It is a frequent assumption that—via superluminal information transfers—superluminal signals capable of enabling communication are necessarily exchanged in any quantum theory that posits hidden superluminal influences. However, does the presence of hidden superluminal influences automatically imply superluminal signalling and communication? The non-signalling theorem mediates the apparent conflict between quantum mechanics and the theory of special relativity. However, as a ‘no-go’ theorem there exist two opposing interpretations of the non-signalling constraint: foundational and operational. Concerning Bell’s theorem, we argue that Bell employed both interpretations, and that he finally adopted the operational position which is associated often with ontological quantum theory, e.g., de Broglie–Bohm theory. This position we refer to as “effective non-signalling”. By contrast, associated with orthodox quantum mechanics is the foundational position referred to here as “axiomatic non-signalling”. In search of a decisive communication-theoretic criterion for differentiating between “axiomatic” and “effective” non-signalling, we employ the operational framework offered by Shannon’s mathematical theory of communication, whereby we distinguish between Shannon signals and non-Shannon signals. We find that an effective non-signalling theorem represents two sub-theorems: (1) Non-transfer-control (NTC) theorem, and (2) Non-signification-control (NSC) theorem. Employing NTC and NSC theorems, we report that effective, instead of axiomatic, non-signalling is entirely sufficient for prohibiting nonlocal communication. Effective non-signalling prevents the instantaneous, i.e., superluminal, transfer of message-encoded information through the controlled use—by a sender-receiver pair —of informationally-correlated detection events, e.g., in EPR-type experiments. An effective non-signalling theorem allows for nonlocal quantum information transfer yet—at the same time—effectively denies superluminal signalling and communication.
It is a frequent assumption that—via superluminal information transfers—superluminal signals capable of enabling communication are necessarily exchanged in any quantum theory that posits hidden superluminal influences. However, does the presence of hidden superluminal influences automatically imply superluminal signalling and communication? The non-signalling theorem mediates the apparent conflict between quantum mechanics and the theory of special relativity. However, as a ‘no-go’ theorem there exist two opposing interpretations of the non-signalling constraint: foundational and operational. Concerning Bell’s theorem, we argue that Bell employed both interpretations, and that he finally adopted the operational position which is associated often with ontological quantum theory, e.g., de Broglie–Bohm theory. This position we refer to as “effective non-signalling”. By contrast, associated with orthodox quantum mechanics is the foundational position referred to here as “axiomatic non-signalling”. In search of a decisive communication-theoretic criterion for differentiating between “axiomatic” and “effective” non-signalling, we employ the operational framework offered by Shannon’s mathematical theory of communication, whereby we distinguish between Shannon signals and non-Shannon signals. We find that an effective non-signalling theorem represents two sub-theorems: (1) Non-transfer-control (NTC) theorem, and (2) Non-signification-control (NSC) theorem. Employing NTC and NSC theorems, we report that effective, instead of axiomatic, non-signalling is entirely sufficient for prohibiting nonlocal communication. Effective non-signalling prevents the instantaneous, i.e., superluminal, transfer of message-encoded information through the controlled use—by a sender-receiver pair —of informationally-correlated detection events, e.g., in EPR-type experiments. An effective non-signalling theorem allows for nonlocal quantum information transfer yet—at the same time—effectively denies superluminal signalling and communication.
Does "epistemic non-signalling" ensure the peaceful coexistence of special relativity and quantum nonlocality? The possibility of an affirmative answer is of great importance to deterministic approaches to quantum mechanics given recent developments towards generalizations of Bell's theorem. By generalizations of Bell's theorem we here mean efforts that seek to demonstrate the impossibility of any deterministic theories to obey the predictions of Bell's theorem, including not only local hidden-variables theories (LHVTs) but, critically, of nonlocal hidden-variables theories (NHVTs) also, such as de Broglie-Bohm theory. Naturally, in light of the well-established experimental findings from quantum physics, whether or not a deterministic approach to quantum mechanics, including an emergent quantum mechanics, is logically possible, depends on compatibility with the predictions of Bell's theorem. With respect to deterministic NHVTs, recent attempts to generalize Bell's theorem have claimed the impossibility of any such approaches to quantum mechanics. The present work offers arguments showing why such efforts towards generalization may fall short of their stated goal. In particular, we challenge the validity of the use of the non-signalling theorem as a conclusive argument in favor of the existence of free randomness, and therefore reject the use of the non-signalling theorem as an argument against the logical possibility of deterministic approaches. We here offer two distinct counter-arguments in support of the possibility of deterministic NHVTs: one argument exposes the circularity of the reasoning which is employed in recent claims, and a second argument is based on the inconclusive metaphysical status of the non-signalling theorem itself. We proceed by presenting an entirely informal treatment of key physical and metaphysical assumptions, and of their interrelationship, in attempts seeking to generalize Bell's theorem on the basis of an ontic, foundational interpretation of the non-signalling theorem. We here argue that the non-signalling theorem must instead be viewed as an epistemic, operational theorem i.e. one that refers exclusively to what epistemic agents can, or rather cannot, do. That is, we emphasize that the non-signalling theorem is a theorem about the operational inability of epistemic agents to signal information. In other words, as a proper principle, the non-signalling theorem may only be employed as an epistemic, phenomenological, or operational principle. Critically, our argument emphasizes that the non-signalling principle must not be used as an ontic principle about physical reality as such, i.e. as a theorem about the nature of physical reality independently of epistemic agents e.g. human observers. One major reason in favor of our conclusion is that any definition of signalling or of non-signalling invariably requires a reference to epistemic agents, and what these agents can actually measure and report. Otherwise, the non-signalling theorem would equal a general "no-influence" theorem. In conclusion, under the assumption that the non-signalling theorem is epistemic (i.e. "epistemic non-signalling"), the search for deterministic approaches to quantum mechanics, including NHVTs and an emergent quantum mechanics, continues to be a viable research program towards disclosing the foundations of physical reality at its smallest dimensions.
We understand emergent quantum mechanics in the sense that quantum mechanics describes processes of physical emergence relating an assumed sub-quantum physics to macroscopic boundary conditions. The latter can be shown to entail top-down causation, in addition to usual bottom-up scenarios. With this example it is demonstrated that definitions of "realism" in the literature are simply too restrictive. A prevailing manner to define realism in quantum mechanics is in terms of pre-determination independent of the measurement. With our counter-example, which actually is ubiquitous in emergent, or self-organizing, systems, we argue for realism without pre-determination . We refer to earlier results of our group showing how the guiding equation of the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation can be derived from a theory with classical ingredients only. Essentially, this corresponds to a "quantum mechanics without wave functions" in ordinary 3-space, albeit with nonlocal correlations. This, then, leads to the central question of how to deal with the nonlocality problem in a relativistic setting. We here show that a basic argument discussing the allegedly paradox time ordering of events in EPR-type two-particle experiments falls short of taking into account the contextuality of the experimental setup. Consequently, we then discuss under which circumstances (i.e. physical premises) superluminal information transfer (but not signaling) may be compatible with a Lorentz-invariant theory. Finally, we argue that the impossibility of superluminal signaling - despite the presence of superluminal information transfer - is not the result of some sort of conspiracy (á la "Nature likes to hide"), but the consequence of the impossibility to exactly reproduce in repeated experimental runs a state's preparation, or of the no-cloning theorem, respectively.
This preprint clarifies a persistent category error in the interpretation of quantum mechanics and relativity by explicitly distinguishing propagation from correlation. Relativistic constraints, including the finite speed of light, apply to the transmission of energy, matter, and information through spacetime. Quantum mechanics, by contrast, permits nonlocal correlations between entangled systems that do not involve transmission, motion, or signal propagation. The apparent instantaneity of quantum effects therefore reflects the revelation of pre-existing correlation structure rather than superluminal dynamics. By maintaining this separation, the preprint shows that the finite speed of light and quantum nonlocality are not in conflict. Light is limited in speed because it propagates; quantum correlations have no speed because nothing propagates. This framing resolves common misconceptions surrounding entanglement, nonlocality, and causality without introducing hidden structures, preferred frames, or violations of relativistic invariance. The work is intended as a conceptual clarification and falsifiable interpretive framework, not a modification of quantum theory or relativity. Keywords quantum correlation nonlocality entanglement speed of light relativity causality non-signaling propagation vs correlation foundations of quantum mechanics conceptual clarification
We propose a thought experiment for classical superluminal signal transmission based on the quantum nonlocal influence of photons on their momentum entangled EPR twins. The signal sender measures either position or momentum of particles in a pure ensemble of the entangled pairs, leaving their twins as localized particles or plane waves. The signal receiver distinguishes these outcomes interferometrically using a double slit interferometer modified by a system of optical filters. Since the collapse of the wavefunction is postulated to be instantaneous, this signal can be transmitted superluminally. We show that the method circumvents the no-signalling theorem because the receiver is able to modify the disentangled wavefunction before his measurement. We propose a plan for the possible practical realization of a superluminal quantum telegraph based on the thought experiment.
The nonlocal correlations of quantum entanglement, famously described by Einstein as “spooky action at a distance”, have stood as one of the most profound and puzzling features of quantum mechanics since the 1935 EPR paper. Decades of increasingly sophisticated experiments, culminating in loophole-free Bell tests, have irrefutably confirmed that these correlations cannot be explained by any local hidden variable theory. Yet, standard quantum mechanics offers no deeper explanation for this nonlocality—it is simply accepted as a fundamental, irreducible feature of reality. The no-signaling theorem further asserts that this nonlocality cannot be harnessed for superluminal communication, as single measurement outcomes are fundamentally random. This paper challenges this conventional wisdom. It asks a question that strikes at the heart of physical reality: Is quantum entanglement truly fundamental, or is it the manifestation of a deeper, hidden structure? If such a structure exists, it must leave observable imprints. The Instantaneous Teleportation Cosmos (ITC) framework, developed throughout these chapters, proposes precisely such a deep structure: entangled particles are not independent entities, but two ports of the same basal storage unit—a non-spatial, absolutely existing reality from which our four-dimensional spacetime emerges. The ITC framework is built upon four core properties, each derived from first principles, experimental evidence, and rigorous logic: P1 (Storage Perfection): Information in the basal structure is perfectly preserved, never decaying or distorting. This property, rooted in the principle of information conservation, ensures that modulations can be accumulated over time. P2 (Instantaneous Connectivity): Basal nodes are connected without distance or delay. This property, directly motivated by the violation of Bell inequalities, explains the nonlocality of entanglement and provides the basis for the possibility of superluminal communication. P3 (Mapping Determinacy): The projection from a basal state to the statistical distribution in emergent spacetime is deterministic and injective (one-to-one). Determinacy ensures experimental reproducibility, while injectivity guarantees the fundamental distinguishability of different physical states—both prerequisites for science itself. P4 (Manifestation Finiteness): The manifestation of basal information in emergent spacetime requires a local time τ and yields random single outcomes. This property acts as the crucial barrier safeguarding causality, preventing the instantaneous connectivity of P2 from being used for single-shot information transmission, and ensuring compatibility with relativity. These four properties work in synergy. P2 guarantees that a local modulation can affect a distant party. P1 ensures that this effect is accumulable over multiple trials. P3 dictates that a change in the basal state must lead to a change in the statistical distribution at the manifestation layer. P4 explains that while single outcomes remain random, this statistical change manifests as a tiny, detectable shift ΔP in the single-party probability. The central, testable prediction of the ITC framework is that this shift is non-zero: ΔP≠0. This directly contradicts the no-signaling theorem of standard quantum mechanics, which asserts ΔP = 0. Deriving this necessity from the four core properties is a central theme of this theory. The structure of the paper mirrors this logical progression. Chapter 1 re‑examines the no‑signaling theorem, arguing that the existence of the basal structure changes the meaning of local operations—the operation modifies the boundary conditions of the shared storage unit, while the reduced density matrix is merely a projection of the basal state. Hence the theorem holds for finite samples but can be transcended in the infinite‑sample limit. Chapter 2 chains the four properties to rigorously derive that modulation inevitably causes a change ΔP≠0 in the receiver’s single‑party probability. Chapter 3 explores how the bipartite correlation information, lost in the partial trace of standard quantum mechanics, can leave an imprint as ΔP in single‑party statistics under the ITC framework. Theoretical predictions demand experimental tests. Chapter 4 designs an immediately realizable decisive experiment based on demonstrated 10-km trapped-ion entanglement capabilities. By accumulating 245,000 total events (122,500 inside the modulation window) over approximately 30 hours and using a 7σ confidence standard, the experiment will detect ΔP and measure the response delay. If ΔP is significantly non-zero and the delay is much smaller than the light travel time, it would provide the first evidence for a deep structure; if no signal is seen, the one-sided 95% confidence upper bound on ΔP will be constrained below 0.17%, providing the most stringent test of the no-signaling theorem to date. Chapter 5 synergizes the P5 property of SET theory with the π-pulse. By altering the content of the information cluster at the sender (Alice), the π-pulse generates the original probability shift ΔP₀, serving as the source of the signal. Meanwhile, P5 resonance at the receiver (Bob) excites the τ-mode, compressing the manifestation time τ. This reduces quantum fluctuation noise, increases the signal‑to‑noise ratio, and thereby enhances the detectability of ΔP—this process that does not change the signal itself but amplifies its distinguishability within the noise. Working in synergy, these two mechanisms bring ΔP to an experimentally detectable level, ensuring that even a weak initial signal can be reliably captured. This paper presents a coherent, self-contained theory that, starting from the first principles and core properties of ITC theory, predicts observable effects and designs a clear experimental path for verification. Whether the outcome confirms the existence of a deep structure or imposes a more rigorous constraint on the no-signaling theorem, the work herein represents a significant step in our relentless pursuit to understand the ultimate nature of reality.
Non-classical correlations resulting from entangled quantum systems have sparked debates about the compatibility of quantum theory and relativity, and about the right way to think about causation. Key to a causal theory is that superluminal signalling is forbidden, which holds in quantum theory. In Bell scenarios, relativistic causality principles like no superluminal signalling are often assumed to follow from the standard no-signalling constraints on correlations. We explore the connections between a range of relativistic principles, including no superluminal signalling and no causal loops, and constraints on correlations that can arise with arbitrary interventions, within multi-party Bell scenarios. This includes standard no-signalling conditions and proposed relaxations allowing phenomena like jamming, where it was suggested that superluminal signalling and causal loops remain impossible. Using our recent framework combining relativistic principles with causal modelling, we show that any theory (classical or non-classical) allowing jamming must rely on causal fine-tuning and superluminal causal influences. Additionally, we show that jamming theories can lead to superluminal signalling in certain situations, highlighting limitations for their physicality. However, we identify cases where jamming correlations avoid superluminal signalling under general interventions, demonstrating that standard no-signalling constraints are not necessary for this purpose. We also show that these constraints are insufficient to rule out superluminal signalling and are neither necessary nor sufficient for ensuring no causal loops under general interventions. Finally, we derive necessary and sufficient conditions for ruling out superluminal signalling and operationally detectable causal loops, solidifying our understanding of relativistic causality principles in information processing tasks in space-time.