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 Nonlocality Explained

Ulrich Mohrhoff

Published Nov 5, 2014• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

Quantum theory's violation of remote outcome independence is assessed in the context of a novel interpretation of the theory, in which the unavoidable distinction between the classical and quantum domains is understood as a distinction between the manifested world and its manifestation.

Related papers

Quantum Mechanics and Experience

Ulrich Mohrhoff

After a summary of Bohr's views and their relation to Kant's theory of science, two fruitless lines of attack on the measurement problem are discussed: the way of the psi-ontologist and the way of the QBist. In the remainder of the paper the following results are obtained. (i) Because the testable correlations between outcomes of measurements of macroscopic positions are consistent with both the classical and the quantum laws, there is no conflict between the superposition principle and the existence of measurement outcomes. (ii) Intrinsically, each fundamental particle is numerically identical with every other fundamental particle. What presents itself here and now with these properties and what presents itself there and then with those properties is one and the same entity, herein called "Being." (iii) The distinction between a classical domain and a quantum domain is essentially a distinction between the manifested world and its manifestation. By entering into reflexive spatial relations, Being gives rise to (a) what looks like a multiplicity of relata if the reflexive quality of the relations is ignored, and (b) what looks like a substantial expanse if the spatial quality of the relations is reified. (iv) The reason why quantum mechanics is a calculus of correlations between measurement outcomes is that it concerns the progressive realization of distinguishable objects and distinguishable regions of space. (v) The key to the relation between quantum mechanics and experience is that Being does not simply manifest the world, Being manifests the world to itself. It is at once the single substance by which the world exists and the ultimate self or subject for which it exists. The question how we are related to this ultimate self or subject is discussed.

arXiv:1410.5916•Oct 22, 2014•0 citations

Quantum phenomena do not violate the principle of locality - a new interpretation with physical consequences -

Gyula Bene

A new interpretation of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics explains the violation of Bell's inequality by maintaining realism and the principle of locality.

arXiv:quant-ph/9706043•Jun 18, 1997•3 citations

Parameter Independence and Outcome Independence in Dynamical Collapse Theories

Travis Norsen

Ghirardi, Grassi, Butterfield, and Fleming have previously argued that two distinct formulations of dynamical reduction (GRW) theories have distinct non-local properties: one (the "non-linear" formulation) violates Parameter Independence while the other (the "linear + cooking" formulation) violates Outcome Independence. The claim is then that, since theories violating Outcome Independence are compatible with relativity in a way that theories violating Parameter Independence are not, the "linear + cooking" dynamical reduction theories hold the key to reconciling quantum non-locality with relativity. I review and assess this claim, arguing that, while ultimately misleading, there is an interesting and important lesson to be extracted.

arXiv:1010.3969•Oct 19, 2010•0 citations

Quantum Nonlocality: How Does Nature Do It?

Nicolas Gisin

Measurements of correlations between spatially separated systems provide insights into the conceptual foundations of quantum physics.

Science•Dec 4, 2009•97 citations

Perspectives in and on Quantum Theory

Richard Healey

I take a pragmatist perspective on quantum theory. This is not a view of the world described by quantum theory. In this view quantum theory itself does not describe the physical world, nor our observatons, experiences or opinions of it. Instead, the theory offers reliable advice on when to expect an event of one kind or another, and on how strongly to expect each possible outcome of that event. The actual outcome is a perspectival fact: a fact relative to a physical context of assessment. Measurement outcomes and quantum states are both perspectival. By noticing that each must be relativized to an appropriate physical context one can resolve the measurement problem and the problem of nonlocal action. But if the outcome of a quantum measurement is not an absolute fact, then why shoud the statistics of such outcomes give us any objective reason to accept quantum theory? One can describe extensions of the scenario of Wigner's friend in which a statement expressing the outcome of a quantum measurement would be true relative to one such context but not relative to another. However, physical conditions in our world prevent us from realizing such scenarios. Since the outcome of every actual quantum measurement is certified at what is essentially a single context of assessment, the outcome relative to that context is an objective fact in the only sense that matters for science. We should accept quantum theory because the statistics these outcomes display are just those it leads us to expect.

quant-pharXiv:2604.02026•Foundations of Physics•Apr 3, 2026•1 citation

Does a Bell inequality violation imply irrealism?

P. Silva, Ana C. S. Costa, R. M. Angelo

Abstract Seminal for the raising of the quantum information age and quintessential for a deep understanding of nature, Bell inequality violations are known for having provided a profound disruption to classical models of the physical world. Yet, their meaning is still debatable nowadays. An important point under dispute in this context concerns the relevance of realism. While some believe that a Bell inequality violation implies the manifestation of nonlocal aspects, others defend that it is the notion of realism that should be abandoned. The purpose of the present work is to shed some light on the matter by employing a formal definition of (ir)realism. Our strategy consists of (i) rephrasing Bell’s assumption of local causality in terms of more primitive hypotheses and (ii) assessing where the fundamental difficulties emerge when using the quantum formalism. We analyze the question posed in the title using two distinct approaches and assert that a positive answer is justifiable. Nevertheless, even in this scenario, it becomes evident that violations of locality cannot be avoided. As a byproduct of our approach, the connections of (ir)realism with both quantum steering and entanglement are also discussed.

Physica Scripta•Apr 10, 2024•2 citations
After a summary of Bohr's views and their relation to Kant's theory of science, two fruitless lines of attack on the measurement problem are discussed: the way of the psi-ontologist and the way of the QBist. In the remainder of the paper the following results are obtained. (i) Because the testable correlations between outcomes of measurements of macroscopic positions are consistent with both the classical and the quantum laws, there is no conflict between the superposition principle and the existence of measurement outcomes. (ii) Intrinsically, each fundamental particle is numerically identical with every other fundamental particle. What presents itself here and now with these properties and what presents itself there and then with those properties is one and the same entity, herein called "Being." (iii) The distinction between a classical domain and a quantum domain is essentially a distinction between the manifested world and its manifestation. By entering into reflexive spatial relations, Being gives rise to (a) what looks like a multiplicity of relata if the reflexive quality of the relations is ignored, and (b) what looks like a substantial expanse if the spatial quality of the relations is reified. (iv) The reason why quantum mechanics is a calculus of correlations between measurement outcomes is that it concerns the progressive realization of distinguishable objects and distinguishable regions of space. (v) The key to the relation between quantum mechanics and experience is that Being does not simply manifest the world, Being manifests the world to itself. It is at once the single substance by which the world exists and the ultimate self or subject for which it exists. The question how we are related to this ultimate self or subject is discussed.
Ghirardi, Grassi, Butterfield, and Fleming have previously argued that two distinct formulations of dynamical reduction (GRW) theories have distinct non-local properties: one (the "non-linear" formulation) violates Parameter Independence while the other (the "linear + cooking" formulation) violates Outcome Independence. The claim is then that, since theories violating Outcome Independence are compatible with relativity in a way that theories violating Parameter Independence are not, the "linear + cooking" dynamical reduction theories hold the key to reconciling quantum non-locality with relativity. I review and assess this claim, arguing that, while ultimately misleading, there is an interesting and important lesson to be extracted.
I take a pragmatist perspective on quantum theory. This is not a view of the world described by quantum theory. In this view quantum theory itself does not describe the physical world, nor our observatons, experiences or opinions of it. Instead, the theory offers reliable advice on when to expect an event of one kind or another, and on how strongly to expect each possible outcome of that event. The actual outcome is a perspectival fact: a fact relative to a physical context of assessment. Measurement outcomes and quantum states are both perspectival. By noticing that each must be relativized to an appropriate physical context one can resolve the measurement problem and the problem of nonlocal action. But if the outcome of a quantum measurement is not an absolute fact, then why shoud the statistics of such outcomes give us any objective reason to accept quantum theory? One can describe extensions of the scenario of Wigner's friend in which a statement expressing the outcome of a quantum measurement would be true relative to one such context but not relative to another. However, physical conditions in our world prevent us from realizing such scenarios. Since the outcome of every actual quantum measurement is certified at what is essentially a single context of assessment, the outcome relative to that context is an objective fact in the only sense that matters for science. We should accept quantum theory because the statistics these outcomes display are just those it leads us to expect.
Abstract Seminal for the raising of the quantum information age and quintessential for a deep understanding of nature, Bell inequality violations are known for having provided a profound disruption to classical models of the physical world. Yet, their meaning is still debatable nowadays. An important point under dispute in this context concerns the relevance of realism. While some believe that a Bell inequality violation implies the manifestation of nonlocal aspects, others defend that it is the notion of realism that should be abandoned. The purpose of the present work is to shed some light on the matter by employing a formal definition of (ir)realism. Our strategy consists of (i) rephrasing Bell’s assumption of local causality in terms of more primitive hypotheses and (ii) assessing where the fundamental difficulties emerge when using the quantum formalism. We analyze the question posed in the title using two distinct approaches and assert that a positive answer is justifiable. Nevertheless, even in this scenario, it becomes evident that violations of locality cannot be avoided. As a byproduct of our approach, the connections of (ir)realism with both quantum steering and entanglement are also discussed.