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

European Journal of Applied Physics

A Simple Note on the Statistical Nature of and the Underlying Reason for Quantum Entanglement

Gregory L. Light

Published May 20, 2026• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

We present quantum entanglement, statistically, as correlated random variables and show its presence in data analysis, such as in regression. We propose that the reason underling an entanglement is that there exists some “binding factor” for the entangled variables. In the social economic sphere, often it is time, while in physics, it is gravity.

DOI
10.24018/ejphysics.2026.8.3.11388

Related papers

Experiment Data Indicates Quantum Entanglement May not be Non-Local

Krishan Vats

This is a statistical analysis of the experimental data used in a recent paper [M. Giustina et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 250401 (2015)], published at https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.03190. The data for this analysis was graciously made available by the authors as a private communication. This article is not meant in any way to comment upon the originally published findings of the experiment. Abstract – Till date, all experiments prove non-locality of quantum entanglement based upon overall statistical correlations and thus demonstrating that Bell’s inequality is violated. No detailed data analysis has been published yet. This article presents a first of its kind experimental analysis and it indicates that there is a real chance that entanglement may be local. This is a huge claim by any means. But it is necessary to make such dramatic claim due to two reasons – 1) It is based upon experimental data and can be tested and verified. 2) So that the QM community makes an effort to analyze detailed data to scrutinize the reality of entanglement. Due to large amount of data involved, experimentalists only look at data at aggregate level and do not scrutinize the raw data in full detail. When data of this experiment was analyzed at detail level, it was observed that non-locality of entanglement can not be settled until this kind of analysis is completed on data from multiple such experiments. The natural and prompt reaction from many may be to look for faults with this analysis without presenting the evidence that such analysis has already been completed. For curious people, observation is odd enough to be probed further. The complacent ones will look only for the faults, but those who welcome scrutiny, will challenge it with evidence and/or their own analysis at this detailed level. All sound theories welcome scrutiny and refute it with evidence. This article does not claim “classical mechanics” to be the solution. Quantum Mechanics predictions are correct in terms of averages. This analysis indicates that the statistical correlation percent of entanglement may be guided/balanced by some real/local mechanism rather than being independently probabilistic and spooky. It presents an intuitive mechanism that can explain statistical correlations without entanglement being non-local or entanglement being defined in a different way then it currently is. The scope of this article is only statistical data. Anti correlation (Bell’s state, when measured in the same angle) is always true, therefore it is not statistical in nature and is left out of scope. Moreover perfect anti correlation can easily be explained as a direct consequence of conservation laws. In fact, perfect anti correlation is a big red flag to the probabilistic nature. There is no such thing as zero, or one probability. Zero or one probability would actually be a law, not probability. So, perfect anti correlation itself indicates that the outcomes of entanglement can not be probabilistic; they have to be governed by law, not probability. If some balancing mechanism is found to exist then (in terms of magnitude), it really operates within probabilistic limits thereby making it very difficult to differentiate it from probabilistic nature. Therefore a detailed data analysis on many such experiments is necessary to rule it in/out. In fact it would require special experiments for its independent investigation. This can also explain why the correlations have been considered probabilistic for such a long history. Therefore, this type of experimental investigation is a must in order to conclude existence/nonexistence of non-local entanglement. By the time this revision is written, another experiment has been analyzed and published at http://vixra.org/abs/1611.0148 Both of the recent experiments give similar indications.

•Sep 1, 2016•0 citations

Counterpropagating continuous-variable entangled states in lossy coupled-cavity optical waveguides

Hossein Seifoory, L. G. Helt, John E. Sipe +1 more

We present an integrated source of counterpropagating entangled states based on a coupled resonator optical waveguide that is pumped by a classical pulsed source incident from above the waveguide. We investigate theoretically the generation and propagation of continuous-variable entangled states in this coupled-cavity system in the presence of intrinsic loss. Using a tight-binding approximation, we derive analytic time-dependent expressions for the number of photons in each cavity, as well as for the correlation variance between the photons in different pairs of cavities, to evaluate the degree of quantum entanglement. We also derive simple approximate expressions for these quantities that can be used to guide the design of such systems, and discuss how pumping configurations and physical properties of the system affect the photon statistics and the degree of quantum correlation.

arXiv:1905.11542•Physical Review A•Sep 30, 2019•5 citations

How come the Correlations?

Nicolas Gisin

In relativity there is space-time out there. In quantum mechanics there is entanglement. Entanglement manifests itself by producing correlations between classical events (e.g. the firing of some detectors) at any two space-time locations. If the locations are time-like separated, i.e. one is in the future of the other, then there is no specific difficulty to understand the correlations. But if the two locations are space-like separated, the problem is different. How can the two space-time locations out there know about what happens in each other without any sort of communication? If space-time really exists, the locations must do something like communicating. Or it was all set up at the Beginning. But the correlations depend also on the free choice of the experimentalists, one in each space-time location. This allowed John Bell to derive his inequality and the experimentalists to violate it, thus refuting the assumption that it was all set up at the beginning: the Correlations can't be explained by common causes.

arXiv:quant-ph/0503007•Mar 1, 2005•5 citations

Quantum nonlocality: How does nature do it?

Adán Cabello

In a recent note, Hance and Hossenfelder (arXiv:2211.01331) recall that "locally causal completions of quantum mechanics are possible, if they violate the assumption [called statistical independence or measurement independence] that the hidden variables do not in any way depend on measurement settings" and that, consequently, the experimental violations of Bell inequalities "show that maintaining local causality requires violating statistical independence". However, Hance and Hossenfelder also argue that "we should (...) look for independent experimental evidence that can distinguish the two different options: non-locality and statistical independence, or locality and violations of statistical independence" and that "the unwillingness to consider theories without statistical independence may be the reason we do not yet have a locally causal theory for the foundations of physics that is consistent with general relativity". Here, we recall that there is a third option, namely, rejecting that measurement outcomes are governed in any way by hidden variables. Moreover, we argue that some recent results in the search for principles singling out the sets of quantum correlations for Bell and Kochen-Specker contextuality scenarios point out that this third option is scientifically more plausible and answers the question of why and how nature produces quantum nonlocality.

arXiv:2211.06476•Nov 11, 2022•2 citations

Why entanglement?

Huw Price, Ken Wharton

In this piece, written for a general audience, we propose a mechanism for quantum entanglement. The key ingredient is the familiar statistical phenomenon of collider bias, or Berkson's bias. In the language of causal models a collider is a variable causally influenced by two or more other variables. Conditioning on a collider typically produces non-causal associations between its contributing causes, even if they are actually independent. It is easy to show that this phenomenon can produce associations analogous to Bell correlations, in suitable post-selected ensembles. It is also straightforward that such collider artefacts may become real connections, resembling causality, if a collider is 'constrained' (e.g., by a future boundary condition). We consider the time-reversed analogues of these points in the context of retrocausal models of QM. Retrocausality yields a collider at the source of an EPR-Bell particle pair, and in this case constraint of the collider is possible by normal methods of experimental preparation. It follows that connections resembling causality may be expected to emerge across such colliders, from one branch of the experiment to the other. Our hypothesis is that this constrained retrocausal collider bias is the origin of entanglement. The piece is based on a suggestion first made in arXiv:2101.05370 [quant-ph].

•Dec 14, 2022•0 citations

Bell's Inequalities In 4-dimension Rieman's Space

T. F. Kamalov

It is shown that the nature of quantum statistics can study in assumption of existence of a background of random gravitational fields and waves, distributed isotropically in the space. This background is capable of correlating phases of oscillations of identical microobjects. If such a background of random gravitational fields and waves is considered as hidden variables. It is shown that the classic physical of Bells observable in the 4-dimensions Rieman's space gives the value matching the experimental data. The nature of the entanglement states we are study here.

arXiv:quant-ph/0109153•Sep 28, 2001•0 citations
We present quantum entanglement, statistically, as correlated random variables and show its presence in data analysis, such as in regression. We propose that the reason underling an entanglement is that there exists some “binding factor” for the entangled variables. In the social economic sphere, often it is time, while in physics, it is gravity.
This is a statistical analysis of the experimental data used in a recent paper [M. Giustina et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 250401 (2015)], published at https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.03190. The data for this analysis was graciously made available by the authors as a private communication. This article is not meant in any way to comment upon the originally published findings of the experiment. Abstract – Till date, all experiments prove non-locality of quantum entanglement based upon overall statistical correlations and thus demonstrating that Bell’s inequality is violated. No detailed data analysis has been published yet. This article presents a first of its kind experimental analysis and it indicates that there is a real chance that entanglement may be local. This is a huge claim by any means. But it is necessary to make such dramatic claim due to two reasons – 1) It is based upon experimental data and can be tested and verified. 2) So that the QM community makes an effort to analyze detailed data to scrutinize the reality of entanglement. Due to large amount of data involved, experimentalists only look at data at aggregate level and do not scrutinize the raw data in full detail. When data of this experiment was analyzed at detail level, it was observed that non-locality of entanglement can not be settled until this kind of analysis is completed on data from multiple such experiments. The natural and prompt reaction from many may be to look for faults with this analysis without presenting the evidence that such analysis has already been completed. For curious people, observation is odd enough to be probed further. The complacent ones will look only for the faults, but those who welcome scrutiny, will challenge it with evidence and/or their own analysis at this detailed level. All sound theories welcome scrutiny and refute it with evidence. This article does not claim “classical mechanics” to be the solution. Quantum Mechanics predictions are correct in terms of averages. This analysis indicates that the statistical correlation percent of entanglement may be guided/balanced by some real/local mechanism rather than being independently probabilistic and spooky. It presents an intuitive mechanism that can explain statistical correlations without entanglement being non-local or entanglement being defined in a different way then it currently is. The scope of this article is only statistical data. Anti correlation (Bell’s state, when measured in the same angle) is always true, therefore it is not statistical in nature and is left out of scope. Moreover perfect anti correlation can easily be explained as a direct consequence of conservation laws. In fact, perfect anti correlation is a big red flag to the probabilistic nature. There is no such thing as zero, or one probability. Zero or one probability would actually be a law, not probability. So, perfect anti correlation itself indicates that the outcomes of entanglement can not be probabilistic; they have to be governed by law, not probability. If some balancing mechanism is found to exist then (in terms of magnitude), it really operates within probabilistic limits thereby making it very difficult to differentiate it from probabilistic nature. Therefore a detailed data analysis on many such experiments is necessary to rule it in/out. In fact it would require special experiments for its independent investigation. This can also explain why the correlations have been considered probabilistic for such a long history. Therefore, this type of experimental investigation is a must in order to conclude existence/nonexistence of non-local entanglement. By the time this revision is written, another experiment has been analyzed and published at http://vixra.org/abs/1611.0148 Both of the recent experiments give similar indications.
We present an integrated source of counterpropagating entangled states based on a coupled resonator optical waveguide that is pumped by a classical pulsed source incident from above the waveguide. We investigate theoretically the generation and propagation of continuous-variable entangled states in this coupled-cavity system in the presence of intrinsic loss. Using a tight-binding approximation, we derive analytic time-dependent expressions for the number of photons in each cavity, as well as for the correlation variance between the photons in different pairs of cavities, to evaluate the degree of quantum entanglement. We also derive simple approximate expressions for these quantities that can be used to guide the design of such systems, and discuss how pumping configurations and physical properties of the system affect the photon statistics and the degree of quantum correlation.
In relativity there is space-time out there. In quantum mechanics there is entanglement. Entanglement manifests itself by producing correlations between classical events (e.g. the firing of some detectors) at any two space-time locations. If the locations are time-like separated, i.e. one is in the future of the other, then there is no specific difficulty to understand the correlations. But if the two locations are space-like separated, the problem is different. How can the two space-time locations out there know about what happens in each other without any sort of communication? If space-time really exists, the locations must do something like communicating. Or it was all set up at the Beginning. But the correlations depend also on the free choice of the experimentalists, one in each space-time location. This allowed John Bell to derive his inequality and the experimentalists to violate it, thus refuting the assumption that it was all set up at the beginning: the Correlations can't be explained by common causes.
In a recent note, Hance and Hossenfelder (arXiv:2211.01331) recall that "locally causal completions of quantum mechanics are possible, if they violate the assumption [called statistical independence or measurement independence] that the hidden variables do not in any way depend on measurement settings" and that, consequently, the experimental violations of Bell inequalities "show that maintaining local causality requires violating statistical independence". However, Hance and Hossenfelder also argue that "we should (...) look for independent experimental evidence that can distinguish the two different options: non-locality and statistical independence, or locality and violations of statistical independence" and that "the unwillingness to consider theories without statistical independence may be the reason we do not yet have a locally causal theory for the foundations of physics that is consistent with general relativity". Here, we recall that there is a third option, namely, rejecting that measurement outcomes are governed in any way by hidden variables. Moreover, we argue that some recent results in the search for principles singling out the sets of quantum correlations for Bell and Kochen-Specker contextuality scenarios point out that this third option is scientifically more plausible and answers the question of why and how nature produces quantum nonlocality.
In this piece, written for a general audience, we propose a mechanism for quantum entanglement. The key ingredient is the familiar statistical phenomenon of collider bias, or Berkson's bias. In the language of causal models a collider is a variable causally influenced by two or more other variables. Conditioning on a collider typically produces non-causal associations between its contributing causes, even if they are actually independent. It is easy to show that this phenomenon can produce associations analogous to Bell correlations, in suitable post-selected ensembles. It is also straightforward that such collider artefacts may become real connections, resembling causality, if a collider is 'constrained' (e.g., by a future boundary condition). We consider the time-reversed analogues of these points in the context of retrocausal models of QM. Retrocausality yields a collider at the source of an EPR-Bell particle pair, and in this case constraint of the collider is possible by normal methods of experimental preparation. It follows that connections resembling causality may be expected to emerge across such colliders, from one branch of the experiment to the other. Our hypothesis is that this constrained retrocausal collider bias is the origin of entanglement. The piece is based on a suggestion first made in arXiv:2101.05370 [quant-ph].
It is shown that the nature of quantum statistics can study in assumption of existence of a background of random gravitational fields and waves, distributed isotropically in the space. This background is capable of correlating phases of oscillations of identical microobjects. If such a background of random gravitational fields and waves is considered as hidden variables. It is shown that the classic physical of Bells observable in the 4-dimensions Rieman's space gives the value matching the experimental data. The nature of the entanglement states we are study here.