the joke is in the “yet.” What’s at play ontologically is the assumption that “particles” exist as things-in-themselves that could be displaced backwards along a timeline. But in relational ontology, “time” is not an absolute container. It’s a construal — a dimension of alignment across events. So asking whether particles can “go back in time” misconstrues both “particles” and “time” as entities rather than perspectives cut from experience.
2. “It’s one thing to have a quantum computer, but another to extract the right answer…”
Here we see the practical recognition that “quantum potential” is not neatly convertible into determinate results. This is exactly what we’d say: the system of potential is not the same as its actualisation. The “answer” doesn’t pre-exist in the quantum system — it emerges in the cut from potential to actual. The difficulty is not “extracting” but construing in a way that stabilises meaning across that cut.
3. “Einstein didn’t reject entanglement as spooky action at a distance.”
This is a correction of a popular myth, but even the correction is framed within a realist metaphysics. Entanglement, for us, is nothing “spooky” because it’s simply the reflexivity of construal across separated instances: the system defines what counts as separation. Einstein resisted because he wanted a determinate system behind construal; but if construal is constitutive, there is no “behind.”
4. “GR and QM can be reconciled by quantum space-time.”
This is the old quest for unification at the theory level. From our standpoint, the reconciliation is already obvious: both are different ways of construing reflexive alignment — one across motion, one across possibility. A “quantum spacetime” model is another construal, but it doesn’t solve the “ontological” problem unless one accepts that construal is the ontological ground. Otherwise it’s just another patch.
5. “Quantum computing won’t break all encryption — probably.”
This shows the danger of reifying potential as omnipotent. The assumption is that quantum = limitless power. But as we’ve said, potential is not actuality. The actual is always cut through construal, which places constraints and boundaries. So encryption may well survive because reflexive constraints cannot be bypassed by sheer possibility.
6. “There’s not yet a perfect interpretation of quantum mechanics.”
Here the game is revealed. The search for a “perfect interpretation” is a metaphysical quest for the reality behind construal. But if construal is reality, then there can never be such a final interpretation. Instead, interpretations are alternate construals of the same reflexive ground. The “stroke of inspiration” will not reveal “the truth” but a shift in how truth itself is construed.
Overall:
This list is an excellent little cultural text. Each item both reproduces and strains against the metaphysical assumptions of mainstream physics. And our relational ontology lets us see that the “myths” themselves are just failed construals — attempts to stabilise meaning in ways that exceed the limits of the cut.
