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

Quantum Holism, Superluminality, and Einstein Causality

Peter Mittelstaedt

Published Sep 11, 2008• 3 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Within the framework of the EPR Gedankenexperiment we show that quantum mechanics is not incomplete but nonlocal and holistic. The attempt to use this quantum non-locality for the transmission of superluminal signals is exposed to serious objections which are based on very general theorems. However, we show that one of the theorems is equivalent to the impossibility of superluminal signals. Hence, the question whether superluminal EPR signals are possible can not be decided in this way.

DOI
10.17877/de290r-8892

Related papers

Can EPR-correlations be used for the transmission of superluminal signals?

Peter Mittelstaedt

In a compound quantum system with EPR–like correlations a measurement of one subsystem induces instantaneously changes of the other subsystem, irrespective of the relative distance of the two subsystems. We consider several arguments which were put forward in recent years in order to show that these nonlocal effects cannot be used for superluminal communication. It turns out that the arguments mentioned above are merely plausible but not really stringent and convincing. This means that the question in the title of this paper is still open.

Annalen der Physik•Dec 1, 1998•15 citations

Non Local Signaling Based on Noise Reduction

Omer Dickstein

Superluminal communication is considered impossible by most physicists. However this statement must be examined over and over. This paper offers an experiment that can in theory check the validity of this statement. In 1935 EPR [1] had proposed a gadaneken experiment which purpose was to show quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory. EPR's gadaneken experiment was quantified by JS Bell in 1964 [2] offering the famous Bell's inequality

•Nov 1, 2014•0 citations

A Modest View of Bell's Theorem

S. P. Boughn

In the 80 years since the seminal Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) paper, physicists and philosophers have mused about the `spooky action at a distance' aspect of quantum mechanics that so bothered Einstein. In his formal analysis of EPR-type entangled quantum states, Bell (1964) concluded that any hidden variable theory designed to reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics must necessarily be nonlocal and allow superluminal interactions. This doesn't immediately imply that nonlocality is a characteristic feature of quantum mechanics let alone a fundamental property of nature; however, many physicists and philosophers of science do harbor this belief. Experts in the field often use the term `nonlocality' to designate particular non-classical aspects of quantum entanglement and do not confuse the term with superluminal interactions. However, many physicists seem to take the term more literally. I endeavor to disabuse the latter of this notion by emphasizing that the correlations of Bell-type entanglement are a result of ordinary quantum superposition with no need to introduce nonlocality. The conclusion of the EPR paper wasn't that quantum mechanics is nonlocal but rather that it is an incomplete description of reality. For different reasons, many physicists, including me, agree with Einstein that quantum mechanics is necessarily an incomplete description of reality.

arXiv:1604.08529•Apr 28, 2016•3 citations

Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) Correlations and Superluminal Interactions

Luiz Carlos Ryff

The possible connection between EPR correlations and superluminal interactions, as suggested by Bell and Bohm, is discussed using simple and palpable arguments: (a) It is shown how an experiment based on time-like events can allow us to answer the question "Can a measurement performed on one of the photons of an entangled pair change the state of the other?" (b) The theorem on superluminal finite-speed causal influences and superluminal signaling, introduced by Scarani and Gisin, is reexamined. (c) It is shown how faster-than-light interactions and Lorentz transformations might peacefully coexist.

arXiv:1506.07383•Jun 24, 2015•2 citations

Quantum nonlocality: an analysis of the implications of Bell's Theorem and quantum correlations for nonlocality.

Joseph Berkovitz

Bell's Theorem demonstrates that factorizable theories for the EPR experiment (EPR) cannot reproduce the quantum correlations. Factorizability is motivated by various locality conditions. So to understand the nature of nonlocality in EPR, we first need to understand the conceptual relations between factorizability, these various locality conditions and the nature of the quantum correlations. That is the main focus of my thesis. My main conclusion is that these conceptual relations are more subtle than the literature has usually suggested. Chapter 1 is a general introduction. In Chapter 2, I review the general framework of factorizable stochastic theories for EPR. I argue that factorizability can be motivated by various locality conditions, even in theories that admit time-dependent states and take the measurement interactions to be neither instantaneous, nor simultaneous. In Chapter 3, I focus on Cartwright' s (1989) and Humphreys' (1989) theories of probabilistic causation for singular events, which are based on modifications of traditional causal linear modelling. I argue (against Cartwright) that local models for EPR in the framework of these theories are committed to factorizability; and so they cannot reproduce the EPR correlations. In Chapter 4, I turn to Stochastic-Einstein Locality (SEL). Hellman (1982) proposed that SEL with some provisos characterizes the No-Superluminal-Action (NSA) of the Special Theory of Relativity (STR), and he argued that SEL is not violated in EPR. Butterfield (1994) proposed that SEL (without Hellman's provisos) characterizes the lack of superluminal Lewisian causation, and he argued that SEL is violated in EPR. I argue that SEL (without Hellman's provisos) is motivated by NSA and spatiotemporal separability. Thus, the violation of SEL might arise from the failure of spatiotemporal separability. And this failure is compatible with NSA and superluminal Lewisian causation. Accordingly, Hellman's and Butterfield's views need not be in tension. In Chapter 5, I focus on the implications for nonlocality of Jarrett's (1984) analysis of factorizability into "locality" and "completeness". I argue that although this analysis cannot distinguish between failures of factorizability which are compatible with STR and those which are not, it is significant for clarifying the implications of Bell's theorem for nonlocality. In Chapter 6, I qmsider three arguments that are intended to deny superluminal causal propagation in EPR, and a fourth argument that is intended to establish the opposite conclusion. I argue that in various ways these arguments have gone wrong. Three of these argument rely on implicit assumptions that have been overlooked. Accordingly, two of them reached a reasonable conclusion, i.e. the failure of separability, for the wrong reasons; whereas the third reached a wrong conclusion, i.e. that the failure of the contiguity of causal processes explains the failure of factorizability in EPR. The fourth relies on a wrong assumption, and thus it reaches a too strong conclusion, that the EPR correlations require superluminal action. My main conclusion is that the quantum correlations require nonseparability . In Chapter 7, I focus on decision theory in the context of EPR. In both EPR and the famous Newcomb's problem (NewProb), there are unscreenable-off correlations. I argue that NewProb can be related to EPR, in the sense that a NewProb can be realized by that experiment.

•Jan 30, 1996•3 citations

Problem of signal transmission via quantum correlations and Einstein incompleteness in quantum mechanics

Harald Scherer, Paul Busch

The question of (superluminal) signaling by means of quantum correlations is reconsidered and previous arguments are generalized and completed to yielding conclusive answers to the negative. Statistical analysis of the amplified input on the receiver's side shows that the state discrimination needed for defining a signal is in conflict with the linearity of quantum dynamics. Connections with fundamental issues of quantum mechanics are pointed out.

Physical Review A•Mar 1, 1993•18 citations
Within the framework of the EPR Gedankenexperiment we show that quantum mechanics is not incomplete but nonlocal and holistic. The attempt to use this quantum non-locality for the transmission of superluminal signals is exposed to serious objections which are based on very general theorems. However, we show that one of the theorems is equivalent to the impossibility of superluminal signals. Hence, the question whether superluminal EPR signals are possible can not be decided in this way.
In a compound quantum system with EPR–like correlations a measurement of one subsystem induces instantaneously changes of the other subsystem, irrespective of the relative distance of the two subsystems. We consider several arguments which were put forward in recent years in order to show that these nonlocal effects cannot be used for superluminal communication. It turns out that the arguments mentioned above are merely plausible but not really stringent and convincing. This means that the question in the title of this paper is still open.
In the 80 years since the seminal Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) paper, physicists and philosophers have mused about the `spooky action at a distance' aspect of quantum mechanics that so bothered Einstein. In his formal analysis of EPR-type entangled quantum states, Bell (1964) concluded that any hidden variable theory designed to reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics must necessarily be nonlocal and allow superluminal interactions. This doesn't immediately imply that nonlocality is a characteristic feature of quantum mechanics let alone a fundamental property of nature; however, many physicists and philosophers of science do harbor this belief. Experts in the field often use the term `nonlocality' to designate particular non-classical aspects of quantum entanglement and do not confuse the term with superluminal interactions. However, many physicists seem to take the term more literally. I endeavor to disabuse the latter of this notion by emphasizing that the correlations of Bell-type entanglement are a result of ordinary quantum superposition with no need to introduce nonlocality. The conclusion of the EPR paper wasn't that quantum mechanics is nonlocal but rather that it is an incomplete description of reality. For different reasons, many physicists, including me, agree with Einstein that quantum mechanics is necessarily an incomplete description of reality.
The possible connection between EPR correlations and superluminal interactions, as suggested by Bell and Bohm, is discussed using simple and palpable arguments: (a) It is shown how an experiment based on time-like events can allow us to answer the question "Can a measurement performed on one of the photons of an entangled pair change the state of the other?" (b) The theorem on superluminal finite-speed causal influences and superluminal signaling, introduced by Scarani and Gisin, is reexamined. (c) It is shown how faster-than-light interactions and Lorentz transformations might peacefully coexist.
Bell's Theorem demonstrates that factorizable theories for the EPR experiment (EPR) cannot reproduce the quantum correlations. Factorizability is motivated by various locality conditions. So to understand the nature of nonlocality in EPR, we first need to understand the conceptual relations between factorizability, these various locality conditions and the nature of the quantum correlations. That is the main focus of my thesis. My main conclusion is that these conceptual relations are more subtle than the literature has usually suggested. Chapter 1 is a general introduction. In Chapter 2, I review the general framework of factorizable stochastic theories for EPR. I argue that factorizability can be motivated by various locality conditions, even in theories that admit time-dependent states and take the measurement interactions to be neither instantaneous, nor simultaneous. In Chapter 3, I focus on Cartwright' s (1989) and Humphreys' (1989) theories of probabilistic causation for singular events, which are based on modifications of traditional causal linear modelling. I argue (against Cartwright) that local models for EPR in the framework of these theories are committed to factorizability; and so they cannot reproduce the EPR correlations. In Chapter 4, I turn to Stochastic-Einstein Locality (SEL). Hellman (1982) proposed that SEL with some provisos characterizes the No-Superluminal-Action (NSA) of the Special Theory of Relativity (STR), and he argued that SEL is not violated in EPR. Butterfield (1994) proposed that SEL (without Hellman's provisos) characterizes the lack of superluminal Lewisian causation, and he argued that SEL is violated in EPR. I argue that SEL (without Hellman's provisos) is motivated by NSA and spatiotemporal separability. Thus, the violation of SEL might arise from the failure of spatiotemporal separability. And this failure is compatible with NSA and superluminal Lewisian causation. Accordingly, Hellman's and Butterfield's views need not be in tension. In Chapter 5, I focus on the implications for nonlocality of Jarrett's (1984) analysis of factorizability into "locality" and "completeness". I argue that although this analysis cannot distinguish between failures of factorizability which are compatible with STR and those which are not, it is significant for clarifying the implications of Bell's theorem for nonlocality. In Chapter 6, I qmsider three arguments that are intended to deny superluminal causal propagation in EPR, and a fourth argument that is intended to establish the opposite conclusion. I argue that in various ways these arguments have gone wrong. Three of these argument rely on implicit assumptions that have been overlooked. Accordingly, two of them reached a reasonable conclusion, i.e. the failure of separability, for the wrong reasons; whereas the third reached a wrong conclusion, i.e. that the failure of the contiguity of causal processes explains the failure of factorizability in EPR. The fourth relies on a wrong assumption, and thus it reaches a too strong conclusion, that the EPR correlations require superluminal action. My main conclusion is that the quantum correlations require nonseparability . In Chapter 7, I focus on decision theory in the context of EPR. In both EPR and the famous Newcomb's problem (NewProb), there are unscreenable-off correlations. I argue that NewProb can be related to EPR, in the sense that a NewProb can be realized by that experiment.