Entanglement Is Shared Coherence: Bell's Theorem, Mutual Coherence, and Why No Local Description Captures Resonance

Lauri Elias Rainio

Published Mar 8, 2026• 0 citations

Abstract

The Spektre corpus has treated coherence as a property of individual systems. This paper extends it to interactions. When two systems meet, their joint coherence K_{A⊗B} is not in general the product K_A · K_B. The difference E(A,B) = K_{A⊗B} - K_A · K_B is the mutual coherence — the non-separable component belonging to neither system alone. At quantum scale, E > 0 is entanglement. Bell’s theorem proves mutual coherence cannot be reduced to local properties — a universal structural result, not a quantum peculiarity. The same structure appears at every scale: biological symbiosis, institutional alliance, orchestrated intelligence, and human resonance are all instances of E > 0. Destructive interference (E < 0) is the mechanism of conflict. The interaction equation governs how mutual coherence evolves through shared channels. An institutional Bell test is proposed: M&A outcomes should not be predictable from local institutional metrics alone. Part of the Spektre research corpus.

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18915983

Related papers

Coherence as a Universal Invariant: From Quantum Decoherence to Institutional Collapse

Lauri Elias Rainio

Establishes that the 1=1 invariant is the classical-scale instance of a universal coherence condition appearing at every level of physical organization. The quantum coherence condition S_vN = 0, the thermodynamic minimum-entropy state (k_B), the Fisher information geodesic endpoint (Cramér–Rao), and the evaluative fixed point (ECT) are identified as equivalent expressions of one invariant at different scales. The full correspondence chain: ℏ → S_vN = 0 → 1=1 → K(t) > K_crit → k_BT ln2 → I(K). Every coherent system is a Maxwell demon operating at its characteristic scale. Coherence is not emergent — it is the ground condition of physical reality. Part of the Spektre corpus (github.com/spektre-labs/corpus).

Mar 7, 20260 citations

On Quantum Entanglement and Nonlocality

Uddin, Mafiz

EPR showed that two particles emitted from a source can be entangled by a shared wavefunction where two non-commuting observables (position, momentum) can be simultaneously real, leading to a contradiction with quantum mechanics (two non-commuting variables can not be simultaneously real). John Bell derived an inequality where any local hidden variables prediction is bounded and quantum mechanics can violate the inequality. Bell tests on correlated photon pairs showed a clear violation of the Bell inequality and agreement with quantum mechanics. This study revealed that the Bell inequality holds at any individual instances in a given system but it does not hold over the entire population. The Bell inequality is not an incompatibility criterion for local hidden variables vs quantum mechanics rather it is a criterion for an individual nature vs population dynamics. The nonlocality prediction given by wavefunction is a system approximation and local causality (photon polarization) provides a complete description of the Bell tests. The paper concludes with great satisfaction that the measurement of two correlated photons at a distance was a local cause (photon-filter interaction did not violate the special theory of relativity).

arXiv:2506.00366May 31, 20250 citations

Entanglement without the Entangled State: A Local Theory of Qubits with an Extended Born Rule

Sermet Yücel

Entangled qubits are interconnected at any separation. Quantum mechanics represents the interconnection by one unfactorizable entangled state. A measurement at one station collapses the entangled state and fixes the state assigned to the other qubit, depending on the outcome. Interpreted as physics, the entangled state and wavefunction collapse conflict with Einstein's separability and locality. We resolve the conflict by Corpuscular Quantum Mechanics, which replaces the entangled state with source constraints and reproduces the quantum joint probabilities exactly. Each qubit leaves the source carrying one of two definite states and an unshared random variable. An extended Born rule assigns a generally complex coefficient to the transition from the source-assigned state to the recorded outcome, using only what the qubit carries and the locally chosen measurement direction. Averaging products of the coefficients over the source ensemble returns the joint probabilities. Nothing is fitted. An exact identity maps the amplitudes of any pure n-qubit state to the source constraints. We prove the random variables admit a positive distribution meeting the constraints. The identity yields the joint probabilities of the Bell, Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger, Eberhard, W, Hardy, and Dicke states for arbitrary directions. The resolution requires no action at a distance, no collapse, and no outcomes for unperformed measurements. The one change is that the event-level quantity is a transition coefficient, not a probability. Bell's theorem therefore does not apply. Quantum mechanics is thus one recipe for computing the correlations, and the entangled state is a feature of the recipe, not of nature.

Sep 14, 20260 citations

Non-locality of experimental qutrit pairs

Christian Bernhard, Bänz Bessire, A. Montina +3 more

The insight due to John Bell that the joint behavior of individually measured entangled quantum systems cannot be explained by shared information remains a mystery to this day. We describe an experiment, and its analysis, displaying non-locality of entangled qutrit pairs. The non-locality of such systems, as compared to qubit pairs, is of particular interest since it potentially opens the door for tests of bipartite non-local behavior independent of probabilistic Bell inequalities, but of deterministic nature. This article is part of a special issue of Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical devoted to '50 years of Bell's theorem'.

arXiv:1402.5026Journal of Physics A Mathematical and TheoreticalOct 9, 201424 citations

Entanglement and Nonlocal Coherence: Why Nonlocality Is Natural in a Phase Ontology

Rob ten Napel

Entanglement and Nonlocal Coherence: Why Nonlocality Is Natural in a Phase Ontology (Phase Ontology — Part IV) reframes quantum entanglement by changing the usual starting assumption. The paper argues that entanglement only looks paradoxical if spacetime separation is assumed to imply ontological separation. If phase coherence is treated as a primary layer of reality (as developed in Parts I–III), then nonlocal correlations become expected rather than mysterious. In this view, entangled systems share a single coherent phase structure prior to measurement. Measurement is described as local phase locking: an interaction with a detector stabilizes a definite outcome locally, while the joint correlations arise because both outcomes are constrained by the same underlying phase structure. No superluminal signal is required; correlations are revealed rather than transmitted. The paper also addresses compatibility with relativity: since no information is communicated faster than light, relativistic causality remains intact. Locality is treated as an emergent property of spacetime, while coherence relations can be nonlocal because they are not fundamentally “in spacetime” to begin with. This manuscript is Part IV of a seven-part series (Parts I–VII). It connects the measurement framework of Part III to entanglement and points ahead to Part V (time, irreversibility) and Part VII (experimental implications and falsifiability).

Feb 15, 20260 citations

No Spooky Action: Entanglement as Shared Resonance in Aetherium

A L DeVilliers

Quantum entanglement is often interpreted as implying nonlocal influence or instantaneous collapse. In the Aetherium framework, entanglement is instead understood as a single coherence structure spanning multiple degrees of freedom within a pre‑geometric constraint architecture. Coherence does not propagate, time is relational, and measurement corresponds to a coherence‑reconfiguration event that selects a resonance‑compatible attractor for the entire shared structure. Bell correlations arise from the substrate’s resonance‑compatibility constraints rather than from nonlocal causation or hidden variables. Classical locality emerges only after coherence stabilizes into separate attractor states through decoherence. This coherence‑first ontology provides a single‑world, realist, and local account of entanglement that dissolves the appearance of “spooky action at a distance.” Keywords: Aetherium; entanglement; coherence; measurement problem; Bell correlations; pre‑geometric substrate; quantum foundations; decoherence; locality; resonance‑compatibility

Feb 15, 20260 citations