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

Non‐Locality

Mathias Frisch

Published Apr 26, 2005• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Abstract This chapter examines several locality conditions. It argues that two of these principles are irreducibly causal: the principle that all causal propagation takes place at a finite velocity of which relativistic locality is a special case, and spatiotemporal locality, according to which no causal influences can be transmitted across spatiotemporal ‘gaps’. Neither of the two causal principles can be reduced to the noncausal condition of diachronic locality.

DOI
10.1093/0195172159.003.0004

Related papers

Causality and Non-Locality in Quantum Mechanics: An argument for retrocausation

Jørn Kløvfjell Mjelva

It has been claimed that quantum mechanics is a non-local theory, i.e., that the predictions of quantum mechanics are at odds with a conception of the world where all the interactions are mediated by local mechanisms. The cited reason is the violation of the Bell inequality in cases where measurements are performed on quantum systems of particles that have interacted in the past. Quantum mechanics predicts that the state of the particles in such a system are correlated, a result obtained from considering a thought-experiment often known as EPR. In this thesis, I will argue that the violation of the Bell inequality in EPR forces us to either accept that causes sometimes act both backwards and forwards in time, or give up some widely-held assumptions about causal relations or the role of causal explanations. First, I will present three principles regarding causality that I take be widely accepted. I will then present the background for the claim the quantum mechanics is a non-local theory, and discuss the implications of non-local causal influences in light of the Special Theory of Relativity. One argument against a causal explanation of the EPR-correlations will be discussed, and different models for the causal structure of EPR will be assessed. I will argue that a retrocausal model – models that include instances of retrocausation, where the direction of causation is the opposite of the direction of time – is the only viable option if we want to uphold the three principles presented in chapter 1. I will discuss the plausibility of rejecting one of these principles, and argue that at least one of the can be restricted in a way that still accounts for our commitment to it. Finally, I will assess the non-local models against the retrocausal models, and argue that a retrocausal model offers interpretational advantages over the non-local alternatives.

•Jan 1, 2017•0 citations

The spatiotemporal problem of entanglement

Jørn Kløvfjell Mjelva

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.

•Jan 1, 2019•0 citations

Explanations of and in Worlds

Alastair Wilson

Abstract Scientific explanations should have a character that matches their subject matter: if a fact is not apt for causal explanation, it should not be explained causally. In this chapter, the author first reviews some cases where causal explanation has been extended beyond its proper limits, identifying a pattern of error termed the problem of causal overreach. The discussion then relates these considerations to the debate over causal locality in Everettian (many-worlds) quantum mechanics (EQM), in the context of three metaphysical distinctions central to recent discussions of locality: event causation vs. worldshaping causation, local branching vs. global branching, and overlapping worlds vs. diverging worlds. The author argues that worlds in EQM are not properly regarded as themselves subject to causal explanation; instead, causation should be understood as a wholly in-world matter. This approach avoids any nonlocal causal explanation; quantum entanglement instead supports a new category of noncausal worldshaping explanations. The chapter concludes by considering the implications of worldbound causation for principles of causal inference, in particular for the Causal Markov condition, and recommends the use of quantum causal models as a foundation for in-world causal inference.

•Aug 26, 2026•0 citations

Causality and communication in physics

Pierre Uzan

Understanding the concept of causality is fundamental in physics, as it conditions the very possibility of any exchange of information between physical systems. This article examines and compares three main interpretations of the correlative operational concept of "causal separation" that have been respectively proposed in special relativity, quantum theory, and according to the statistical "non-signalling" condition. These interpretations, which can be classified regarding the range of CHSH correlation degrees they allow, lead to radically different results regarding the exchange of information between physical systems. Namely, it can be shown that, in opposition with the non-communication theorem of quantum theory, non-local communication can be established between the two entangled parts of a physical system when the relativistic criterium of causal separation is satisfied but not the quantum one.

•Jan 1, 2026•0 citations

Location and Causality in Quantum Theory

Robert Dickinson

An operational development of quantum theory is presented, from general correlations through single-particle theories to elementary quantum field theory, with a focus throughout on causal relations. The objective is to establish the extent to which quantum theories are consistent with the principle of relativistic causality (that no two events separated by a distance greater than their separation in time multiplied by the speed of light may have a causal influence on each other) and to examine the assumptions that this analysis requires. To do this, it is necessary to pay particular attention to the notions of spatial location and measurement. It is found that in a relativistically causal theory, any measurement made in a finite spatial region must have the capacity for particle creation. A number of derivations are presented, including some relativistic single-particle propagators and a Hamiltonian based on the square root of the Klein Gordon equation.

Theory of Computing Systems•Nov 20, 2013•0 citations

Isolation, not locality

Heather Demarest, Michael Townsen Hicks

Abstract There is a long tradition of preferring local theories to ones that posit lawful or causal influence at a spacetime distance. In this paper, we argue against this preference. We argue that nonlocality is scientifically unobjectionable and that nonlocal theories can be known. Scientists can gather evidence for them and confirm them in much the same way that they do for local theories. We think these observations point to a deeper constraint on scientific theorizing and experimentation: the (quasi‐) isolation of causal or lawful influence. We argue that this requirement ought to replace the locality desideratum in science. We then explore the possibility that the order of explanation has been reversed: perhaps it is isolatable influence that determines what counts as local in the first place.

Philosophy and Phenomenological Research•Sep 28, 2020•3 citations
Abstract This chapter examines several locality conditions. It argues that two of these principles are irreducibly causal: the principle that all causal propagation takes place at a finite velocity of which relativistic locality is a special case, and spatiotemporal locality, according to which no causal influences can be transmitted across spatiotemporal ‘gaps’. Neither of the two causal principles can be reduced to the noncausal condition of diachronic locality.
It has been claimed that quantum mechanics is a non-local theory, i.e., that the predictions of quantum mechanics are at odds with a conception of the world where all the interactions are mediated by local mechanisms. The cited reason is the violation of the Bell inequality in cases where measurements are performed on quantum systems of particles that have interacted in the past. Quantum mechanics predicts that the state of the particles in such a system are correlated, a result obtained from considering a thought-experiment often known as EPR. In this thesis, I will argue that the violation of the Bell inequality in EPR forces us to either accept that causes sometimes act both backwards and forwards in time, or give up some widely-held assumptions about causal relations or the role of causal explanations. First, I will present three principles regarding causality that I take be widely accepted. I will then present the background for the claim the quantum mechanics is a non-local theory, and discuss the implications of non-local causal influences in light of the Special Theory of Relativity. One argument against a causal explanation of the EPR-correlations will be discussed, and different models for the causal structure of EPR will be assessed. I will argue that a retrocausal model – models that include instances of retrocausation, where the direction of causation is the opposite of the direction of time – is the only viable option if we want to uphold the three principles presented in chapter 1. I will discuss the plausibility of rejecting one of these principles, and argue that at least one of the can be restricted in a way that still accounts for our commitment to it. Finally, I will assess the non-local models against the retrocausal models, and argue that a retrocausal model offers interpretational advantages over the non-local alternatives.
Abstract Scientific explanations should have a character that matches their subject matter: if a fact is not apt for causal explanation, it should not be explained causally. In this chapter, the author first reviews some cases where causal explanation has been extended beyond its proper limits, identifying a pattern of error termed the problem of causal overreach. The discussion then relates these considerations to the debate over causal locality in Everettian (many-worlds) quantum mechanics (EQM), in the context of three metaphysical distinctions central to recent discussions of locality: event causation vs. worldshaping causation, local branching vs. global branching, and overlapping worlds vs. diverging worlds. The author argues that worlds in EQM are not properly regarded as themselves subject to causal explanation; instead, causation should be understood as a wholly in-world matter. This approach avoids any nonlocal causal explanation; quantum entanglement instead supports a new category of noncausal worldshaping explanations. The chapter concludes by considering the implications of worldbound causation for principles of causal inference, in particular for the Causal Markov condition, and recommends the use of quantum causal models as a foundation for in-world causal inference.
Understanding the concept of causality is fundamental in physics, as it conditions the very possibility of any exchange of information between physical systems. This article examines and compares three main interpretations of the correlative operational concept of "causal separation" that have been respectively proposed in special relativity, quantum theory, and according to the statistical "non-signalling" condition. These interpretations, which can be classified regarding the range of CHSH correlation degrees they allow, lead to radically different results regarding the exchange of information between physical systems. Namely, it can be shown that, in opposition with the non-communication theorem of quantum theory, non-local communication can be established between the two entangled parts of a physical system when the relativistic criterium of causal separation is satisfied but not the quantum one.
An operational development of quantum theory is presented, from general correlations through single-particle theories to elementary quantum field theory, with a focus throughout on causal relations. The objective is to establish the extent to which quantum theories are consistent with the principle of relativistic causality (that no two events separated by a distance greater than their separation in time multiplied by the speed of light may have a causal influence on each other) and to examine the assumptions that this analysis requires. To do this, it is necessary to pay particular attention to the notions of spatial location and measurement. It is found that in a relativistically causal theory, any measurement made in a finite spatial region must have the capacity for particle creation. A number of derivations are presented, including some relativistic single-particle propagators and a Hamiltonian based on the square root of the Klein Gordon equation.
Abstract There is a long tradition of preferring local theories to ones that posit lawful or causal influence at a spacetime distance. In this paper, we argue against this preference. We argue that nonlocality is scientifically unobjectionable and that nonlocal theories can be known. Scientists can gather evidence for them and confirm them in much the same way that they do for local theories. We think these observations point to a deeper constraint on scientific theorizing and experimentation: the (quasi‐) isolation of causal or lawful influence. We argue that this requirement ought to replace the locality desideratum in science. We then explore the possibility that the order of explanation has been reversed: perhaps it is isolatable influence that determines what counts as local in the first place.