The Spooky World of Quantum Entanglement

Henry M. Bradford

Andrew Lang, Lutz, Caleb J

We discuss the role that intuitive theories of physics play in the interpretation of quantum mechanics. We compare and contrast naïve physics with quantum mechanics and argue that quantum mechanics is not just hard to understand but that it is difficult to believe, often appearing magical in nature. Quantum mechanics is often discussed in the context of "quantum weirdness" and quantum entanglement is known as "spooky action at a distance." This spookiness is more than just because quantum mechanics doesn't match everyday experience; it ruffles the feathers of our naïve physics cognitive module. In Everett's many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, we preserve a form of deterministic thinking that can alleviate some of the perceived weirdness inherent in other interpretations of quantum mechanics, at the cost of having the universe split into parallel worlds at every quantum measurement. By examining the role cognitive modules play in interpreting quantum mechanics, we conclude that the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics involves a cognitive bias not seen in the Copenhagen interpretation.

Alyssa Ney

It is sometimes said that a reason to prefer Everettian quantum mechanics is that it allows one to avoid the kind of spooky action at a distance that is a consequence of quantum entanglement according to other approaches. There is a straightforward argument to show EQM has this virtue, however some advocates argue that this requires we see branching as a local causal process. I explain this reasoning and then show why, given the way Everettians standardly conceive of worlds and branching as emergent phenomena, branching need not be viewed as a causal process for EQM to be relativistically local. Forthcoming in Local Quantum Mechanics, OUP 2026.

A L DeVilliers

Quantum entanglement is often interpreted as implying nonlocal influence or instantaneous collapse. In the Aetherium framework, entanglement is instead understood as a single coherence structure spanning multiple degrees of freedom within a pre‑geometric constraint architecture. Coherence does not propagate, time is relational, and measurement corresponds to a coherence‑reconfiguration event that selects a resonance‑compatible attractor for the entire shared structure. Bell correlations arise from the substrate’s resonance‑compatibility constraints rather than from nonlocal causation or hidden variables. Classical locality emerges only after coherence stabilizes into separate attractor states through decoherence. This coherence‑first ontology provides a single‑world, realist, and local account of entanglement that dissolves the appearance of “spooky action at a distance.” Keywords: Aetherium; entanglement; coherence; measurement problem; Bell correlations; pre‑geometric substrate; quantum foundations; decoherence; locality; resonance‑compatibility