Quantum theory shows that natural laws cannot be understood as ruling single events since the latter occur randomly. Nevertheless, the physical world shows everywhere order whose source cannot be represented by the latter. It is shown that this order is due to the presence of quantum correlations. Since their e↵ect is to reduce the space of the possible events, they can be considered as causal factors. However, being correlations, they do not display the dynamic character that would be required in order to produce a determinate e↵ect. This is why they need additional local factors in order to concur to the production of a certain event. If not so, this would even imply a violation of Einstein’s locality since correlations could be used by themselves to transmit superluminal signals. Due to such a character of correlation, they can be understood as kind of potential reality needing actual (and local) context to be e↵ective. This allows also a distinction that is classically unknown between locality and globality. Such a distinction solves the important problem of measurement showing that ultimately we have irreversible local processes while globally everything is still reversible. In particular, it is a shift of information that can explain this local phenomenon. In fact, quantum systems are essentially information and also the measurement process is ultimately a dealing with information: information processing (preparing a system), information sharing (coupling a system with an apparatus) and information selection (detecting). State, observable and property appear as equivalence classes of these three procedures, respectively. Finally, the distinction between interpreted and uninterpreted ontology is considered in a Kantian perspective, but it is also shown that the approach supported here is rather a critical realism.
Quantum theory shows that natural laws cannot be understood as ruling single events since the latter occur randomly. Nevertheless, the physical world shows everywhere order whose source cannot be represented by the latter. It is shown that this order is due to the presence of quantum correlations. Since their e↵ect is to reduce the space of the possible events, they can be considered as causal factors. However, being correlations, they do not display the dynamic character that would be required in order to produce a determinate e↵ect. This is why they need additional local factors in order to concur to the production of a certain event. If not so, this would even imply a violation of Einstein’s locality since correlations could be used by themselves to transmit superluminal signals. Due to such a character of correlation, they can be understood as kind of potential reality needing actual (and local) context to be e↵ective. This allows also a distinction that is classically unknown between locality and globality. Such a distinction solves the important problem of measurement showing that ultimately we have irreversible local processes while globally everything is still reversible. In particular, it is a shift of information that can explain this local phenomenon. In fact, quantum systems are essentially information and also the measurement process is ultimately a dealing with information: information processing (preparing a system), information sharing (coupling a system with an apparatus) and information selection (detecting). State, observable and property appear as equivalence classes of these three procedures, respectively. Finally, the distinction between interpreted and uninterpreted ontology is considered in a Kantian perspective, but it is also shown that the approach supported here is rather a critical realism.
We look into the ontology of quantum theory as distinct from that of the classical theory in the sciences, following a broadly Kantian tradition and distinguishing between the noumenal and phenomenal realities where the former is independent of our perception while the latter is assembled from the former by means of fragmentary bits of interpretation. Within this framework, theories are conceptual constructs applying to models generated in the phenomenal world within limited contexts.The ontology of quantum theory principally rests on the view that entities in the world are pervasively correlated with one another not by means of probabilities as in the case of the classical theory, but by means of probability amplitudes involving finely tuned phases of quantum mechanical states (entanglement). The quantum correlations are shared globally in the process of environment-induced decoherence whereby locally generated correlations are removed, the removal being especially manifest in the case of systems that appear as classical ones, in which case the process is almost instantaneous, being, in all likelihood, driven by field fluctuations in the Planck regime. This points to factors of an unknown nature determining its finest details, since Planck scale physics remains an obscure terrain. In other words, the present day quantum theory holds within a limited context set by the Planck scale.
Abstract Quantum mechanics and relativity are two of the most successful theoretical frameworks in modern physics, yet their conceptual foundations remain difficult to reconcile at the deepest level. Quantum theory describes physical systems through states, observables, probabilities, measurement contexts, superposition, entanglement, and nonclassical correlations. Relativity describes physical processes through space-time structure, causal order, invariant physical law, observer-dependent decomposition of time and space, and constraints on signal propagation. This article examines the conceptual relationship between quantum measurement, relativistic causality, and space-time description. The purpose is not to present a mathematical unification but to analyze how the two frameworks organize physical explanation differently and where their interpretive tensions arise. Special attention is given to the measurement problem, the status of quantum states, the role of observers and reference frames, the meaning of locality, the distinction between correlation and causal influence, and the challenge of describing quantum processes without privileging a single global time. The article argues that many apparent conflicts between quantum theory and relativity result from importing classical intuitions into domains where they no longer apply. Quantum entanglement does not permit controllable faster-than-light communication, yet it challenges classical separability. Relativity forbids superluminal signaling, yet it does not require that all physically meaningful correlations be reducible to local classical properties. Measurement introduces another difficulty because standard quantum theory often describes state update in a way that appears instantaneous, while relativistic space-time does not provide a universal present. The discussion develops a conceptual framework in which quantum measurement is treated as a physical interaction, relativistic causality as a constraint on operational influence, and space-time description as an organizing structure for events rather than a simple background stage. This analysis is relevant for quantum field theory, quantum information, relativistic quantum foundations, and future approaches to quantum gravity.
Recent works in foundations of quantum (field) theory and relativistic quantum information try to better grasp the interplay between the structure of quantum correlations and the constraints imposed by causality on physical operations. Chapter 1 is dedicated to the study of the conceptual implications of quantum nonlocality, a concept that subsumes that of entanglement in a certain way. We detail the recent information-theoretic approaches to understanding the structure of nonlocal correlations, and the issues the latter raise concerning the ability of local observers to isolate a system from its environment. Chapter 2 reviews in what sense imposing Poincare invariance affects entanglement detection and quantification procedures. This invariance ultimately forces a description of all quantum systems within the framework of quantum field theory, which leads to the impossibility of localized finite-energy states and to the divergence of all entanglement measures for local observers. We provide a solution to these two problems by showing that there exists a generic equivalence between a finite spatial resolution of the measurement apparatus and the exclusion of high-energy degrees of freedom from the definition of the observed system. This equivalence allows for an epistemic interpretation of the standard quantum formalism describing nonrelativistic localized systems and their correlations, hence a clarification of the origin of the finite measures of entanglement between such systems. Chapter 3 presents a recent theoretical framework that predicts the existence of correlations with indefinite causal order. In analogy to the information-theoretic approaches to nonlocal correlations, we introduce some principles that constrain the structure of such correlations, which is a first step toward a clear understanding of their physical origin.
The article analyzes the principal interpretations of quantum mechanics from the standpoint of an original conception of informational realism. It is shown that these interpretations can be unified within an informational ontology in which fundamental status is accorded to informational invariants of quantum constraints that are common to all empirically equivalent interpretations of quantum mechanics. A distinction is proposed between two informational layers: epistemic information (measurement data and the updating of knowledge on their basis) and ontic information (invariant structures and constraints). The first layer varies across interpretations, whereas the second is preserved, which explains their experimental equivalence. The proposed informational ontology is compared with other realist approaches, and its advantages are formulated and argued for. It is shown that all the interpretations considered, despite often incompatible philosophical foundations and worldviews, are equally dependent on a certain set of informational invariants, which prove to be primary with respect to any particular interpretation. This can be explained either by the fact that a unified descriptive model of real physical processes at the quantum level is still unknown, or – as argued in the present article – by the claim that the fundamental level consists of informational constraints, and that different descriptions are equivalent, with their differences explained by distinct perspectives. The novelty and contribution of the article consist in proposing an operational definition of a falsifiable class of invariants and constraints on operations that are stable under changes of perspective; providing a unified translational vocabulary for interpretations in terms of the two informational layers; showing that their empirical equivalence is explained by the preservation of the same ontic layer; and formulating a criterion for distinguishing interpretations from alternative theories. Taken together, this allows informational ontology to be regarded as a meta-position with respect to these interpretations.
Quantum nonlocality has been a long-standing and fascinating problem in the foundations of quantum theory since its proof by the Bell inequality. It seems to contradict our intuitive picture of space-time and thus urges us to reconsider its foundation. With the advent of quantum information science, it has attracted renewed interest from a fundamental point of view as well as from a quantum information-theoretic one. Another fundamental question on the nature of quantum theory is how we understand what quantum states represent. (Quantum states hereafter refer to pure states.) This is also a long-standing problem since the early days of quantum theory. Roughly speaking, there are two conflicting views on this matter: one is ontology and the other is epistemology. Ontological models of quantum theory are models in which we assume some underlying reality for physical systems and require that all the predictions of quantum theory should be reproduced. The ontological models are divided into two categories, depending on which views the models are based on, ontology or epistemology. In the models based on ontology, quantum states represent the underlying reality in some sense, and different quantum states correspond to different realities. In the models based on epistemology, quantum states do not necessarily correspond to the underlying realities, and even different quantum states can be consistent with a common underlying reality. The former type of ontological models of quantum theory is called 1⁄4-ontic. The latter is called 1⁄4-epistemic. Thus, it might be rather confusing that ontological models are classified further into 1⁄4-ontic models and 1⁄4-epistemic ones. We use these terms here in accordance with the recent literature on quantum foundations. (For details of these notions in the ontological models of quantum theory, see the paper by Harrigan and Spekkens.) Quite recently, the question just mentioned has been answered by Pusey et al., and one of the above models has been refuted. It was shown that 1⁄4-epistemic models are inconsistent with the predictions of quantum theory. In other words, epistemological views on quantum states turned out to be false as long as we assume some underlying reality for physical systems. Therefore, only 1⁄4-ontic models of quantum theory are valid for describing quantum systems. This significantly advances our understanding on the nature of quantum states. It is expected that various conclusions will be drawn from this fact. In this paper, we will discuss a connection with nonlocality. The above two fundamental questions, nonlocality and the nature of quantum states, are intimately connected, and the connection was first implicitly recognised by Einstein in the early days of quantum theory. In a private correspondence with Schrodinger, Einstein constructed a fascinating argument that relates the above two. (That argument is distinctly different from the well-known EPR argument.) Recently, it was revisited and reconstructed in accordance with more rigorous notions in quantum foundations. Nonlocality is usually shown by violations of Bell inequalities. (Bell inequalities hereafter include all the subsequent developments such as the CHSH inequality.) Even if it is not clear whether the models of quantum theory are 1⁄4-ontic or 1⁄4-epistemic, we can prove nonlocality just by showing the violation of Bell inequalities. However, the above argument originated by Einstein implies that if we know the models are 1⁄4-ontic in advance (as we do now), we can prove nonlocality in a simpler way without Bell inequalities. (This argument had been known in quantum foundations before the refutation of 1⁄4-epistemic models.) Nonlocality is rigorously defined as a violation of the notion of local causality defined by Bell. Showing the violation of Bell inequalities is one way of demonstrating the violation of local causality. Since the simpler proof initiated by Einstein directly demonstrates the violation of local causality, it is a more straightforward proof of nonlocality from a conceptual point of view. In the following, we will see that this simple argument of nonlocality without Bell inequalities can be used to show multipartite nonlocality as well. Before moving onto multipartite cases, first let us define the necessary notions for presenting our result. First of all, we assume that there exists a complete specification of the properties of a physical system, which we refer to as the ontic state of that system. The ontic states represent the underlying realities and are not necessarily equal to ordinary quantum states. (In other words, the ontic states correspond to hidden variables.) Ontological models of quantum theory are models that assume ontic states and reproduce all the predictions of quantum theory. An important question is how ontic states correspond to quantum states in quantum theory. In order to frame the question accurately, we need the notion of an epistemic state, which represents the relation between them. Suppose we prepare a physical system in a quantum state 1⁄4. Although the system is uniquely specified as 1⁄4 in quantum theory, there still remains a possibility that it allows a more detailed specification in the ontic state space, in which case many different ontic states turn out to be consistent with 1⁄4. The relation between ontic states and the preparation procedure, P1⁄4, is described by a conditional probability distribution over the ontic state space, pð jP1⁄4Þ, which we refer to as an epistemic state. In general, the preparation P can be a preparation of a physical system in a mixed sate. Unless there exists a one-to-one correspondence between ontic states and quantum states, the probability distribution spreads over . (See Fig. 1.) The question of whether an ontological model is 1⁄4-ontic or 1⁄4-epistemic is concerned with the behaviour of the epistemic states for two distinct preparations of quantum states. Consider two distinct preparations of quantum states, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 82 (2013) 055003
Quantum entanglement produces correlations that violate classical locality constraints while remaining fully consistent with relativistic no-signaling. Although standard quantum mechanics predicts these correlations with extraordinary empirical success, the ontological meaning of entangled states and the physical status of wave-function collapse remain deeply debated. This paper develops a speculative but structured informational interpretation in which entangled subsystems are modeled as multiple local realizations of a single shared informational identity within an underlying finite-capacity substrate. The framework is articulated through explicit postulates, density-matrix analysis, entanglement entropy, a toy realization scheme, and an informational identity operator acting on composite states. Within this view, nonlocal correlations arise not from superluminal causal influence but from ontological non-separability at the informational level. Measurement is interpreted as informational resolution: a reduction of degeneracy in the local realization of a shared informational structure. The irreversible stabilization of outcomes is then linked to thermodynamic cost through Landauer-type reasoning. The proposal is not advanced as a replacement for quantum mechanics, nor as a fully worked-out hidden-variable theory, but as an ontological scaffold intended to unify entanglement, collapse, and thermodynamic irreversibility within an informational perspective. Compatibility with Bell inequalities, decoherence, basis selection, and no-signaling is discussed in detail, together with limitations and possible routes toward future formalization and empirical relevance.