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

Relational interpretation of the wave function and a possible way around Bell's theorem

Filk, T

Published Feb 5, 2006• 8 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

The famous ``spooky action at a distance'' in the EPR-szenario is shown to be a local interaction, once entanglement is interpreted as a kind of ``nearest neighbor'' relation among quantum systems. Furthermore, the wave function itself is interpreted as encoding the ``nearest neighbor'' relations between a quantum system and spatial points. This interpretation becomes natural, if we view space and distance in terms of relations among spatial points. Therefore, ``position'' becomes a purely relational concept. This relational picture leads to a new perspective onto the quantum mechanical formalism, where many of the ``weird'' aspects, like the particle-wave duality, the non-locality of entanglement, or the ``mystery'' of the double-slit experiment, disappear. Furthermore, this picture cirumvents the restrictions set by Bell's inequalities, i.e., a possible (realistic) hidden variable theory based on these concepts can be local and at the same time reproduce the results of quantum mechanics.

Related papers

The Problem of Locality and a Relational Interpretation of the Wave Function

Thomas Filk A

It is argued that many of the so‐called “mysteries” of quantum mechanics like the “particle‐wave duality” or the “spooky action at a distance” loose their weirdness if space itself, the “embedding” of quantum objects into space, and the entanglement among quantum objects are interpreted as relational concepts. Extended to space‐time, this approach may allow for a new interpretation of Haag’s localization of events.

AIP conference proceedings•Jan 1, 2006•2 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

Comment on "Loophole-free Bell inequality"

Robert B. Griffiths

A recent experiment yielding results in agreement with quantum theory and violating Bell inequalities was interpreted [Nature 526 (29 Octobert 2015) p. 682 and p. 649] as ruling out any local realistic theory of nature. But quantum theory itself is both local and realistic when properly interpreted using a quantum Hilbert space rather than the classical hidden variables used to derive Bell inequalities. There is no spooky action at a distance in the real world we live in if it is governed by the laws of quantum mechanics.

arXiv:1512.01443•Dec 4, 2015•1 citation

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

Bell’s theorem and local reality

Jim Baggott

Abstract If we reject the ‘spooky’ action at a distance that seems to be required in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, and which is highlighted by the EPR thought experiment, we must accept the EPR argument that the theory is somehow incomplete. In essence, this involves the rejection of the first postulate of quantum theory: the state of a quantum mechanical system is not completely described by the wave function or state vector.Einstein had hinted at a statistical interpretation. In his opinion, the squares of the wave functions or state vectors of quantum theory represented statistical probabilities obtained by averaging over a large number of real particles. The Copenhagen interpretation of the EPR experiment insists that the reality of the physical states that can be measured is defined by the nature of the interaction between two quantum particles and the nature of the experimental arrangement. A completely deterministic, locally real version of quantum theory demands that the physical states of the particles be established at the moment of their interaction and that the particles separate as individually real entities in those physical states. The physical states of the particles are prescribed by the physics of their interaction and independent of how we choose to set up the measuring instrument, and so no reference to the nature of the latter is necessary, except to define how the independently real particles interact with it. The instrument thus probes an observer-independent reality.

•Nov 6, 2003•0 citations

The Bell Inequality and the Many-Worlds Interpretation

Lev Vaidman A

It is argued that the lesson we should learn from Bell's inequalities is not that quantum mechanics requires some kind of action at a distance, but that it leads us to believe in parallel worlds. Introduction Bell's work [1] led to a revolution in our understanding of nature. I remember attending my first physics conference, on “Microphysical Reality and Quantum Formalism,” in Urbino, 1985. Most of the talks were about Aspect's experiment [2] confirming the nonlocality of quantum mechanics based on experimental violations of Bell's inequalities. Although I did not share the skepticism of many speakers regarding the results of Aspect, I was not ready to accept that a local action in one place can instantaneously change anything at another place. So, while for the majority the lesson from Bell was that quantum mechanics requires some “spooky action at a distance”, I was led by Bell's result to an alternative revolutionary change in our view of nature. I saw no other way than accepting the manyworlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics [3, 4]. I shall start by presenting the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) [5] argument. Then I will present Bell's presented using the Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger setup [6] in the form proposed by Mermin [7, 8]. The discussion of nonlocality will suggest that Bell's inequalities are the only manifestation of action at a distance in nature. The demonstration of the necessity of action at a distance will be done through a detailed analysis of the GHZ experiment. Then I shall show how multiple worlds resolve the problem of action at a distance. After discussing the issue of nonlocality in the MWI, I shall conclude by citing Bell's views on the MWI. EPR–Bell–GHZ The story of Bell cannot be told without first describing the EPR argument. Instead of following the historical route, I shall use the GHZ setup, which, in my view, is the clearest way to explain the EPR and Bell's discovery.

arXiv:1501.02691•Cambridge University Press eBooks•Aug 31, 2016•13 citations
The famous spooky action at a distance'' in the EPR-szenario is shown to be a local interaction, once entanglement is interpreted as a kind of nearest neighbor'' relation among quantum systems. Furthermore, the wave function itself is interpreted as encoding the nearest neighbor'' relations between a quantum system and spatial points. This interpretation becomes natural, if we view space and distance in terms of relations among spatial points. Therefore, position'' becomes a purely relational concept. This relational picture leads to a new perspective onto the quantum mechanical formalism, where many of the weird'' aspects, like the particle-wave duality, the non-locality of entanglement, or the mystery'' of the double-slit experiment, disappear. Furthermore, this picture cirumvents the restrictions set by Bell's inequalities, i.e., a possible (realistic) hidden variable theory based on these concepts can be local and at the same time reproduce the results of quantum mechanics.
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.
A recent experiment yielding results in agreement with quantum theory and violating Bell inequalities was interpreted [Nature 526 (29 Octobert 2015) p. 682 and p. 649] as ruling out any local realistic theory of nature. But quantum theory itself is both local and realistic when properly interpreted using a quantum Hilbert space rather than the classical hidden variables used to derive Bell inequalities. There is no spooky action at a distance in the real world we live in if it is governed by the laws of quantum mechanics.
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.
Abstract If we reject the ‘spooky’ action at a distance that seems to be required in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, and which is highlighted by the EPR thought experiment, we must accept the EPR argument that the theory is somehow incomplete. In essence, this involves the rejection of the first postulate of quantum theory: the state of a quantum mechanical system is not completely described by the wave function or state vector.Einstein had hinted at a statistical interpretation. In his opinion, the squares of the wave functions or state vectors of quantum theory represented statistical probabilities obtained by averaging over a large number of real particles. The Copenhagen interpretation of the EPR experiment insists that the reality of the physical states that can be measured is defined by the nature of the interaction between two quantum particles and the nature of the experimental arrangement. A completely deterministic, locally real version of quantum theory demands that the physical states of the particles be established at the moment of their interaction and that the particles separate as individually real entities in those physical states. The physical states of the particles are prescribed by the physics of their interaction and independent of how we choose to set up the measuring instrument, and so no reference to the nature of the latter is necessary, except to define how the independently real particles interact with it. The instrument thus probes an observer-independent reality.
It is argued that the lesson we should learn from Bell's inequalities is not that quantum mechanics requires some kind of action at a distance, but that it leads us to believe in parallel worlds. Introduction Bell's work [1] led to a revolution in our understanding of nature. I remember attending my first physics conference, on “Microphysical Reality and Quantum Formalism,” in Urbino, 1985. Most of the talks were about Aspect's experiment [2] confirming the nonlocality of quantum mechanics based on experimental violations of Bell's inequalities. Although I did not share the skepticism of many speakers regarding the results of Aspect, I was not ready to accept that a local action in one place can instantaneously change anything at another place. So, while for the majority the lesson from Bell was that quantum mechanics requires some “spooky action at a distance”, I was led by Bell's result to an alternative revolutionary change in our view of nature. I saw no other way than accepting the manyworlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics [3, 4]. I shall start by presenting the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) [5] argument. Then I will present Bell's presented using the Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger setup [6] in the form proposed by Mermin [7, 8]. The discussion of nonlocality will suggest that Bell's inequalities are the only manifestation of action at a distance in nature. The demonstration of the necessity of action at a distance will be done through a detailed analysis of the GHZ experiment. Then I shall show how multiple worlds resolve the problem of action at a distance. After discussing the issue of nonlocality in the MWI, I shall conclude by citing Bell's views on the MWI. EPR–Bell–GHZ The story of Bell cannot be told without first describing the EPR argument. Instead of following the historical route, I shall use the GHZ setup, which, in my view, is the clearest way to explain the EPR and Bell's discovery.