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

The Philosophical Magazine A Journal of Theoretical Experimental and Applied Physics

Einstein was not wrong about our universe

Lev Vaidman A

Published May 11, 2026• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

There is a widespread view that Einstein's criticism of randomness and action at a distance in quantum mechanics was shown to be incorrect by precise Bell-type experiments. I will analyse randomness and action at a distance in various interpretations of quantum mechanics, in particular in Bohmian mechanics and many-worlds interpretation and will argue that there is no randomness and action at a distance if the latter is accepted.

DOI
10.1080/14786435.2026.2643002

Related papers

There Is No Action at a Distance in Quantum Mechanics, Spooky or Otherwise

S. P. Boughn

I feel compelled to respond to the frequent references to spooky action at a distance that often accompany reports of experiments investigating entangled quantum mechanical states. Most, but not all, of these articles have appeared in the popular press. As an experimentalist I have great admiration for such experiments and the concomitant advances in quantum information and quantum computing, but accompanying claims of action at a distance are quite simply nonsense. Some physicists and philosophers of science have bought into the story by promoting the nonlocal nature of quantum mechanics. In 1964, John Bell proved that classical hidden variable theories cannot reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics unless they employ some type of action at a distance. I have no problem with this conclusion. Unfortunately, Bell later expanded his analysis and mistakenly deduced that quantum mechanics and by implication nature herself are nonlocal. In addition, some of these articles present Einstein in caricature, a tragic figure who neither understood quantum mechanics nor believed it to be an accurate theory of nature. Consequently, the current experiments have proven him wrong. This is also nonsense.

arXiv:1806.07925•Jan 1, 2018•0 citations

Was Einstein Really Wrong? \\ Verification of Historical Misinterpretations in Quantum Mechanics

Akihito Sugawara

This preprint re-examines the widespread belief that “Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics.” While Einstein is often portrayed as rejecting quantum theory due to his criticism of its probabilistic interpretation, this simplified narrative does not accurately reflect his actual position or the historical context. The paper organizes Einstein’s original arguments, clarifies common misunderstandings—such as the misattribution that he “advocated hidden variables”—and reviews the development of Bell’s inequalities and their experimental tests. These experiments ruled out simple local hidden-variable models but did not fully resolve Einstein’s deeper concern: the possible incompleteness of quantum mechanics as a physical theory. By revisiting historical documents and theoretical developments, this work argues that Einstein’s critique was not a fundamental mistake but has been misinterpreted over time. The goal is to provide a more accurate understanding of the Einstein–Bohr debates and the conceptual foundations of quantum mechanics.

•Dec 26, 2025•0 citations

After Bell

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

We analyze foundational consequences of recently announced loophole free tests of violation of Bell's inequality. We consider two interpretations of these remarkable experiments. By the conventional one Einstein was wrong and Bohr was right, there is spooky action at a distance, quantum realism is incompatible with locality. However, we show that it is still possible to treat quantum mechanics without appealing to nonlocality or denying realism. We hope that this note will attract attention of the experts in quantum foundations and convince them to come with their own comments on the final Bell's test.

•Mar 29, 2016•3 citations

After Bell

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

We analyze foundational consequences of recently reported loophole free tests of violation of Bell's inequality. We consider two interpretations of these remarkable experiments. The conventional one is “Einstein was wrong and Bohr was right, there is spooky action at a distance, quantum realism is incompatible with locality.” However, in line with discussions in literature during last decade, we show that it is still possible to treat quantum mechanics without appealing to nonlocality or denying realism. We hope that this note will call the attention of experts in quantum foundations and convince them that the case is not closed, so that they should come with their own comments on the status of the final Bell test.

arXiv:1603.08674•Fortschritte der Physik•Sep 7, 2016•18 citations

What is wrong with action at a distance?

Stella Fillmore-Patrick

This thesis aims to legitimize the inclusion of action at a distance in scientific theories. I approach this task from two angles. In the first part, I show that action at a distance is a genuine metaphysical possibility. To do so, I examine how theorists in the history of science have justified their assumption of locality (and find these justifications inadequate), reconcile action at a distance with scientific explanation and show that it is not a threat to causation. In the second part, I consider an actual instance of action at a distance in nature: quantum nonlocality. Since action at a distance cannot be excluded through reason alone, if experience indicates action at a distance one may call it as such. I argue that action at a distance is the most viable theory by which to interpret quantum nonlocality.

•Jan 1, 2017•0 citations

Randomness? What Randomness?

Klaas Landsman

Abstract This is a review of the issue of randomness in quantum mechanics, with special emphasis on its ambiguity; for example, randomness has different antipodal relationships to determinism, computability, and compressibility. Following a (Wittgensteinian) philosophical discussion of randomness in general, I argue that deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics (like Bohmian mechanics or ’t Hooft’s Cellular Automaton interpretation) are strictly speaking incompatible with the Born rule. I also stress the role of outliers, i.e. measurement outcomes that are not 1-random. Although these occur with low (or even zero) probability, their very existence implies that the no-signaling principle used in proofs of randomness of outcomes of quantum-mechanical measurements (and of the safety of quantum cryptography) should be reinterpreted statistically, like the second law of thermodynamics. In three appendices I discuss the Born rule and its status in both single and repeated experiments, review the notion of 1-randomness (or algorithmic randomness) that in various guises was investigated by Kolmogorov and others and treat Bell’s (Physics 1:195–200, 1964) Theorem and the Free Will Theorem with their implications for randomness.

arXiv:1908.07068•Foundations of Physics•Jan 18, 2020•25 citations
There is a widespread view that Einstein's criticism of randomness and action at a distance in quantum mechanics was shown to be incorrect by precise Bell-type experiments. I will analyse randomness and action at a distance in various interpretations of quantum mechanics, in particular in Bohmian mechanics and many-worlds interpretation and will argue that there is no randomness and action at a distance if the latter is accepted.
I feel compelled to respond to the frequent references to spooky action at a distance that often accompany reports of experiments investigating entangled quantum mechanical states. Most, but not all, of these articles have appeared in the popular press. As an experimentalist I have great admiration for such experiments and the concomitant advances in quantum information and quantum computing, but accompanying claims of action at a distance are quite simply nonsense. Some physicists and philosophers of science have bought into the story by promoting the nonlocal nature of quantum mechanics. In 1964, John Bell proved that classical hidden variable theories cannot reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics unless they employ some type of action at a distance. I have no problem with this conclusion. Unfortunately, Bell later expanded his analysis and mistakenly deduced that quantum mechanics and by implication nature herself are nonlocal. In addition, some of these articles present Einstein in caricature, a tragic figure who neither understood quantum mechanics nor believed it to be an accurate theory of nature. Consequently, the current experiments have proven him wrong. This is also nonsense.
This preprint re-examines the widespread belief that “Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics.” While Einstein is often portrayed as rejecting quantum theory due to his criticism of its probabilistic interpretation, this simplified narrative does not accurately reflect his actual position or the historical context. The paper organizes Einstein’s original arguments, clarifies common misunderstandings—such as the misattribution that he “advocated hidden variables”—and reviews the development of Bell’s inequalities and their experimental tests. These experiments ruled out simple local hidden-variable models but did not fully resolve Einstein’s deeper concern: the possible incompleteness of quantum mechanics as a physical theory. By revisiting historical documents and theoretical developments, this work argues that Einstein’s critique was not a fundamental mistake but has been misinterpreted over time. The goal is to provide a more accurate understanding of the Einstein–Bohr debates and the conceptual foundations of quantum mechanics.
We analyze foundational consequences of recently announced loophole free tests of violation of Bell's inequality. We consider two interpretations of these remarkable experiments. By the conventional one Einstein was wrong and Bohr was right, there is spooky action at a distance, quantum realism is incompatible with locality. However, we show that it is still possible to treat quantum mechanics without appealing to nonlocality or denying realism. We hope that this note will attract attention of the experts in quantum foundations and convince them to come with their own comments on the final Bell's test.
We analyze foundational consequences of recently reported loophole free tests of violation of Bell's inequality. We consider two interpretations of these remarkable experiments. The conventional one is “Einstein was wrong and Bohr was right, there is spooky action at a distance, quantum realism is incompatible with locality.” However, in line with discussions in literature during last decade, we show that it is still possible to treat quantum mechanics without appealing to nonlocality or denying realism. We hope that this note will call the attention of experts in quantum foundations and convince them that the case is not closed, so that they should come with their own comments on the status of the final Bell test.
This thesis aims to legitimize the inclusion of action at a distance in scientific theories. I approach this task from two angles. In the first part, I show that action at a distance is a genuine metaphysical possibility. To do so, I examine how theorists in the history of science have justified their assumption of locality (and find these justifications inadequate), reconcile action at a distance with scientific explanation and show that it is not a threat to causation. In the second part, I consider an actual instance of action at a distance in nature: quantum nonlocality. Since action at a distance cannot be excluded through reason alone, if experience indicates action at a distance one may call it as such. I argue that action at a distance is the most viable theory by which to interpret quantum nonlocality.
Abstract This is a review of the issue of randomness in quantum mechanics, with special emphasis on its ambiguity; for example, randomness has different antipodal relationships to determinism, computability, and compressibility. Following a (Wittgensteinian) philosophical discussion of randomness in general, I argue that deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics (like Bohmian mechanics or ’t Hooft’s Cellular Automaton interpretation) are strictly speaking incompatible with the Born rule. I also stress the role of outliers, i.e. measurement outcomes that are not 1-random. Although these occur with low (or even zero) probability, their very existence implies that the no-signaling principle used in proofs of randomness of outcomes of quantum-mechanical measurements (and of the safety of quantum cryptography) should be reinterpreted statistically, like the second law of thermodynamics. In three appendices I discuss the Born rule and its status in both single and repeated experiments, review the notion of 1-randomness (or algorithmic randomness) that in various guises was investigated by Kolmogorov and others and treat Bell’s (Physics 1:195–200, 1964) Theorem and the Free Will Theorem with their implications for randomness.