Any physical theory except for classical wave mechanics...<p>(this is not an objection to the paper, which claims relevance only for a highly technical class of models called "general probabilistic theories," which carry in enough assumptions to make the claim true, but rather a warning about not interpreting the title apart from the abstract)
However, as underappreciated as it is, statistical theories are efficient maps, not territories. Quantum mechanics is a clever way to maximize knowledge and minimize unknowns but in all honesty it does not represent at all reality, only a knowledge map, and therefore famous paradoxes become apparent artifacts of those leaking abstractions. Theories that have actual causal content would necessitate some explanations of what is going on, AKA hidden variables theories, however the search space is huge and the usefulness not that high.
However the double slit experiment is still a real mystery though.<p>If some readers have some cognitive resources to allocate though I would much prefer them to analyze this extremely underlooked paper that is the first on earth to make canonical quantization of gravity works for quantum mechanics:
<a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9706055.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9706055.pdf</a>
If we see a high velocity object travelling past, we experience a length expansion along it's path when trying to measure the object.<p>From the perspective of the object, the entire universe contracts by the same factor along it's path. It sees the phenomenon as length contraction.<p>I'm sorry for the framing of the question.. but is this a way to think about the underlying phenomenon of entanglement?
I have written up on some things that are somewhat relevant<p><a href="https://github.com/adamnemecek/adjoint/" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/adamnemecek/adjoint/</a>