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:2101.05370 · Foundations of Physics

Entanglement Swapping and Action at a Distance

Huw Price, K. B. Wharton

Published Nov 3, 2021• 11 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Abstract A 2015 experiment by Hanson and Delft colleagues provided further confirmation that the quantum world violates the Bell inequalities, being the first Bell test to close two known experimental loopholes simultaneously. The experiment was also taken to provide new evidence of ‘spooky action at a distance’. Here we argue for caution about the latter claim. The Delft experiment relies on entanglement swapping, and our main claim is that this geometry introduces an additional loophole in the argument from violation of the Bell inequalities to action at a distance: the apparent action at a distance may be an artifact of ‘collider bias’. In the absence of retrocausality, the sensitivity of such experiments to this ‘Collider Loophole’ (CL) depends on the temporal relation between the entanglement swapping measurement C and the two measurements A and B between which we seek to infer a causal connection. CL looms large if the C is in the future of A and B, but not if C is in the past. The Delft experiment itself is the intermediate case, in which the separation is spacelike. We argue that this leaves it vulnerable to CL, unable to establish conclusively that it avoids it.

DOI
10.1007/s10701-021-00511-3

Related papers

Nonlocality via Entanglement-Swapping -- a Bridge Too Far?

Huw Price, K. B. Wharton

A 2015 experiment by Hanson and Delft colleagues provided new confirmation that the quantum world violates the Bell inequalities, being the first Bell test to close two known experimental loopholes simultaneously. The experiment was also taken to provide new evidence of quantum nonlocality. Here we argue for caution about the latter claim. The Delft experiment relies on entanglement swapping, and our main claim is that this geometry introduces new loopholes in the argument from violation of the Bell inequalities to nonlocality. In the absence of retrocausality, the sensitivity of such experiments to these new loopholes depends on the temporal relation between the entanglement swapping measurement C and the two measurements A and B between which we seek to infer nonlocality. The loopholes loom large if the C is in the future of A and B, but not if C is in the past. The Delft experiment itself is the intermediate case, in which the separation is spacelike. We argue that this leaves it vulnerable to the new loopholes, unable to establish conclusively that it avoids them. We also discuss the implications of permitting retrocausality for the issue of causal influence across entanglement swapping measurements.

•Jan 13, 2021•0 citations

Entanglement and Bell Inequalities : No Correlation

Eugene Scarzafava

Abstract Claims that entanglement, or non-local interaction ("spooky action-at-a-distance), has been experimentally proven are false. The claims are based entirely on the fact that the results of experiments performed to test that issue (EPR-Bohm experiments) violate various theoretical inequalities (Bell Inequalities).The various Bell Inequalities used to interpret the results of EPR-Bohm experiments are shown to be inappropriate for such experiments. The inequalities do not correctly provide for the correlation between the particles in each pair, which is the essence of such experiments; and therefore the inequalities are irrelevant. Claims that the results of such experiments, because they violate the inequalities, require the conclusion that the measurement of one particle in an "entangled" pair can instantly affect the state of its partner, even at great distances, are untrue and need to be modified.

•Oct 28, 2020•0 citations

New Slant on the EPR-Bell Experiment

P. W. Evans, Huw Price, K. B. Wharton

The best case for thinking that quantum mechanics is nonlocal rests on Bell's Theorem, and later results of the same kind. However, the correlations characteristic of Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR)–Bell (EPRB) experiments also arise in familiar cases elsewhere in quantum mechanics (QM), where the two measurements involved are timelike rather than spacelike separated; and in which the correlations are usually assumed to have a local causal explanation, requiring no action-at-a-distance (AAD). It is interesting to ask how this is possible, in the light of Bell's Theorem. We investigate this question, and present two options. Either (i) the new cases are nonlocal too, in which case AAD is more widespread in QM than has previously been appreciated (and does not depend on entanglement, as usually construed); or (ii) the means of avoiding AAD in the new cases extends in a natural way to EPRB, removing AAD in these cases too. There is a third option, viz., that the new cases are strongly disanalogous to EPRB. But this option requires an argument, so far missing, that the physical world breaks the symmetries which otherwise support the analogy. In the absence of such an argument, the orthodox combination of views—action-at-a-distance in EPRB, but local causality in its timelike analogue—is less well established than it is usually assumed to be. 1 Introduction 1.1 Background 1.2 Outline of the argument2 The Experiments 2.1 Standard EPRB 2.2 Sideways EPRB 2.3 Comparing the experiments 2.4 The need for beables3 The Symmetry Considerations 3.1 The action symmetry 3.2 Time-symmetry in SEPRB4 The Basic Trilemma 4.1 An intuitive defence of Option III?5 Avoiding the Trilemma?6 The Classical Objection7 Defending Option III 7.1 The free will argument 7.2 Independence and consistency8 Entanglement and Epistemic Perspective

arXiv:1001.5057•The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science•Jun 14, 2012•39 citations

A Live Alternative to Quantum Spooks

Huw Price, K. B. Wharton

Quantum weirdness has been in the news recently, thanks to an ingenious new experiment by a team led by Roland Hanson, at the Delft University of Technology. Much of the coverage presents the experiment as good (even conclusive) news for spooky action-at-a-distance, and bad news for local realism. We point out that this interpretation ignores an alternative, namely that the quantum world is retrocausal. We conjecture that this loophole is missed because it is confused for superdeterminism on one side, or action-at-a-distance itself on the other. We explain why it is different from these options, and why it has clear advantages, in both cases.

arXiv:1510.06712•Oct 22, 2015•14 citations

Towards a Loophole-Free Test of Bell's Inequality with Entangled Pairs of Neutral Atoms

Rosenfeld, W., Weber, M., Jürgen Volz +5 more

Experimental tests of Bell's inequality allow to distinguish quantum mechanics from local hidden variable theories. Such tests are performed by measuring correlations of two entangled particles (e.g. polarization of photons or spins of atoms). In order to constitute conclusive evidence, two conditions have to be satisfied. First, strict separation of the measurement events in the sense of special relativity is required ("locality loophole"). Second, almost all entangled pairs have to be detected (for particles in a maximally entangled state the required detector efficiency is 82.8%), which is hard to achieve experimentally ("detection loophole"). By using the recently demonstrated entanglement between single trapped atoms and single photons it becomes possible to entangle two atoms at a large distance via entanglement swapping. Combining the high detection efficiency achieved with atoms with the space-like separation of the atomic state detection events, both loopholes can be closed within the same experiment. In this paper we present estimations based on current experimental achievements which show that such an experiment is feasible in future.

•Dec 1, 2009•29 citations

A Mechanism for Entanglement?

Huw Price, K. B. Wharton

We propose that quantum entanglement is a special sort of selection artefact, explicable as a combination of (i) collider bias and (ii) a boundary constraint on the collider variable. We show that the proposal is valid for a special class of (`W-shaped') Bell experiments involving delayed-choice entanglement swapping, and argue that it can be extended to the ordinary (`V-shaped') case. The proposal requires no direct causal influence outside lightcones, and may hence offer a way to reconcile Bell nonlocality and relativity. The main argument is a detailed version of an approach previously outlined in arXiv:2404.13928 [quant-ph].

arXiv:2406.04571•Jun 7, 2024•0 citations
Abstract A 2015 experiment by Hanson and Delft colleagues provided further confirmation that the quantum world violates the Bell inequalities, being the first Bell test to close two known experimental loopholes simultaneously. The experiment was also taken to provide new evidence of ‘spooky action at a distance’. Here we argue for caution about the latter claim. The Delft experiment relies on entanglement swapping, and our main claim is that this geometry introduces an additional loophole in the argument from violation of the Bell inequalities to action at a distance: the apparent action at a distance may be an artifact of ‘collider bias’. In the absence of retrocausality, the sensitivity of such experiments to this ‘Collider Loophole’ (CL) depends on the temporal relation between the entanglement swapping measurement C and the two measurements A and B between which we seek to infer a causal connection. CL looms large if the C is in the future of A and B, but not if C is in the past. The Delft experiment itself is the intermediate case, in which the separation is spacelike. We argue that this leaves it vulnerable to CL, unable to establish conclusively that it avoids it.
A 2015 experiment by Hanson and Delft colleagues provided new confirmation that the quantum world violates the Bell inequalities, being the first Bell test to close two known experimental loopholes simultaneously. The experiment was also taken to provide new evidence of quantum nonlocality. Here we argue for caution about the latter claim. The Delft experiment relies on entanglement swapping, and our main claim is that this geometry introduces new loopholes in the argument from violation of the Bell inequalities to nonlocality. In the absence of retrocausality, the sensitivity of such experiments to these new loopholes depends on the temporal relation between the entanglement swapping measurement C and the two measurements A and B between which we seek to infer nonlocality. The loopholes loom large if the C is in the future of A and B, but not if C is in the past. The Delft experiment itself is the intermediate case, in which the separation is spacelike. We argue that this leaves it vulnerable to the new loopholes, unable to establish conclusively that it avoids them. We also discuss the implications of permitting retrocausality for the issue of causal influence across entanglement swapping measurements.
Abstract Claims that entanglement, or non-local interaction ("spooky action-at-a-distance), has been experimentally proven are false. The claims are based entirely on the fact that the results of experiments performed to test that issue (EPR-Bohm experiments) violate various theoretical inequalities (Bell Inequalities).The various Bell Inequalities used to interpret the results of EPR-Bohm experiments are shown to be inappropriate for such experiments. The inequalities do not correctly provide for the correlation between the particles in each pair, which is the essence of such experiments; and therefore the inequalities are irrelevant. Claims that the results of such experiments, because they violate the inequalities, require the conclusion that the measurement of one particle in an "entangled" pair can instantly affect the state of its partner, even at great distances, are untrue and need to be modified.
The best case for thinking that quantum mechanics is nonlocal rests on Bell's Theorem, and later results of the same kind. However, the correlations characteristic of Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR)–Bell (EPRB) experiments also arise in familiar cases elsewhere in quantum mechanics (QM), where the two measurements involved are timelike rather than spacelike separated; and in which the correlations are usually assumed to have a local causal explanation, requiring no action-at-a-distance (AAD). It is interesting to ask how this is possible, in the light of Bell's Theorem. We investigate this question, and present two options. Either (i) the new cases are nonlocal too, in which case AAD is more widespread in QM than has previously been appreciated (and does not depend on entanglement, as usually construed); or (ii) the means of avoiding AAD in the new cases extends in a natural way to EPRB, removing AAD in these cases too. There is a third option, viz., that the new cases are strongly disanalogous to EPRB. But this option requires an argument, so far missing, that the physical world breaks the symmetries which otherwise support the analogy. In the absence of such an argument, the orthodox combination of views—action-at-a-distance in EPRB, but local causality in its timelike analogue—is less well established than it is usually assumed to be. 1 Introduction 1.1 Background 1.2 Outline of the argument2 The Experiments 2.1 Standard EPRB 2.2 Sideways EPRB 2.3 Comparing the experiments 2.4 The need for beables3 The Symmetry Considerations 3.1 The action symmetry 3.2 Time-symmetry in SEPRB4 The Basic Trilemma 4.1 An intuitive defence of Option III?5 Avoiding the Trilemma?6 The Classical Objection7 Defending Option III 7.1 The free will argument 7.2 Independence and consistency8 Entanglement and Epistemic Perspective
Quantum weirdness has been in the news recently, thanks to an ingenious new experiment by a team led by Roland Hanson, at the Delft University of Technology. Much of the coverage presents the experiment as good (even conclusive) news for spooky action-at-a-distance, and bad news for local realism. We point out that this interpretation ignores an alternative, namely that the quantum world is retrocausal. We conjecture that this loophole is missed because it is confused for superdeterminism on one side, or action-at-a-distance itself on the other. We explain why it is different from these options, and why it has clear advantages, in both cases.
Experimental tests of Bell's inequality allow to distinguish quantum mechanics from local hidden variable theories. Such tests are performed by measuring correlations of two entangled particles (e.g. polarization of photons or spins of atoms). In order to constitute conclusive evidence, two conditions have to be satisfied. First, strict separation of the measurement events in the sense of special relativity is required ("locality loophole"). Second, almost all entangled pairs have to be detected (for particles in a maximally entangled state the required detector efficiency is 82.8%), which is hard to achieve experimentally ("detection loophole"). By using the recently demonstrated entanglement between single trapped atoms and single photons it becomes possible to entangle two atoms at a large distance via entanglement swapping. Combining the high detection efficiency achieved with atoms with the space-like separation of the atomic state detection events, both loopholes can be closed within the same experiment. In this paper we present estimations based on current experimental achievements which show that such an experiment is feasible in future.
We propose that quantum entanglement is a special sort of selection artefact, explicable as a combination of (i) collider bias and (ii) a boundary constraint on the collider variable. We show that the proposal is valid for a special class of (`W-shaped') Bell experiments involving delayed-choice entanglement swapping, and argue that it can be extended to the ordinary (`V-shaped') case. The proposal requires no direct causal influence outside lightcones, and may hence offer a way to reconcile Bell nonlocality and relativity. The main argument is a detailed version of an approach previously outlined in arXiv:2404.13928 [quant-ph].