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

Journal of Physics Conference Series

Entanglement, Microcausality and Gödel’s Theorem

Paul O’Hara

Published May 1, 2023• 2 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Abstract One of the key points of Pauli’s proof of the spin-statistics theorem is the principle of microcausality, which essentially states “that all physical quantities at finite distance exterior to the light cone (for | x o ′ − x o ″ | < | x ′ − x ″ | ) are commutable”. Indeed, Pauli was aware that if it were not valid then neither was his version of the spin-statistics theorem. In this presentation, we explore the relationship between entanglement and microcausality and point out that in the case of spin-singlet states, microcausality does not apply. Consequenly, we revise the spin statistics theorem to incorporate entanglement and to suggest some refinements to the axiomatic structure of quantum mechanics. Ironically, singlet states are SL(2,C) invariant as is the Minkowski metric of special relativity, although the singlet state is often used to convey “spooky action at a distance” as if it were in violation of special relativity, which it is not. We also pose the question whether the paradoxes associated with “entanglement” can be understood as a special case of Gödel’s theorem.

DOI
10.1088/1742-6596/2482/1/012013

Related papers

Quantum Field Theory: Motivating the Axiom of Microcausality

Jessey Wright

Axiomatic quantum field theory is one approach to the project of merging the special theory of relativity with that of ordinary quantum mechanics. The project begins with the postulation of a set of axioms. Axioms should be motivated by reasonable physical principles in a way that illustrates how a given axiom is true. Motivations are often grounded in the principles of the parent theories: ordinary quantum mechanics or the theory of special relativity. Amongst the set of axioms first proposed by Haag and Kastler in 1963 is the axiom of microcausality. Microcausality requires the observables of regions at space-like separation to commute. This thesis seeks to answer the question ‘What principles from the special theory of relativity or ordinary quantum mechanics motivate, or justify, accepting microcausality as an axiom?’ The first chapter will provide the necessary background to investigate this question and the second chapter will undertake that investigation. In conclusion, microcausality cannot be well-motivated by individual principles rooted in the special theory of relativity or ordinary quantum mechanics.

•Sep 19, 2012•0 citations

A generalized spin statistics theorem

Paul O’Hara

In this article we generalize the spin statistics theorem and show that a state obeys Fermi-Dirac statistics if and only if the state is invariant under the action of SL ( n , C ). We also briefly discuss the experimental evidence and how the theorem relates to spin entanglement.

Journal of Physics Conference Series•May 1, 2017•5 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

From Primitives to the Spin-Statistics Theorem

Allen Proxmire

The spin‑statistics theorem is one of the deepest individual results in physics. Particles with integer spin obey Bose–Einstein statistics: their wavefunctions are symmetric under exchange, and any number can occupy the same state. Particles with half‑integer spin obey Fermi–Dirac statistics: their wavefunctions are antisymmetric, and no two can occupy the same state. Compactly: η = (−1)^{2s}, where η is the exchange phase (+1 bosons, −1 fermions) and s is the spin. This is empirically the most thoroughly tested relationship in particle physics. Every confirmation of Pauli exclusion in atomic structure, every superconductor, every superfluid, every neutron star, every electron‑degenerate white dwarf, every blackbody distribution, every Bose–Einstein condensate confirms it. It determines why atoms have shell structure and why chemistry exists. It determines why matter is stable against gravitational collapse below the Chandrasekhar limit. The structural integrity of essentially everything in the material world traces back to this one Z₂ × Z₂ relationship. Despite its empirical centrality, the theorem is notoriously hard to derive cleanly. Pauli’s 1940 argument used QFT, specifically requiring positivity of energy and microcausality. Streater–Wightman formalizes this with Lorentz invariance, locality, positivity of energy, and uniqueness of the vacuum. Burgoyne, Lüders–Zumino, and Weinberg all require similar axiomatic foundations with microcausality as a postulate or close relative. The dependence on QFT is not incidental — the cleanest microcausality‑based arguments need the field‑operator algebra to make their case. It leaves a question hanging: must the theorem really depend on QFT? This walkthrough shows how the Event Density framework derives spin‑statistics from substrate primitives plus 3+1D spatial topology plus the algebraic uniqueness of the Cl(3,1) frame, *without QFT*. The argument runs through: the configuration‑space topology π₁(Q₂) = Z₂ in 3+1D; the geometric theorem identifying the exchange‑class generator with the 2π‑rotation generator; the algebraic uniqueness of Cl(3,1) realizing the rotational double cover; and a closure step using the framework’s individuation primitive to tie the topological exchange phase to spinor‑module representation theory. The result is η = (−1)^{2s} forced unconditionally at primitive level. The structural beauty: two Z₂ dichotomies — the exchange‑phase (η = ±1, forced by topology) and the integer/half‑integer spin parity (forced by the Lorentz representation ladder) — collapse into a single forced equality, with the identification between them supplied by Cl(3,1) plus the individuation pairing. The framework reproduces spin‑statistics without QFT, at the level of substrate primitives plus 3+1D topology.

•May 12, 2026•0 citations

Spin-space entanglement transfer and quantum statistics

Yasser Omar, Nikola Paunković, Sougato Bose +1 more

Both the topics of entanglement and particle statistics have aroused enormous research interest since the advent of quantum mechanics. Using two pairs of entangled particles we show that indistinguishability enforces a transfer of entanglement from the internal to the spatial degrees of freedom without any interaction between these degrees of freedom. Moreover, subensembles selected by local measurements of the path will, in general, have different amounts of entanglement in the internal degrees of freedom depending on the statistics (either fermionic or bosonic) of the particles involved.

arXiv:quant-ph/0105120•Physical Review A•May 30, 2002•34 citations

Untangling Quantum Entanglement

Jeremy L. Fellows

The phenomenon of quantum entanglement is explained in a way which is fully consistent with Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. A subtle flaw is identified in the logic supporting the view that Bell's Inequality precludes all local hidden-variable theories, and it is shown how EPR-type experiments can be constructed to produce statistical correlation results in a purely classical manner which match exactly the predictions made by quantum theory.

arXiv:quant-ph/0511134•Nov 14, 2005•2 citations
Abstract One of the key points of Pauli’s proof of the spin-statistics theorem is the principle of microcausality, which essentially states “that all physical quantities at finite distance exterior to the light cone (for | x o ′ − x o ″ | < | x ′ − x ″ | ) are commutable”. Indeed, Pauli was aware that if it were not valid then neither was his version of the spin-statistics theorem. In this presentation, we explore the relationship between entanglement and microcausality and point out that in the case of spin-singlet states, microcausality does not apply. Consequenly, we revise the spin statistics theorem to incorporate entanglement and to suggest some refinements to the axiomatic structure of quantum mechanics. Ironically, singlet states are SL(2,C) invariant as is the Minkowski metric of special relativity, although the singlet state is often used to convey “spooky action at a distance” as if it were in violation of special relativity, which it is not. We also pose the question whether the paradoxes associated with “entanglement” can be understood as a special case of Gödel’s theorem.
Axiomatic quantum field theory is one approach to the project of merging the special theory of relativity with that of ordinary quantum mechanics. The project begins with the postulation of a set of axioms. Axioms should be motivated by reasonable physical principles in a way that illustrates how a given axiom is true. Motivations are often grounded in the principles of the parent theories: ordinary quantum mechanics or the theory of special relativity. Amongst the set of axioms first proposed by Haag and Kastler in 1963 is the axiom of microcausality. Microcausality requires the observables of regions at space-like separation to commute. This thesis seeks to answer the question ‘What principles from the special theory of relativity or ordinary quantum mechanics motivate, or justify, accepting microcausality as an axiom?’ The first chapter will provide the necessary background to investigate this question and the second chapter will undertake that investigation. In conclusion, microcausality cannot be well-motivated by individual principles rooted in the special theory of relativity or ordinary quantum mechanics.
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.
The spin‑statistics theorem is one of the deepest individual results in physics. Particles with integer spin obey Bose–Einstein statistics: their wavefunctions are symmetric under exchange, and any number can occupy the same state. Particles with half‑integer spin obey Fermi–Dirac statistics: their wavefunctions are antisymmetric, and no two can occupy the same state. Compactly: η = (−1)^{2s}, where η is the exchange phase (+1 bosons, −1 fermions) and s is the spin. This is empirically the most thoroughly tested relationship in particle physics. Every confirmation of Pauli exclusion in atomic structure, every superconductor, every superfluid, every neutron star, every electron‑degenerate white dwarf, every blackbody distribution, every Bose–Einstein condensate confirms it. It determines why atoms have shell structure and why chemistry exists. It determines why matter is stable against gravitational collapse below the Chandrasekhar limit. The structural integrity of essentially everything in the material world traces back to this one Z₂ × Z₂ relationship. Despite its empirical centrality, the theorem is notoriously hard to derive cleanly. Pauli’s 1940 argument used QFT, specifically requiring positivity of energy and microcausality. Streater–Wightman formalizes this with Lorentz invariance, locality, positivity of energy, and uniqueness of the vacuum. Burgoyne, Lüders–Zumino, and Weinberg all require similar axiomatic foundations with microcausality as a postulate or close relative. The dependence on QFT is not incidental — the cleanest microcausality‑based arguments need the field‑operator algebra to make their case. It leaves a question hanging: must the theorem really depend on QFT? This walkthrough shows how the Event Density framework derives spin‑statistics from substrate primitives plus 3+1D spatial topology plus the algebraic uniqueness of the Cl(3,1) frame, *without QFT*. The argument runs through: the configuration‑space topology π₁(Q₂) = Z₂ in 3+1D; the geometric theorem identifying the exchange‑class generator with the 2π‑rotation generator; the algebraic uniqueness of Cl(3,1) realizing the rotational double cover; and a closure step using the framework’s individuation primitive to tie the topological exchange phase to spinor‑module representation theory. The result is η = (−1)^{2s} forced unconditionally at primitive level. The structural beauty: two Z₂ dichotomies — the exchange‑phase (η = ±1, forced by topology) and the integer/half‑integer spin parity (forced by the Lorentz representation ladder) — collapse into a single forced equality, with the identification between them supplied by Cl(3,1) plus the individuation pairing. The framework reproduces spin‑statistics without QFT, at the level of substrate primitives plus 3+1D topology.
Both the topics of entanglement and particle statistics have aroused enormous research interest since the advent of quantum mechanics. Using two pairs of entangled particles we show that indistinguishability enforces a transfer of entanglement from the internal to the spatial degrees of freedom without any interaction between these degrees of freedom. Moreover, subensembles selected by local measurements of the path will, in general, have different amounts of entanglement in the internal degrees of freedom depending on the statistics (either fermionic or bosonic) of the particles involved.