BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Mikołaj Sienicki

Mikołaj Sienicki appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
physics.hist-phquant-phphysics.gen-ph

Catalog footprint

What is connected

4works
3topics
1close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Comment on arXiv:2601.04248v1: Superposition of states in quantum theory (J.-M. Vigoureux)

Vigoureux suggests replacing the usual linear superposition rule of quantum mechanics with a M"obius-type "composition law" $\oplus$, motivated by (i) bounded-domain composition laws in special relativity, (ii) familiar transfer-matrix formulas in multilayer optics, and (iii) an analogy with the inclusion-exclusion rule for classical probabilities. In this note we explain why the proposal does not work as a modification of quantum theory. For two components, the new rule differs from the ordinary sum only by an overall scalar factor, so after normalization it represents the same ray and cannot change any physical prediction. For three or more components, if one extends the two-term prescription in the natural recursive way, the result becomes bracket/order dependent and can even change the ray, so a "state" is no longer uniquely determined by a given preparation. We also clarify why the inclusion-exclusion argument and the optics analogy do not support a foundational change to Hilbert-space linearity.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2026arXiv

EPR Revisited: Context-Indexed Elements of Reality and Operational Completeness

We reframe the EPR argument through an operational lens, replacing the notion of fixed "elements of reality" with context-indexed conditional states - what's often referred to as a measurement assemblage. This move deliberately sidesteps the assumption of context-independent values for incompatible observables. Our updated version of the Reality Criterion works like this: if Alice measures observable x and obtains outcome a, then Bob's system must adopt a conditional state that ensures the corresponding outcome for that specific context. Crucially, we also assume operational completeness - a condition that quantum mechanics satisfies when we're dealing with quantum-reachable assemblages. Now, in any theory where one party cannot signal to the other (so-called one-sided no-signaling theories), perfect predictions do support drawing context-indexed inferences. But - and this is key - they don't legitimize assigning fixed values across all contexts. We rigorously demonstrate this distinction. To ground the argument, we offer examples: the qubit singlet scenario using Pauli settings and CJWR thresholds, a continuous-variable case based on the Reid criteria, and a counterexample in the spirit of the PR box, which highlights the boundaries of what quantum theory can actually reach.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2026arXiv

Tractatus de Conscientia: A Tractatus-Style Sketch Toward a Modern, Physically Operational Theory of Consciousness

Tractatus de Conscientia is a tractatus-style sketch toward a modern, physically operational account of consciousness. It is also a tractatus-style attempt to talk about consciousness in a way that stays close to what we can actually test and build. It pushes back against two common moves: treating consciousness as a mysterious extra "stuff," and treating it as nothing more than outward behavior. The central idea is to keep three things separate: what appears for an agent (the lived "given"), what is accessible (what can shape report, control, memory, or other records), and what structure remains when we change descriptions (the invariants of organization). On this view, a conscious episode isn't a mathematical instant. It has a short duration during which many internal distinctions are pulled together into one perspective and held stable enough to guide action--and sometimes to be reported. Unity is captured as a kind of "whole-over-parts" surplus: the system, over a chosen timescale and partition, carries more integrated predictive power than its pieces considered separately, and that surplus must also be available to access channels (so we don't count integration that never makes a difference to anything the agent can do or say). The self, in turn, is treated less like a hidden entity and more like a dynamical role--a self-index that helps bind episodes over time by stabilizing prediction and control across changing contexts. The tractatus also stresses a hard limit: every piece of evidence about consciousness requires coupling to the system, and coupling changes what we observe. So there is no protocol-free, perfectly private "identifier" of what-it-is-like. Consciousness is something we infer and attribute under explicit measurement setups, conventions, and uncertainty bounds--and we should be willing to say "we can't tell" when identifiability runs out.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2025arXiv

Notes on Crowther and the "Interpretation" of Quantum Mechanics (arXiv:2512.14315)

We read Karen Crowther's \emph{Another 100 Years of Quantum Interpretation?} with two practical goals. First, we spell out what she means by interpretation'': an attempt to provide understanding (not just predictions), which may be representationalist or non-representationalist, and which she contrasts with deeper \emph{reductive} (inter-theoretic) explanation -- especially in the quantum-gravity setting. Second, we list twelve points where the paper's physics-facing wording could be sharpened. In our view, several claims are directionally well-motivated but stated more strongly than the underlying physics supports, or they run together distinct notions (e.g.\ degrees of freedom,'' singularity,'' and different senses of locality'') that need careful separation. We end by suggesting that the philosophical question is genuinely worthwhile, but the physics should be phrased more cautiously so that heuristic motivation is not mistaken for strict implication.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access