Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1602.07404 · Journal of Physics Conference Series

Bell's theorem and the measurement problem: reducing two mysteries to one?

Eric G. Cavalcanti

Published Mar 1, 2016• 3 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

In light of a recent reformulation of Bell's theorem from causal principles by Wiseman and the author, I argue that the conflict between quantum theory and relativity brought up by Bell's work can be softened by a revision of our classical notions of causation. I review some recent proposals for a quantum theory of causation that make great strides towards that end, but highlight a property that is shared by all those theories that would not have satisfied Bell's realist inclinations. They require (implicitly or explicitly) agent-centric notions such as "controllables" and "uncontrollables", or "observed" and "unobserved". Thus they relieve the tensions around Bell's theorem by highlighting an issue more often associated with another deep conceptual issue in quantum theory: the measurement problem. Rather than rejecting those terms, however, I argue that we should understand why they seem to be, at least at face-value, needed in order to reach compatibility between quantum theory and relativity. This seems to suggest that causation, and thus causal structure, are emergent phenomena, and lends support to the idea that a resolution of the conflict between quantum theory and relativity necessitates a solution to the measurement problem.

DOI
10.1088/1742-6596/701/1/012002

Related papers

Entanglement Without Causation: A Causal Eliminativist Dissolution

Ryuhei ISHIBASHI

The tension between quantum entanglement and relativistic causality has persisted fornearly a century. Bell inequality violations demonstrate correlations inexplicable by localhidden variables, yet relativity prohibits faster-than-light causal inuences. We dissolvethis tension through causal eliminativism: causation does not exist in fundamental physics.Three results follow: (1) Bell correlations are derivable as atemporal relational constraintswithout causation; (2) relativity prohibits superluminal causation, which does not exist,not superluminal correlation, which does; (3) the measurement problem disappears whenreconceived as constraint activation rather than causal collapse. The 90-year problem wasan artifact of imposing causal categories onto an acausal world. We survey the neo-Russelliantradition supporting this move, address the measurement problem's standard formulation(Maudlin 1995), and demonstrate concrete applications to the Wigner's friend scenario andBell's theorem premises.

•Jan 14, 2026•0 citations

QUANTUM MEASUREMENT, RELATIVISTIC CAUSALITY, AND THE CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURE OF SPACE-TIME DESCRIPTION

Lukas Frei, Baumann Elena R.

Abstract Quantum mechanics and relativity are two of the most successful theoretical frameworks in modern physics, yet their conceptual foundations remain difficult to reconcile at the deepest level. Quantum theory describes physical systems through states, observables, probabilities, measurement contexts, superposition, entanglement, and nonclassical correlations. Relativity describes physical processes through space-time structure, causal order, invariant physical law, observer-dependent decomposition of time and space, and constraints on signal propagation. This article examines the conceptual relationship between quantum measurement, relativistic causality, and space-time description. The purpose is not to present a mathematical unification but to analyze how the two frameworks organize physical explanation differently and where their interpretive tensions arise. Special attention is given to the measurement problem, the status of quantum states, the role of observers and reference frames, the meaning of locality, the distinction between correlation and causal influence, and the challenge of describing quantum processes without privileging a single global time. The article argues that many apparent conflicts between quantum theory and relativity result from importing classical intuitions into domains where they no longer apply. Quantum entanglement does not permit controllable faster-than-light communication, yet it challenges classical separability. Relativity forbids superluminal signaling, yet it does not require that all physically meaningful correlations be reducible to local classical properties. Measurement introduces another difficulty because standard quantum theory often describes state update in a way that appears instantaneous, while relativistic space-time does not provide a universal present. The discussion develops a conceptual framework in which quantum measurement is treated as a physical interaction, relativistic causality as a constraint on operational influence, and space-time description as an organizing structure for events rather than a simple background stage. This analysis is relevant for quantum field theory, quantum information, relativistic quantum foundations, and future approaches to quantum gravity.

•Jul 7, 2026•0 citations

Causality and quantum theory

Blake Winter

We begin with a brief summary of issues encountered involving causality in quantum theory, placing careful emphasis on the assumptions involved in results such as the EPR paradox and Bell's inequality. We critique some solutions to the resulting paradox, including Rovelli's relational quantum mechanics and the many-worlds interpretation. We then discuss how a spacetime manifold could come about on the classical level out of a quantum system, by constructing a space with a topology out of the algebra of observables, and show that even with an hypothesis of superluminal causation enforcing consistent measurements of entangled states, a causal cone structure arises on the classical level. Finally, we discuss the possibility that causality as understood in classical relativistic physics may be an emergent symmetry which does not hold on the quantum level.

arXiv:1705.07201•May 19, 2017•3 citations

The two Bellʼs theorems of John Bell

Howard M. Wiseman

Many of the heated arguments about the meaning of 'Bellʼs theorem' arise because this phrase can refer to two different theorems that John Bell proved, the first in 1964 and the second in 1976.His 1964 theorem is the incompatibility of quantum phenomena with the dual assumptions of locality and determinism.His 1976 theorem is the incompatibility of quantum phenomena with the unitary property of local causality.This is contrary to Bellʼs own later assertions, that his 1964 theorem began with that single, and indivisible, assumption of local causality (even if not by that name).While there are other forms of Bellʼs theorems-which I present to explain the relation between Jarrett-completeness, 'fragile locality', and EPR-completeness-I maintain that Bellʼs two versions are the essential ones.Although the two Bellʼs theorems are logically equivalent, their assumptions are not, and the different versions of the theorem suggest quite different conclusions, which are embraced by different communities.For realists, the notion of local causality, ruled out by Bellʼs 1976 theorem, is motivated implicitly by Reichenbachʼs principle of common cause and explicitly by the principle of relativistic causality, and it is the latter which must be forgone.Operationalists pay no heed to Reichenbachʼs principle, but wish to keep the principle of relativistic causality, which, bolstered by an implicit 'principle of agent-causation', implies their notion of locality.Thus for operationalists, Bellʼs theorem is the 1964 one, and implies that it is determinism that must be forgone.I discuss why the two 'camps' are drawn to these different conclusions, and what can be done to increase mutual understanding.

arXiv:1402.0351•Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical•Oct 9, 2014•130 citations

What does it take to solve the measurement problem?

Jonte R. Hance, S Hossenfelder

We summarise different aspects of the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. We argue that it is a real problem which requires a solution, and identify the properties a theory needs to solve the problem. We show that no current interpretation of quantum mechanics solves the problem, and that, being interpretations rather than extensions of quantum mechanics, they cannot solve it. Finally, we speculate what a solution of the measurement problem might be good for.

•Oct 11, 2022•0 citations

What does it take to solve the measurement problem?

Jonte R. Hance, Sabine Hossenfelder

Abstract We summarise different aspects of the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. We argue that it is a real problem which requires a solution, and identify the properties a theory needs to solve the problem. We show that no current interpretation of quantum mechanics solves the problem, and that, being interpretations rather than extensions of quantum mechanics, they cannot solve it. Finally, we speculate what a solution of the measurement problem might be good for.

arXiv:2206.10445•Journal of Physics Communications•Sep 30, 2022•2 citations
In light of a recent reformulation of Bell's theorem from causal principles by Wiseman and the author, I argue that the conflict between quantum theory and relativity brought up by Bell's work can be softened by a revision of our classical notions of causation. I review some recent proposals for a quantum theory of causation that make great strides towards that end, but highlight a property that is shared by all those theories that would not have satisfied Bell's realist inclinations. They require (implicitly or explicitly) agent-centric notions such as "controllables" and "uncontrollables", or "observed" and "unobserved". Thus they relieve the tensions around Bell's theorem by highlighting an issue more often associated with another deep conceptual issue in quantum theory: the measurement problem. Rather than rejecting those terms, however, I argue that we should understand why they seem to be, at least at face-value, needed in order to reach compatibility between quantum theory and relativity. This seems to suggest that causation, and thus causal structure, are emergent phenomena, and lends support to the idea that a resolution of the conflict between quantum theory and relativity necessitates a solution to the measurement problem.
The tension between quantum entanglement and relativistic causality has persisted fornearly a century. Bell inequality violations demonstrate correlations inexplicable by localhidden variables, yet relativity prohibits faster-than-light causal inuences. We dissolvethis tension through causal eliminativism: causation does not exist in fundamental physics.Three results follow: (1) Bell correlations are derivable as atemporal relational constraintswithout causation; (2) relativity prohibits superluminal causation, which does not exist,not superluminal correlation, which does; (3) the measurement problem disappears whenreconceived as constraint activation rather than causal collapse. The 90-year problem wasan artifact of imposing causal categories onto an acausal world. We survey the neo-Russelliantradition supporting this move, address the measurement problem's standard formulation(Maudlin 1995), and demonstrate concrete applications to the Wigner's friend scenario andBell's theorem premises.
Abstract Quantum mechanics and relativity are two of the most successful theoretical frameworks in modern physics, yet their conceptual foundations remain difficult to reconcile at the deepest level. Quantum theory describes physical systems through states, observables, probabilities, measurement contexts, superposition, entanglement, and nonclassical correlations. Relativity describes physical processes through space-time structure, causal order, invariant physical law, observer-dependent decomposition of time and space, and constraints on signal propagation. This article examines the conceptual relationship between quantum measurement, relativistic causality, and space-time description. The purpose is not to present a mathematical unification but to analyze how the two frameworks organize physical explanation differently and where their interpretive tensions arise. Special attention is given to the measurement problem, the status of quantum states, the role of observers and reference frames, the meaning of locality, the distinction between correlation and causal influence, and the challenge of describing quantum processes without privileging a single global time. The article argues that many apparent conflicts between quantum theory and relativity result from importing classical intuitions into domains where they no longer apply. Quantum entanglement does not permit controllable faster-than-light communication, yet it challenges classical separability. Relativity forbids superluminal signaling, yet it does not require that all physically meaningful correlations be reducible to local classical properties. Measurement introduces another difficulty because standard quantum theory often describes state update in a way that appears instantaneous, while relativistic space-time does not provide a universal present. The discussion develops a conceptual framework in which quantum measurement is treated as a physical interaction, relativistic causality as a constraint on operational influence, and space-time description as an organizing structure for events rather than a simple background stage. This analysis is relevant for quantum field theory, quantum information, relativistic quantum foundations, and future approaches to quantum gravity.
We begin with a brief summary of issues encountered involving causality in quantum theory, placing careful emphasis on the assumptions involved in results such as the EPR paradox and Bell's inequality. We critique some solutions to the resulting paradox, including Rovelli's relational quantum mechanics and the many-worlds interpretation. We then discuss how a spacetime manifold could come about on the classical level out of a quantum system, by constructing a space with a topology out of the algebra of observables, and show that even with an hypothesis of superluminal causation enforcing consistent measurements of entangled states, a causal cone structure arises on the classical level. Finally, we discuss the possibility that causality as understood in classical relativistic physics may be an emergent symmetry which does not hold on the quantum level.
Many of the heated arguments about the meaning of 'Bellʼs theorem' arise because this phrase can refer to two different theorems that John Bell proved, the first in 1964 and the second in 1976.His 1964 theorem is the incompatibility of quantum phenomena with the dual assumptions of locality and determinism.His 1976 theorem is the incompatibility of quantum phenomena with the unitary property of local causality.This is contrary to Bellʼs own later assertions, that his 1964 theorem began with that single, and indivisible, assumption of local causality (even if not by that name).While there are other forms of Bellʼs theorems-which I present to explain the relation between Jarrett-completeness, 'fragile locality', and EPR-completeness-I maintain that Bellʼs two versions are the essential ones.Although the two Bellʼs theorems are logically equivalent, their assumptions are not, and the different versions of the theorem suggest quite different conclusions, which are embraced by different communities.For realists, the notion of local causality, ruled out by Bellʼs 1976 theorem, is motivated implicitly by Reichenbachʼs principle of common cause and explicitly by the principle of relativistic causality, and it is the latter which must be forgone.Operationalists pay no heed to Reichenbachʼs principle, but wish to keep the principle of relativistic causality, which, bolstered by an implicit 'principle of agent-causation', implies their notion of locality.Thus for operationalists, Bellʼs theorem is the 1964 one, and implies that it is determinism that must be forgone.I discuss why the two 'camps' are drawn to these different conclusions, and what can be done to increase mutual understanding.