References

Bibliography

1. [1]

   I. Marvian, Inaccessible information in probabilistic models of quantum systems, non-contextuality inequalities and noise thresholds for contextuality, arXiv:2003.05984 (2020), https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.05984.

2. [2]

   E. G. Beltrametti and S. Bugajski, A classical extension of quantum mechanics, J. Phys. A 28 (1995), 3329–3343; https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0305-4470/28/12/007.

3. [3]

   J. S. Bell, On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox, Physics 1 (1964), 195–200. doi:10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195.

4. [4]

   J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony and R. A. Holt, Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23 (1969), 880–884. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.880.

5. [5]

   R. Colbeck and R. Renner, No extension of quantum theory can have improved predictive power, Nat. Commun. 2 (2011), 411. doi:10.1038/ncomms1416.

6. [6]

   N. Gisin, Weinberg's non-linear quantum mechanics and supraluminal communications, Phys. Lett. A 143 (1990), 1–2. doi:10.1016/0375-9601(90)90786-N.

7. [7]

   M. D. Mazurek, M. F. Pusey, R. Kunjwal, K. J. Resch and R. W. Spekkens, An experimental test of noncontextuality without unphysical idealizations, Nat. Commun. 7 (2016), 11780. doi:10.1038/ncomms11780.

8. [8]

   J. Polchinski, Weinberg's nonlinear quantum mechanics and the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 (1991), 397–400. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.66.397.

9. [9]

   M. F. Pusey, J. Barrett and T. Rudolph, On the reality of the quantum state, Nat. Phys. 8 (2012), 475–478. doi:10.1038/nphys2309.

10. [10]

    J. Rodgers, Non-Source Projection and Internal Identifiability, Shadow Theory Paper 6, canonical edition (15 July 2026), doi:10.5281/zenodo.21371451.

11. [11]

    J. Rodgers, Shadow Theory and Quantum Measurement: Source Dynamics, Event Laws, and Physical Records—Two Constitutive Completions, integrated monograph, version 2 (15 September 2026), doi:10.5281/zenodo.22774584; source: https://www.everythingequation.com/publications/quantum-measurement/monograph.tex.

12. [12]

    R. W. Spekkens, Contextuality for preparations, transformations, and unsharp measurements, Phys. Rev. A 71 (2005), 052108. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.71.052108.

13. [13]

    A. Valentini, Signal-locality in hidden-variables theories, Phys. Lett. A 297 (2002), 273–278; arXiv:quant-ph/0106098.

14. [14]

    J. Rodgers, Source–Readout Non-Equivalence: Descent and Equivariant Reconstruction Obstructions, Shadow Theory Paper 1, canonical edition (15 July 2026), doi:10.5281/zenodo.21369967.

15. [15]

    J. Rodgers, Target-Relative Necessity of Completion: When Readout Loss Obstructs, and What a Sufficient Extension Must Retain, Shadow Theory Paper 2, canonical edition (15 July 2026), doi:10.5281/zenodo.21370501.

16. [16]

    J. Rodgers, Canonical Minimal Source Completion: The Coarsest Readout Extension on Which a Nominated Family of Source Relations Becomes Well Defined, Shadow Theory Paper 3, canonical edition (15 July 2026), doi:10.5281/zenodo.21370763.

17. [17]

    J. Rodgers, Geometric Realization of Completed Source Relations: Descent, Orbit Spaces, Invariant Relations, and Variational Response in Shadow Theory, Shadow Theory Paper 4, canonical edition (15 July 2026), doi:10.5281/zenodo.21370985.

18. [18]

    J. Rodgers, Observable Quotients and Exact Projected Dynamics: Closure, Memory, Minimal Dynamical Completion, and Effective Field Operators, Shadow Theory Paper 5, canonical edition (15 July 2026), doi:10.5281/zenodo.21371251.

19. [19]

    J. Rodgers, Bulk-to-Brane Projection, Dynamical Nonclosure, and Observable Residues in Randall–Sundrum Gravity, Shadow Theory Paper 7, canonical edition (15 July 2026), doi:10.5281/zenodo.21371861.

20. [20]

    J. Rodgers, A Deterministic Pilot Medium: Bell Path Selection and Autonomous Material Records—A Constitutive Completion with a Controlled Physical-Time Limit, version 2 (15 September 2026), doi:10.5281/zenodo.22774634; source: https://www.everythingequation.com/publications/quantum-measurement/pilot-medium.tex.

21. [21]

    J. Rodgers, A Massive Configuration Completion of the Quantum Measurement Programme: Event Timing, Semibounded Material Records, Retained Resources, and an Autonomous Finite-Horizon Realization, version 2 (15 September 2026), doi:10.5281/zenodo.22774739; source: https://www.everythingequation.com/publications/quantum-measurement/massive-configuration.tex.

22. [22]

    S. Pironio, A. Acín, S. Massar, A. Boyer de la Giroday, D. N. Matsukevich, P. Maunz, S. Olmschenk, D. Hayes, L. Luo, T. A. Manning and C. Monroe, Random numbers certified by Bell's theorem, Nature 464 (2010), 1021–1024; arXiv:0911.3427. doi:10.1038/nature09008.

23. [23]

    B. Hensen et al., Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres, Nature 526 (2015), 682–686. doi:10.1038/nature15759.

24. [24]

    M. Giustina et al., Significant-loophole-free test of Bell's theorem with entangled photons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015), 250401. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.250401.

25. [25]

    L. K. Shalm et al., Strong loophole-free test of local realism, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015), 250402. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.250402.

26. [26]

    W. Rosenfeld, D. Burchardt, R. Garthoff, K. Redeker, N. Ortegel, M. Rau and H. Weinfurter, Event-ready Bell test using entangled atoms simultaneously closing detection and locality loopholes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017), 010402. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.010402.

27. [27]

    S. Storz et al., Loophole-free Bell inequality violation with superconducting circuits, Nature 617 (2023), 265–270. doi:10.1038/s41586-023-05885-0.

28. [28]

    P. Bierhorst, E. Knill, S. Glancy, Y. Zhang, A. Mink, S. Jordan, A. Rommal, Y.-K. Liu, B. Christensen, S. W. Nam, M. J. Stevens and L. K. Shalm, Experimentally generated randomness certified by the impossibility of superluminal signals, Nature 556 (2018), 223–226; arXiv:1803.06219v1 (including supplementary information, Eqs. (2)–(6), Table 1, SI S.2, S.5–S.7). doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0019-0.

29. [29]

    K. M. R. Audenaert, A sharp continuity estimate for the von Neumann entropy, J. Phys. A 40 (2007), 8127–8136; arXiv:quant-ph/0610146, Theorem 1.

30. [30]

    H. Everett, “Relative state” formulation of quantum mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 29 (1957), 454–462. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.29.454.

31. [31]

    D. Deutsch, Quantum theory of probability and decisions, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 455 (1999), 3129–3137; arXiv:quant-ph/9906015.

32. [32]

    D. Wallace, The Emergent Multiverse, Oxford University Press, 2012.

33. [33]

    G. C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini and T. Weber, Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems, Phys. Rev. D 34 (1986), 470–491. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.34.470.

34. [34]

    S. Donadi, K. Piscicchia, C. Curceanu, L. Diósi, M. Laubenstein and A. Bassi, Underground test of gravity-related wave function collapse, Nature Phys. 17 (2021), 74–78. doi:10.1038/s41567-020-1008-4.

35. [35]

    C. H. Brans, Bell's theorem does not eliminate fully causal hidden variables, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 27 (1988), 219–226. doi:10.1007/BF00670750.

36. [36]

    S. Hossenfelder and T. Palmer, Rethinking superdeterminism, Front. Phys. 8 (2020), 139. doi:10.3389/fphy.2020.00139.

37. [37]

    J. Handsteiner et al., Cosmic Bell test: measurement settings from Milky Way stars, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017), 060401. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.060401.

38. [38]

    D. Rauch et al., Cosmic Bell test using random measurement settings from high-redshift quasars, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018), 080403. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403.

39. [39]

    The BIG Bell Test Collaboration, Challenging local realism with human choices, Nature 557 (2018), 212–216. doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0085-3.

40. [40]

    D. Bohm, A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of “hidden” variables. I, Phys. Rev. 85 (1952), 166–179. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.85.166.