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.
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.
This work presents a minimal reinterpretation of quantum entanglement based solely on the causal structure inherent in relativistic spacetime. No new physical entities, parameters, or modifications to existing theories are introduced.The discussion remains entirely within the established frameworks of general relativity and quantum mechanics, with particular emphasis on Lorentz invariance and relativistic causality. The central idea is that the causal structure of spacetime is unique and invariant, while spatial separation corresponds to different references (foliations) to this structure rather than its duplication.Within this viewpoint, quantum entanglement is understood as a local readout of correlations already encoded in a shared causal structure, without invoking nonlocal influences or superluminal information transfer. This document is intended as a conceptual clarification and archival record rather than a proposal of a new theory.It is provided to preserve a logically consistent interpretation that may be of interest for future foundational discussions.
It has been claimed that quantum mechanics is a non-local theory, i.e., that the predictions of quantum mechanics are at odds with a conception of the world where all the interactions are mediated by local mechanisms. The cited reason is the violation of the Bell inequality in cases where measurements are performed on quantum systems of particles that have interacted in the past. Quantum mechanics predicts that the state of the particles in such a system are correlated, a result obtained from considering a thought-experiment often known as EPR. In this thesis, I will argue that the violation of the Bell inequality in EPR forces us to either accept that causes sometimes act both backwards and forwards in time, or give up some widely-held assumptions about causal relations or the role of causal explanations. First, I will present three principles regarding causality that I take be widely accepted. I will then present the background for the claim the quantum mechanics is a non-local theory, and discuss the implications of non-local causal influences in light of the Special Theory of Relativity. One argument against a causal explanation of the EPR-correlations will be discussed, and different models for the causal structure of EPR will be assessed. I will argue that a retrocausal model – models that include instances of retrocausation, where the direction of causation is the opposite of the direction of time – is the only viable option if we want to uphold the three principles presented in chapter 1. I will discuss the plausibility of rejecting one of these principles, and argue that at least one of the can be restricted in a way that still accounts for our commitment to it. Finally, I will assess the non-local models against the retrocausal models, and argue that a retrocausal model offers interpretational advantages over the non-local alternatives.
In his seminal paper, Bell [Physics Physique Fizika 1, 195 (1964)] considers the correlations that result from space-like separated measurements on a pair of entangled particles. He uses relativity theory to motivate the Bell causal structure, then shows the existence of quantum correlations that cannot be explained classically within this causal structure. Classical explanations of such quantum correlations are possible in alternative causal structures, for instance, those that allow superluminal causal influences, but, as shown in [New Journal of Physics 17 033002 (2015)], all such alternative explanations require fine tuning (causation without correlation). Here we discuss the existence of spurious quantum correlations --- correlations that look quantum in one causal structure, but have a natural classical explanation in another. More precisely, there are causal structures that admit non-classical quantum correlations, but for which the same correlations have a classical explanation in another causal structure without fine tuning. The realisation in the other causal structure can also be achieved without breaking any natural constraints on the causal structure that follow from relativity theory. However, similarly to non-classical quantum correlations in the Bell causal structure, we find other causal structures with non-classical quantum correlations that do not have a classical causal explanation in any alternative causal structure without fine tuning.
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.
Emergent Causality Through Decoherence An imaginary hypothesis, not a theory. What if causality were not fundamental? What if it emerged, like temperature, from the degree of decoherence in a system? This hypothesis proposes that there is no single causality, but three regimes of the same process. The core idea:There is no single causality. There are causalities that emerge according to the degree of decoherence in a system. In other words: causality is not a property of the universe. It is a property of the level of description. The three regimes: Quantum causality (zero or low decoherence). The system is isolated. What exists are pure correlations: entanglement, superposition. There is no causality in the classical sense. There is correlation without direction. There is no defined "before" or "after." Relativistic causality (medium decoherence). The system interacts with the environment, but not completely. There is a causal structure defined by spacetime. There is causality, but it is relative: it depends on the observer. Classical causality (high decoherence). The system is fully coupled to the environment. It is classical. There is absolute, local causality: cause → effect, without ambiguity. The mechanism: decoherence.The more degrees of freedom interact with the system, the more decoherence. More decoherence → more classical → more causal. There is no "line" that is crossed. There is a continuum. Causality emerges gradually, just as temperature emerges from the number of particles. Why this makes the three regimes fit together: They are not separate levels. They are degrees of the same process. Time emerges together with causality. Without decoherence, there is no defined time. With decoherence, irreversibility emerges. And with it, the arrow of time. Relativity is the intermediate regime. What it would resolve: The problem of time: it emerges with decoherence. The arrow of time: it is the irreversibility of decoherence. The relativity–quantum clash: it is not a clash. They are different regimes of the same process. Causality: it is not fundamental. It is emergent. What it does not resolve: What decoherence exactly is. How to quantize gravity. Why there is decoherence. The information paradox. The label (important):This is an imaginary hypothesis, not a theory. It is coherent with what we know, but it is not demonstrated. It lacks mathematics, predictions, and confirmation. It does not say that time does not exist. It says that time could emerge. It does not say that causality does not exist. It says that causality could emerge. All of this, if one takes decoherence seriously, without adding anything else. But no one has demonstrated it. That is why it is a hypothesis, not a theory. A note on the anchor:This hypothesis does not invent its premise. It takes it from established physics: quantum mechanics already treats information as correlation, not as substance. Entanglement is pure correlation. Decoherence is entanglement with the environment. If information is always relational, then causality could be relational too. Related work: "Measure Reinforcement: Emergent Causality From Quantum Interactions" (Zenodo, 2025). Proposes emergent causality from quantum interactions without predefined time. Difference: includes a conscious observer. This hypothesis does not. Here decoherence is the mechanism, without consciousness. "Spacetime as an Emergent Causal Structure: A Quantum Mechanical Perspective" (Preprints.org, 2026). Derives proper time from the degree of decoherence. Difference: focuses on time, not causality as a regime. This hypothesis unifies the three regimes (quantum, relativistic, classical) into a single continuum. "Causal Space-Time: Emergent Physics from Causality" (2010). Proposes that physics emerges from a causal network. Difference: opposite direction. There causality is fundamental; here it emerges from decoherence. "Radial Coherential Dynamics: Emergent Causality" (2025). Proposes collapse as a decoherence front that generates time and causality. Difference: it is radial and has specific predictions. This hypothesis is more general: it describes causality as a regime of description, not as a radial process. The gap: no one has unified the three regimes (quantum, relativistic, classical) into a continuum parametrized by the degree of decoherence, nor has proposed that causality is a property of the level of description, not of the universe. Keywords: decoherence, emergent causality, quantum mechanics, foundations of physics, emergent time, quantum-classical transition.
This article surveys a selection of key conceptual and interpretational developments in quantum mechanics, tracing the theory from its foundational postulates to contemporary discussions of measurement, nonlocality, and the emergence of classicality. Beginning with the structure of Hilbert space and the postulates governing state evolution and measurement, the epistemic stance of the Copenhagen interpretation and its modern reformulations are examined. The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument, Bell's theorem, and Hardy's paradox are then discussed as probes of locality and realism, alongside the deterministic but explicitly nonlocal de Broglie-Bohm theory. The measurement problem and the implications of contextuality are analyzed in relation to objective collapse models, which introduce new physical dynamics to account for definite outcomes. Finally, the role of decoherence in the suppression of interference and the emergence of classical behavior is explored, together with the interpretational frameworks of many-worlds and consistent histories. This material aims to provide a coherent introductory overview of how several of the most prominent interpretations address the central concern of what quantum mechanics tells us about the nature of physical reality.