Many in quantum foundations seek a principle explanation of Bell state entanglement. While reconstructions of quantum mechanics (QM) have been produced, the community does not find them compelling. Herein we offer a principle explanation for Bell state entanglement, i.e., conservation per no preferred reference frame (NPRF), such that NPRF unifies Bell state entanglement with length contraction and time dilation from special relativity (SR). What makes this a principle explanation is that it's grounded directly in phenomenology, it is an adynamical and acausal explanation that involves adynamical global constraints as opposed to dynamical laws or causal mechanisms, and it's unifying with respect to QM and SR.
Many in quantum foundations seek a principle explanation of Bell state entanglement. While reconstructions of quantum mechanics (QM) have been produced, the community does not find them compelling. Herein we offer a principle explanation for Bell state entanglement, i.e., conservation per no preferred reference frame (NPRF), such that NPRF unifies Bell state entanglement with length contraction and time dilation from special relativity (SR). What makes this a principle explanation is that it's grounded directly in phenomenology, it is an adynamical and acausal explanation that involves adynamical global constraints as opposed to dynamical laws or causal mechanisms, and it's unifying with respect to QM and SR.
Many in quantum foundations seek a principle explanation of Bell state entanglement. While reconstructions of quantum mechanics (QM) have been produced, the community does not find them compelling. Herein we offer a principle explanation for Bell state entanglement, i.e., conservation per no preferred reference frame (NPRF), such that NPRF unifies Bell state entanglement with length contraction and time dilation from special relativity (SR). What makes this a principle explanation is that it's grounded directly in phenomenology, it is an adynamical and acausal explanation that involves adynamical global constraints as opposed to dynamical laws or causal mechanisms, and it's unifying with respect to QM and SR.
Quantum information theorists have created axiomatic reconstructions of quantum mechanics (QM) that are very successful at identifying precisely what distinguishes quantum probability theory from classical and more general probability theories in terms of information-theoretic principles. Herein, we show how one such principle, Information Invariance and Continuity, at the foundation of those axiomatic reconstructions, maps to “no preferred reference frame” (NPRF, aka “the relativity principle”) as it pertains to the invariant measurement of Planck’s constant h for Stern-Gerlach (SG) spin measurements. This is in exact analogy to the relativity principle as it pertains to the invariant measurement of the speed of light c at the foundation of special relativity (SR). Essentially, quantum information theorists have extended Einstein’s use of NPRF from the boost invariance of measurements of c to include the SO(3) invariance of measurements of h between different reference frames of mutually complementary spin measurements via the principle of Information Invariance and Continuity. Consequently, the “mystery” of the Bell states is understood to result from conservation per Information Invariance and Continuity between different reference frames of mutually complementary qubit measurements, and this maps to conservation per NPRF in spacetime. If one falsely conflates the relativity principle with the classical theory of SR, then it may seem impossible that the relativity principle resides at the foundation of non-relativisitic QM. In fact, there is nothing inherently classical or quantum about NPRF. Thus, the axiomatic reconstructions of QM have succeeded in producing a principle account of QM that reveals as much about Nature as the postulates of SR.
In 1981, Mermin published a now famous paper titled, "Bringing home the atomic world: Quantum mysteries for anybody" that Feynman called, "One of the most beautiful papers in physics that I know." Therein, he presented the "Mermin device" that illustrates the conundrum of quantum entanglement per the Bell spin states for the "general reader." He then challenged the "physicist reader" to explain the way the device works "in terms meaningful to a general reader struggling with the dilemma raised by the device." Herein, we show how "conservation per no preferred reference frame (NPRF)" answers that challenge. In short, the explicit conservation that obtains for Alice and Bob's Stern-Gerlach spin measurement outcomes in the same reference frame holds only on average in different reference frames, not on a trial-by-trial basis. This conservation is SO(3) invariant in the relevant symmetry plane in real space per the SU(2) invariance of its corresponding Bell spin state in Hilbert space. Since NPRF is also responsible for the postulates of special relativity, and therefore its counterintuitive aspects of time dilation and length contraction, we see that the symmetry group relating non-relativistic quantum mechanics and special relativity via their "mysteries" is the restricted Lorentz group.
We explain how the disparate kinematics of quantum mechanics (finite-dimensional Hilbert space of QM) and special relativity (Minkowski spacetime from the Lorentz transformations of SR) can both be based on one principle (relativity principle). This is made possible by the axiomatic reconstruction of QM via information-theoretic principles, which has successfully recast QM as a principle theory a la SR. That is, in the quantum reconstruction program (QRP) and SR, the formalisms (Hilbert space and Lorentz transformations, respectively) are derived from empirically discovered facts (Information Invariance & Continuity and light postulate, respectively), so QM and SR are "principle theories" as defined by Einstein. While SR has a compelling fundamental principle to justify its empirically discovered fact (relativity principle), QRP has not produced a compelling fundamental principle or causal mechanism to account for its empirically discovered fact. To unify these disparate kinematics, we show how the relativity principle ("no preferred reference frame" NPRF) can also be used to justify Information Invariance & Continuity. We do this by showing that when QRP's operational notion of measurement is spatialized, Information Invariance & Continuity entails the empirically discovered fact that everyone measures the same value for Planck's constant h, regardless of their relative spatial orientations or locations (Planck postulate). Since Poincare transformations relate inertial reference frames via spatial rotations and translations as well as boosts, the relativity principle justifies the Planck postulate just like it justifies the light postulate. Essentially, NPRF + c is an adynamical global constraint over the spacetime configuration of worldtubes for bodily objects while NPRF + h is an adynamical global constraint over the distribution of quanta among those bodily objects.
Abstract Chapter 1 points out that the mystery of entanglement has led Physics Nobel Laureates to claim “nobody understands quantum mechanics.” The Chapter goes on to introduce: the EPR and EPR–Bell paradoxes, various attempts to resolve them, our proposed resolution whereby the relativity principle (no preferred reference frame, NPRF) justifies the Planck postulate (NPRF + h) exactly like the relativity principle justifies the light postulate (NPRF + c), the Planck postulate as a result of Information Invariance & Continuity from quantum information theory, the importance of the relativity principle, subjective versus objective spacetime models of reality, spacelike and timelike relations in spacetime, and four experiments leading to our Poincaré symmetric ontology.
While quantum mechanics (QM) is covered at length in introductory physics textbooks, the concept of quantum entanglement is typically not covered at all, despite its importance in the rapidly growing area of quantum information science and its extensive experimental confirmation. Thus, physics educators are left to their own devices as to how to introduce this important concept. Regardless of how a physics educator chooses to introduce quantum entanglement, they face a trilemma involving its mysterious Bell-inequality-violating correlations. They can compromise on the the completeness of their introduction and simply choose not to share that fact, totally ignoring the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics. They can frustrate their more curious students by introducing the mystery and simply telling them that the QM formalism with its associated (equally mysterious) conservation law maps beautifully to the experiments, so there is nothing else that needs to be said. Or, they can compromise the rigor of their presentation and attempt to resolve the mystery by venturing into the metaphysical quagmire of competing QM interpretations. Herein, we resolve this trilemma in precisely the same way that Einstein resolved the mysteries of time dilation and length contraction that existed in the late nineteenth century. That is, we resort to "principle" explanation based on the mathematical consequences of "empirically discovered" facts. Indeed, our principle account of quantum entanglement is even based on the same principle Einstein used, i.e., the relativity principle or "no preferred reference frame." Thus, this principle resolution of the trilemma is as complete, satisfying, analytically rigorous, and accessible as the standard introduction of special relativity for first-year physics students.