The best case for thinking that quantum mechanics is nonlocal rests on Bell's Theorem, and later results of the same kind. However, the correlations characteristic of Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR)–Bell (EPRB) experiments also arise in familiar cases elsewhere in quantum mechanics (QM), where the two measurements involved are timelike rather than spacelike separated; and in which the correlations are usually assumed to have a local causal explanation, requiring no action-at-a-distance (AAD). It is interesting to ask how this is possible, in the light (...) of Bell's Theorem. We investigate this question, and present two options. Either (i) the new cases are nonlocal too, in which case AAD is more widespread in QM than has previously been appreciated (and does not depend on entanglement, as usually construed); or (ii) the means of avoiding AAD in the new cases extends in a natural way to EPRB, removing AAD in these cases too. There is a third option, viz., that the new cases are strongly disanalogous to EPRB. But this option requires an argument, so far missing, that the physical world breaks the symmetries which otherwise support the analogy. In the absence of such an argument, the orthodox combination of views—action-at-a-distance in EPRB, but local causality in its timelike analogue—is less well established than it is usually assumed to be. 1 Introduction1.1 Background1.2 Outline of the argument2 The Experiments2.1 Standard EPRB2.2 Sideways EPRB2.3 Comparing the experiments2.4 The need for beables3 The Symmetry Considerations3.1 The action symmetry3.2 Time-symmetry in SEPRB4 The Basic Trilemma4.1 An intuitive defence of Option III?5 Avoiding the Trilemma?6 The Classical Objection7 Defending Option III7.1 The free will argument7.2 Independence and consistency8 Entanglement and Epistemic Perspective. (shrink)

A 2015 experiment by Hanson and Delft colleagues provided further confirmation that the quantum world violates the Bell inequalities, being the first Bell test to close two known experimental loopholes simultaneously. The experiment was also taken to provide new evidence of ‘spooky action at a distance’. Here we argue for caution about the latter claim. The Delft experiment relies on entanglement swapping, and our main claim is that this geometry introduces an additional loophole in the argument from violation of the (...) Bell inequalities to action at a distance: the apparent action at a distance may be an artifact of ‘collider bias’. In the absence of retrocausality, the sensitivity of such experiments to this ‘Collider Loophole’ depends on the temporal relation between the entanglement swapping measurement C and the two measurements A and B between which we seek to infer a causal connection. CL looms large if the C is in the future of A and B, but not if C is in the past. The Delft experiment itself is the intermediate case, in which the separation is spacelike. We argue that this leaves it vulnerable to CL, unable to establish conclusively that it avoids it. (shrink)

Although the path-integral formalism is known to be equivalent to conventional quantum mechanics, it is not generally obvious how to implement path-based calculations for multi-qubit entangled states. Whether one takes the formal view of entangled states as entities in a high-dimensional Hilbert space, or the intuitive view of these states as a connection between distant spatial configurations, it may not even be obvious that a path-based calculation can be achieved using only paths in ordinary space and time. Previous work has (...) shown how to do this for certain special states; this paper extends those results to all pure two-qubit states, where each qubit can be measured in an arbitrary basis. Certain three-qubit states are also developed, and path integrals again reproduce the usual correlations. These results should allow for a substantial amount of conventional quantum analysis to be translated over into a path-integral perspective, simplifying certain calculations, and more generally informing research in quantum foundations. (shrink)

The path integral is not typically utilized for analyzing entanglement experiments, in part because there is no standard toolbox for converting an arbitrary experiment into a form allowing a simple sum-over-history calculation. After completing the last portion of this toolbox (a technique for implementing multi-particle measurements in an entangled basis), some interesting 4- and 6-particle experiments are analyzed with this alternate technique. While the joint probabilities of measurement outcomes are always equivalent to conventional quantum mechanics, differences in the calculations motivate (...) a number of foundational insights, concerning nonlocality, retrocausality, and the objectivity of entanglement itself. (shrink)

Although we use randomness when we don’t know any better, a principle of indifference cannot be used to explain anything interesting or fundamental. For example, in thermodynamics it can be shown that the real explanatory work is being done by the Second Law, not the equal a priori probability postulate. But to explain the interesting Second Law, many physicists try to retreat to a “random explanation,” which fails. Looking at this problem from a different perspective reveals a natural solution: boundary-based (...) explanations that arguably should be viewed as no less fundamental than other physical laws. (shrink)