To answer Wheeler's question "Why the quantum?" via quantum information theory according to Bub, one must explain both why the world is quantum rather than classical and why the world is quantum rather than superquantum, i.e., "Why the Tsirelson bound?" We show that the quantum correlations and quantum states corresponding to the Bell basis states, which uniquely produce the Tsirelson bound for the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) quantity, can be derived from conservation per no preferred reference frame (NPRF). A reference frame in this context is defined by a measurement configuration, just as with the light postulate of special relativity. We therefore argue that the Tsirelson bound is ultimately based on NPRF just as the postulates of special relativity. This constraint-based/principle answer to Bub's question addresses Fuchs' desideratum that we "take the structure of quantum theory and change it from this very overt mathematical speak ... into something like [special relativity]." Thus, the answer to Bub's question per Fuchs' desideratum is, "the Tsirelson bound obtains due to conservation per NPRF".
To answer Wheeler's question "Why the quantum?" via quantum information theory according to Bub, one must explain both why the world is quantum rather than classical and why the world is quantum rather than superquantum, i.e., "Why the Tsirelson bound?" We show that the quantum correlations and quantum states corresponding to the Bell basis states, which uniquely produce the Tsirelson bound for the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) quantity, can be derived from conservation per no preferred reference frame (NPRF). A reference frame in this context is defined by a measurement configuration, just as with the light postulate of special relativity. We therefore argue that the Tsirelson bound is ultimately based on NPRF just as the postulates of special relativity. This constraint-based/principle answer to Bub's question addresses Fuchs' desideratum that we "take the structure of quantum theory and change it from this very overt mathematical speak ... into something like [special relativity]." Thus, the answer to Bub's question per Fuchs' desideratum is, "the Tsirelson bound obtains due to conservation per NPRF".
Quantum information theorists have created axiomatic reconstructions of quantum mechanics (QM) that are very successful at identifying precisely what distinguishes quantum probability theory from classical and more general probability theories in terms of information-theoretic principles. Herein, we show how one such principle, Information Invariance and Continuity, at the foundation of those axiomatic reconstructions, maps to “no preferred reference frame” (NPRF, aka “the relativity principle”) as it pertains to the invariant measurement of Planck’s constant h for Stern-Gerlach (SG) spin measurements. This is in exact analogy to the relativity principle as it pertains to the invariant measurement of the speed of light c at the foundation of special relativity (SR). Essentially, quantum information theorists have extended Einstein’s use of NPRF from the boost invariance of measurements of c to include the SO(3) invariance of measurements of h between different reference frames of mutually complementary spin measurements via the principle of Information Invariance and Continuity. Consequently, the “mystery” of the Bell states is understood to result from conservation per Information Invariance and Continuity between different reference frames of mutually complementary qubit measurements, and this maps to conservation per NPRF in spacetime. If one falsely conflates the relativity principle with the classical theory of SR, then it may seem impossible that the relativity principle resides at the foundation of non-relativisitic QM. In fact, there is nothing inherently classical or quantum about NPRF. Thus, the axiomatic reconstructions of QM have succeeded in producing a principle account of QM that reveals as much about Nature as the postulates of SR.
Many in quantum foundations seek a principle explanation of Bell state entanglement. While reconstructions of quantum mechanics (QM) have been produced, the community does not find them compelling. Herein we offer a principle explanation for Bell state entanglement, i.e., conservation per no preferred reference frame (NPRF), such that NPRF unifies Bell state entanglement with length contraction and time dilation from special relativity (SR). What makes this a principle explanation is that it's grounded directly in phenomenology, it is an adynamical and acausal explanation that involves adynamical global constraints as opposed to dynamical laws or causal mechanisms, and it's unifying with respect to QM and SR.
Many in quantum foundations seek a principle explanation of Bell state entanglement. While reconstructions of quantum mechanics (QM) have been produced, the community does not find them compelling. Herein we offer a principle explanation for Bell state entanglement, i.e., conservation per no preferred reference frame (NPRF), such that NPRF unifies Bell state entanglement with length contraction and time dilation from special relativity (SR). What makes this a principle explanation is that it's grounded directly in phenomenology, it is an adynamical and acausal explanation that involves adynamical global constraints as opposed to dynamical laws or causal mechanisms, and it's unifying with respect to QM and SR.
In 1964, John Bell showed that any local hidden‑variable theory must satisfy a specific inequality on correlations between distant measurements. In its CHSH form (Clauser, Horne, Shimony, Holt 1969), the inequality reads |S| = |E(a,b) + E(a,b′) + E(a′,b) − E(a′,b′)| ≤ 2, where E(a,b) is the correlation between measurement outcomes at two separated parties using settings a and b. Any local realist theory respects this bound. Quantum mechanics violates it. Experiments confirm the violation. The standard quantum prediction for a maximally entangled state with optimal measurement angles is |S| = 2√2 ≈ 2.828. In 1980, Boris Tsirelson proved that 2√2 is not just one quantum prediction — it is the *maximum* value any quantum correlation can produce. No quantum state, no measurement scheme, no clever protocol can push |S| beyond 2√2. The bound is sharp, the value is exact, and it has been measured in laboratories around the world to experimental precision. The Tsirelson bound is one of the deepest empirical structures in physics. It tells us that quantum correlations exceed classical correlations by a specific, finite amount — there is room to violate Bell’s inequality, but only so much room. The number 2√2 has no obvious physical interpretation. It does not appear in the formulation of quantum mechanics. It emerges from the mathematics of the bipartite Hilbert space when the CHSH operator is constructed and bounded. The question is where it comes from. In standard QM, the answer is that it falls out of the Hilbert‑space structure plus Cauchy–Schwarz plus an operator‑norm bound on the CHSH operator. Technically correct, and Tsirelson’s 1980 proof remains the canonical derivation — but it leaves the deeper structure unanswered. The Hilbert space is postulated. The inner product that makes Cauchy–Schwarz available is postulated. The bipartite tensor‑product structure on H_A ⊗ H_B is postulated. The 2√2 value is what those postulates produce when run through the CHSH operator. This walkthrough shows how the Event Density framework derives the Tsirelson bound from a smaller set of structural commitments. The Hilbert‑space structure, the inner product, and the bipartite tensor‑product structure all emerge as forced consequences of the substrate ontology rather than being postulated. With those structures forced rather than assumed, Tsirelson’s 1980 argument applies directly, and the 2√2 value is no longer the output of a chain of postulates but the output of a chain of derived theorems. Like Heisenberg, Bell–Tsirelson is a place where the framework’s contribution is upstream. The bound itself is mathematical physics already in the literature; what changes is the foundational status of the structures the argument requires. ED does not produce a new derivation step beyond standard QM here — it removes the postulational status of the structures the standard derivation already uses. The 2√2 value is now a derived consequence of the substrate ontology, all the way down.
In 1981, Mermin published a now famous paper titled, "Bringing home the atomic world: Quantum mysteries for anybody" that Feynman called, "One of the most beautiful papers in physics that I know." Therein, he presented the "Mermin device" that illustrates the conundrum of quantum entanglement per the Bell spin states for the "general reader." He then challenged the "physicist reader" to explain the way the device works "in terms meaningful to a general reader struggling with the dilemma raised by the device." Herein, we show how "conservation per no preferred reference frame (NPRF)" answers that challenge. In short, the explicit conservation that obtains for Alice and Bob's Stern-Gerlach spin measurement outcomes in the same reference frame holds only on average in different reference frames, not on a trial-by-trial basis. This conservation is SO(3) invariant in the relevant symmetry plane in real space per the SU(2) invariance of its corresponding Bell spin state in Hilbert space. Since NPRF is also responsible for the postulates of special relativity, and therefore its counterintuitive aspects of time dilation and length contraction, we see that the symmetry group relating non-relativistic quantum mechanics and special relativity via their "mysteries" is the restricted Lorentz group.