Foundations Frontiers Overview
Foundations research spans mathematical obstructions, laboratory tests of model classes, and interpretive accounts of outcomes and probability. These questions require different kinds of argument. This map helps identify what a result establishes; Foundations and Reality: Research Directions offers dated assessments and starting points for research.
Classify the claim before comparing progress
Section titled “Classify the claim before comparing progress”Established identifies a result under explicit assumptions. Active identifies a line of inquiry rather than a settled conclusion. Conjectural names an unproved precise proposal; speculative marks a more tentative connection; controversial marks substantial disagreement over interpretation or premises.
A single project can contain claims in several categories. An established no-go theorem may have a controversial interpretive reading. An experimentally mature technique may test a speculative modification of dynamics.
Questions and the results that address them
Section titled “Questions and the results that address them”| Question | Stable entry | What counts as a discriminating contribution |
|---|---|---|
| What constitutes an outcome? | Measurement | Explicit ontology or altered assumptions; a quantitative test if predictions change |
| Why these probabilities? | Probability | A theorem with independently motivated premises or a controlled deviation test |
| Which causal correlations are allowed? | Nonlocality | A new bound, model exclusion, or assumption-controlled certificate |
| When is contextuality useful? | Contextuality | A task advantage or conversion theorem with defined free operations |
| Does dynamics depart from linear quantum theory? | Collapse models | Model-specific constraints with calibrated backgrounds |
| How do records become robust and accessible? | Classical emergence | A dynamical mechanism and measurable record criterion |
| Which principles recover quantum structure? | Reconstructions | A complete representation theorem and scope analysis |
| What does gravity-mediated entanglement imply? | Gravity interface | An entanglement witness, interaction controls, and a stated mediator model |
Compare like with like
Section titled “Compare like with like”A more precise exclusion of a collapse parameter does not decide between empirically equivalent interpretations. A new reformulation of the Born rule does not by itself predict a detectable deviation. A Bell experiment tests causal assumptions, not every meaning of “realism.”
Likewise, an observer-dependent thought experiment needs an account of which facts may be combined across agents. A physical implementation may model a restricted circuit without testing claims about human awareness. Follow observer scenarios for those premises.
Compare developments over time
Section titled “Compare developments over time”Use Annual Foundations Research Map to compare assumptions and results across dates, and Living Review Archive to find reviews with a stated historical scope. The 2026 research map is a selective assessment with explicit source cutoffs; it is not a completed year-end survey.
References
Section titled “References”- Brunner, Nicolas, Daniel Cavalcanti, Stefano Pironio, Valerio Scarani, and Stephanie Wehner, “Bell nonlocality,” Reviews of Modern Physics 86, 419–478 (2014). Review.
- Budroni, Costantino, Adán Cabello, Otfried Gühne, Matthias Kleinmann, and Jan-Åke Larsson, “Kochen–Specker contextuality,” Reviews of Modern Physics 94, 045007 (2022). Review.
- Schlosshauer, Maximilian, “Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics,” Reviews of Modern Physics 76, 1267–1305 (2005). Review.