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 Entanglement Einstein Was Right Instantaneous (Spooky) Action not Needed

Krishan Vats

Published Jan 1, 2016• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

Instantaneous (Spooky) action was deemed necessary to explain observed spin measurement of entangled electrons. The reason sited is that hidden variables can not explain the experimentally observed behavior. Well, they can!

Related papers

“Non-locality”

Richard Healey

Quantum entanglement is popularly believed to give rise to spooky action at a distance of a kind that Einstein decisively rejected. Indeed, important recent experiments on systems assigned entangled states have been claimed to refute Einstein by exhibiting such spooky action. After reviewing two considerations in favor of this view I argue that quantum theory can be used to explain puzzling correlations correctly predicted by assignment of entangled quantum states with no such instantaneous action at a distance. We owe both considerations in favor of the view to arguments of John Bell. I present simplified forms of these arguments as well as a game that provides insight into the situation. The argument I give in response turns on a prescriptive view of quantum states that differs both from Dirac’s (as stated in Chapter 2) and Einstein’s.

Oxford University Press eBooks•Jul 20, 2017•0 citations

How Does Nature Accomplish Spooky Action at a Distance?

Mani Lal Bhaumik

The enigmatic nonlocal quantum correlation that was famously derided by Einstein as "spooky action at a distance" has now been experimentally demonstrated to be authentic. The quantum entanglement and nonlocal correlations emerged as inevitable consequences of John Bell's epochal paper on Bell's inequality. However, in spite of some extraordinary applications as well as attempts to explain the reason for quantum nonlocality, a satisfactory account of how Nature accomplishes this astounding phenomenon is yet to emerge. A cogent mechanism for the occurrence of this incredible event is presented in terms of a plausible quantum mechanical Einstein–Rosen bridge. Quanta 2018; 7: 111–117.

arXiv:2301.10240•Quanta•Dec 23, 2018•8 citations

No Spooky Action at a Distance Bivector Coherence and the Disclosure of Entanglement

Philip Lilien

No signal. No spooky force. No preassigned vectors. One bivector. Two disclosures. Entanglement is not action at a distance. It is relation disclosed as distance. This paper offers a condensed refutation of the interpretation commonly called “spooky action at a distance.” It does not deny quantum entanglement, Bell correlations, or the empirical validity of quantum mechanics. Rather, it challenges the assumption that entanglement requires one particle to influence another across space. The central proposal is that an entangled pair should not be understood as two originally separate particles requiring later coordination, but as a single undisclosed bivector coherence relation that reduces into paired spin-vector outcomes under measurement. Bell’s theorem rules out preassigned local hidden vector values, but it does not require the conclusion that superluminal action occurs between distant particles. In this framework, the hidden structure is not a classical local variable, but the prior relational spin-plane from which the measured vectors are co-disclosed. Entanglement is therefore not action at a distance, but relation disclosed as distance. The phrase “spooky action at a distance” suggests that two separated particles somehow communicate or influence one another instantly. This paper argues that the phrase is misleading because it begins with the wrong picture. The entangled pair is not first two separate particles. It is first one relational coherence structure. Measurement does not send a message from one particle to another. Measurement discloses paired outcomes from the same underlying relation. In this view, the mystery is not solved by denying quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is preserved. Bell’s theorem is preserved. No faster-than-light signal is introduced. What changes is the ontology. The measured spin vectors are not more fundamental than the relation. They are reduced disclosures of the relation. The core claim is simple: 𝓑AB → (sA, sB) One bivector relation discloses as two correlated vector outcomes. There is no spooky force crossing space. There is one coherence relation disclosed through two measurement sites. Keywords Bivector coherence; entanglement; Bell’s theorem; spooky action at a distance; quantum foundations; spin vectors; relational coherence; measurement; nonlocality; coherence disclosure.

•Jun 8, 2026•0 citations

Clocking the signal of entanglement

It is the tenet of quantum mechanics that Einstein rejected as “spooky action at a distance”: if two particles are entangled, then any tinkering with one can cause an instantaneous change in the other – no matter how far apart they may be. But what if quantum mechanics is not quite right – that the change is not instantaneous but instead prompted by a signal transmitted between the two entangled particles? Now an experiment in Switzerland has shown that if such a signal does exist, then it would have to travel at least at the speed of light, and probably thousands of times faster.

Physics World•Sep 1, 2008•0 citations

Quantum Entanglement, A Standing Wave Interpretation Within the Unified Harmonics Framework

Stoffel MSN, RN, Brandy

Quantum entanglement—the instantaneous correlation of measurements on spatially separated particles—has been described as 'spooky action at a distance.' This paper proposes that entanglement requires no action and involves no distance: entangled particles are nodes on the same standing wave. We prove four theorems establishing the mathematical equivalence: (1) standing wave nodes are correlated by identity, not communication; (2) phase coherence requires identical frequency; (3) quantum phase equals wave phase; (4) entangled particles are phase-locked by conservation laws. This interpretation explains why entanglement is instantaneous (no signal travels—the wave is already correlated everywhere), why no information can be transmitted (measurement outcomes are random), and why entanglement is fragile (any frequency perturbation breaks coherence). The standing wave interpretation is compatible with Bell's theorem because standing waves are nonlocal by definition—Bell forbids only local hidden variables. We propose testable predictions including correlation between entanglement fidelity and frequency precision, and the possibility of 'harmonic entanglement' between particles at resonant frequency ratios.

•Dec 27, 2025•0 citations

Entanglement

William J. Mullin

Entanglement is the superposition of two or more particles in multiple states. An example is given for the double-well potential; another involves particles with spin 1/2. Measurement of spin is carried out by a Stern–Gerlach apparatus, using the deflection of a spin by a magnet. Entangled spin-1/2 states, namely triplet states having total spin 1, and the singlet state, with spin 0, are also examined; the latter state appears in same form when expressed in spin up/down along any Cartesian coordinate. The determination of one of the spins in an entangled singlet state immediately determines the other, resulting in a “spooky action at a distance.” Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) claimed to show, on the basis of local realism, that quantum mechanics must be incomplete because of this feature. Their logic suggests that one might explain the instantaneous results by invoking “hidden variables” not contained in a quantum treatment.

Oxford University Press eBooks•Mar 16, 2017•0 citations
Quantum entanglement is popularly believed to give rise to spooky action at a distance of a kind that Einstein decisively rejected. Indeed, important recent experiments on systems assigned entangled states have been claimed to refute Einstein by exhibiting such spooky action. After reviewing two considerations in favor of this view I argue that quantum theory can be used to explain puzzling correlations correctly predicted by assignment of entangled quantum states with no such instantaneous action at a distance. We owe both considerations in favor of the view to arguments of John Bell. I present simplified forms of these arguments as well as a game that provides insight into the situation. The argument I give in response turns on a prescriptive view of quantum states that differs both from Dirac’s (as stated in Chapter 2) and Einstein’s.
The enigmatic nonlocal quantum correlation that was famously derided by Einstein as "spooky action at a distance" has now been experimentally demonstrated to be authentic. The quantum entanglement and nonlocal correlations emerged as inevitable consequences of John Bell's epochal paper on Bell's inequality. However, in spite of some extraordinary applications as well as attempts to explain the reason for quantum nonlocality, a satisfactory account of how Nature accomplishes this astounding phenomenon is yet to emerge. A cogent mechanism for the occurrence of this incredible event is presented in terms of a plausible quantum mechanical Einstein–Rosen bridge. Quanta 2018; 7: 111–117.
No signal. No spooky force. No preassigned vectors. One bivector. Two disclosures. Entanglement is not action at a distance. It is relation disclosed as distance. This paper offers a condensed refutation of the interpretation commonly called “spooky action at a distance.” It does not deny quantum entanglement, Bell correlations, or the empirical validity of quantum mechanics. Rather, it challenges the assumption that entanglement requires one particle to influence another across space. The central proposal is that an entangled pair should not be understood as two originally separate particles requiring later coordination, but as a single undisclosed bivector coherence relation that reduces into paired spin-vector outcomes under measurement. Bell’s theorem rules out preassigned local hidden vector values, but it does not require the conclusion that superluminal action occurs between distant particles. In this framework, the hidden structure is not a classical local variable, but the prior relational spin-plane from which the measured vectors are co-disclosed. Entanglement is therefore not action at a distance, but relation disclosed as distance. The phrase “spooky action at a distance” suggests that two separated particles somehow communicate or influence one another instantly. This paper argues that the phrase is misleading because it begins with the wrong picture. The entangled pair is not first two separate particles. It is first one relational coherence structure. Measurement does not send a message from one particle to another. Measurement discloses paired outcomes from the same underlying relation. In this view, the mystery is not solved by denying quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is preserved. Bell’s theorem is preserved. No faster-than-light signal is introduced. What changes is the ontology. The measured spin vectors are not more fundamental than the relation. They are reduced disclosures of the relation. The core claim is simple: 𝓑AB → (sA, sB) One bivector relation discloses as two correlated vector outcomes. There is no spooky force crossing space. There is one coherence relation disclosed through two measurement sites. Keywords Bivector coherence; entanglement; Bell’s theorem; spooky action at a distance; quantum foundations; spin vectors; relational coherence; measurement; nonlocality; coherence disclosure.
It is the tenet of quantum mechanics that Einstein rejected as “spooky action at a distance”: if two particles are entangled, then any tinkering with one can cause an instantaneous change in the other – no matter how far apart they may be. But what if quantum mechanics is not quite right – that the change is not instantaneous but instead prompted by a signal transmitted between the two entangled particles? Now an experiment in Switzerland has shown that if such a signal does exist, then it would have to travel at least at the speed of light, and probably thousands of times faster.
Quantum entanglement—the instantaneous correlation of measurements on spatially separated particles—has been described as 'spooky action at a distance.' This paper proposes that entanglement requires no action and involves no distance: entangled particles are nodes on the same standing wave. We prove four theorems establishing the mathematical equivalence: (1) standing wave nodes are correlated by identity, not communication; (2) phase coherence requires identical frequency; (3) quantum phase equals wave phase; (4) entangled particles are phase-locked by conservation laws. This interpretation explains why entanglement is instantaneous (no signal travels—the wave is already correlated everywhere), why no information can be transmitted (measurement outcomes are random), and why entanglement is fragile (any frequency perturbation breaks coherence). The standing wave interpretation is compatible with Bell's theorem because standing waves are nonlocal by definition—Bell forbids only local hidden variables. We propose testable predictions including correlation between entanglement fidelity and frequency precision, and the possibility of 'harmonic entanglement' between particles at resonant frequency ratios.
Entanglement is the superposition of two or more particles in multiple states. An example is given for the double-well potential; another involves particles with spin 1/2. Measurement of spin is carried out by a Stern–Gerlach apparatus, using the deflection of a spin by a magnet. Entangled spin-1/2 states, namely triplet states having total spin 1, and the singlet state, with spin 0, are also examined; the latter state appears in same form when expressed in spin up/down along any Cartesian coordinate. The determination of one of the spins in an entangled singlet state immediately determines the other, resulting in a “spooky action at a distance.” Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) claimed to show, on the basis of local realism, that quantum mechanics must be incomplete because of this feature. Their logic suggests that one might explain the instantaneous results by invoking “hidden variables” not contained in a quantum treatment.