In this paper, I present a novel formulation of the spatio-temporal problem of entanglement. This is the problem of resolving a purported tension between the Special Theory of Relativity and the non-local causal influences seemingly needed to explain the EPRB correlations. I argue that the traditional formulations of the problem suffer from a lack of generality, which obscures the central issues raised by it; a shortcoming which the new formulation remedies.
In this paper, I present a novel formulation of the spatio-temporal problem of entanglement. This is the problem of resolving a purported tension between the Special Theory of Relativity and the non-local causal influences seemingly needed to explain the EPRB correlations. I argue that the traditional formulations of the problem suffer from a lack of generality, which obscures the central issues raised by it; a shortcoming which the new formulation remedies.
This work presents a minimal reinterpretation of quantum entanglement based solely on the causal structure inherent in relativistic spacetime. No new physical entities, parameters, or modifications to existing theories are introduced.The discussion remains entirely within the established frameworks of general relativity and quantum mechanics, with particular emphasis on Lorentz invariance and relativistic causality. The central idea is that the causal structure of spacetime is unique and invariant, while spatial separation corresponds to different references (foliations) to this structure rather than its duplication.Within this viewpoint, quantum entanglement is understood as a local readout of correlations already encoded in a shared causal structure, without invoking nonlocal influences or superluminal information transfer. This document is intended as a conceptual clarification and archival record rather than a proposal of a new theory.It is provided to preserve a logically consistent interpretation that may be of interest for future foundational discussions.
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.
Abstract: The exact nature of non-locality and entanglement is still a matter of an ongoing controversy. Especially, the concept of non-locality as postulated by the orthodox Copenhagen quantum mechanics is claiming to reflect any non-locality in the quantum realm. Attention should be called to the obvious but very disconcerting fact that the concept of non-locality cannot contradict the theory of special relativity, as long as the same is not refuted theoretically or by experiments. Another way of expressing the peculiar situation is, under conditions of the special theory of relativity it remains rather discomforting to alter the properties of a distant system instantaneously (i. e. no light signal can travel) by acting on a local system. The purpose of this publication is to solve the problem of non-locality and entanglement from the standpoint of the special theory of relativity.
Of all the mysteries that have confronted physicists in the past century surely entanglement must rank amongst the most perplexing. Not only does this phenomenon express itself over apparently arbitrarily large distances and barriers between two particles but it also expresses itself across time! I propose a model using higher dimensional space which conceptually can reconcile the apparent problems presented by entanglement - that of communicating faster than the speed of light and even communicating into the future.
This paper presents a novel framework for examining causality through a fundamentally non-temporal perspective, grounded in mathematical logic and category theory. We demonstrate that standard logical operations, including implication, conjunction, disjunction, and quantification, are inherently non-temporal, suggesting that causality itself might be better understood as a logical rather than temporal relationship. Our framework provides: (1) A rigorous mathematical foundation for non-temporal causality, based on set theory and mathematical logic; (2) A reinterpretation of quantum mechanical phenomena, including wave function collapse and entanglement, as manifestations of non-temporal logical relations; (3) A new perspective on causal set theory that challenges the assumed primacy of temporal ordering in discrete spacetime approaches. The framework naturally addresses several persistent puzzles in physics, including the measurement problem in quantum mechanics, the emergence of time in quantum gravity, and the apparent tension between locality and quantum correlations. We develop formal proofs showing how temporal causation might emerge as a special case of more general non-temporal logical relations, with implications for quantum foundations, relativity theory, and the unification of quantum mechanics with gravity. This approach suggests new directions for understanding the foundations of physics, the nature of time, and the relationship between logic and physical reality.
Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) is an interpretation of quantum theory based on the idea of abolishing the notion of absolute states of systems, in favor of states of systems relative to other systems. Such a move is claimed to solve the conceptual problems of standard quantum mechanics. Moreover, RQM has been argued to account for all quantum correlations without invoking non-local effects and, in spite of embracing a fully relational stance, to successfully explain how different observers exchange information. In this work, we carry out a thorough assessment of RQM and its purported achievements. We find that it fails to address the conceptual problems of standard quantum mechanics--related to the lack of clarity in its ontology and the rules that govern its behavior--and that it leads to serious conceptual problems of its own. We also uncover as unwarranted the claims that RQM can correctly explain information exchange among observers, and that it accommodates all quantum correlations without invoking non-local influences. We conclude that RQM is unsuccessful in its attempt to provide a satisfactory understanding of the quantum world.