Comment on "A glance beyond the quantum model" [arXiv:0907.0372]

TL;DR

This paper critiques a recent work on quantum models, emphasizing that classical models should focus on events and fields rather than particles, and clarifies misconceptions about assumptions in Bell inequality discussions.

Contribution

It clarifies the conceptual differences between particle-based and field-based classical models and highlights unnecessary assumptions in Bell inequality analyses.

Findings

Classical models should prioritize events and fields over particles.

Using random fields is more appropriate than classical particles for modeling macroscopic phenomena.

Certain assumptions in Bell inequality discussions are unnecessary for random field models.

Abstract

The aim of "A glance beyond the quantum model" [arXiv:0907.0372] to modernize the Correspondence Principle is compromised by an assumption that a classical model must start with the idea of particles, whereas in empirical terms particles are secondary to events. The discussion also proposes, contradictorily, that observers who wish to model the macroscopic world classically should do so in terms of classical fields, whereas, if we are to use fields, it would more appropriate to adopt the mathematics of random fields. Finally, the formalism used for discussion of Bell inequalities introduces two assumptions that are not necessary for a random field model, locality of initial conditions and non-contextuality, even though these assumptions are, in contrast, very natural for a classical particle model. Whether we discuss physics in terms of particles or in terms of events and (random) fields leads to differences that a glance would be well to notice.