Name: Quantum non-locality and relativity
ISBN: 9781444331271

What Hacker News says

jostylrNov 2025

EPR's point is that there is nothing mysterious from a classical perspective of being able to deduce this. They were arguing against the presentation of QM as to there being no fact of the matter about what the momentum is before the measurement and that it randomly becomes whatever it becomes when measured. Their point is that if both particles are randomly collapsing into their choices, then they should disagree at some point unless there is some nonlocal causation happening. Einstein rejected nonlocal causation, reasonable given what he knew at the time, and thus the momentum measurement result must already be preordained by something and it is then like the classical setup.

Bell's work was to show that it had to be the nonlocal causation.

>Do you know some more formal article discussing the proposed experiments?

I do not know of an article, but Maudlin's book Quantum Non-locality and Relativity goes through the various notions of locality and what QM says about it. There is a chapter about signaling and another about causation. It also covers the GHZ scheme which is a non-probablistic version demonstrating non-locality. It is pretty clean.

>Do you know some more formal article discussing the proposed experiments?

I have not read them, but my understanding that Siddhant Das is pursuing these and here is a link to his Arxiv papers which talk about arrival time experiments though I do not know if it is directly about these.

https://arxiv.org/search/advanced?advanced=&terms-0-operator...

thread

LucOct 2025

They have written some good books too.

I especially like 'Quantum Mechanics and Experience' by David Z Albert (he's got a very peculiar style of writing that I enjoy), and 'Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity' by Tim Maudlin.

Not easy reading, but manageable if you have a physics degree.

thread

n4r9Jul 2018

Without some notion of space-time you could not have a meaningful notion of locality, therefore Bell's Theorem is a non-issue. But you don't need a relativistic space-time for Bell's Theorem, any space-time in which physical influences travel at a bounded speed will suffice.

Bell's Theorem does, however, create an uneasy tension between quantum theory and special relativity. Tim Maudlin writes quite a good book about this called "Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity".

thread

xpeMay 2023

> Given equivalent mathematical descriptions of something, they are all just as true, or just as false.

I don't mean to discount this statement, but it is a tautology.

> ... it doesn't make them unequal in any other way than comprehension by humans.

Spot on.

> As humans, especially in mathematics, concepts are all we have. Dig deep enough, and you'll hit the wall of the unknown rather than the real. What is an electron, really? Is this question even answerable, or is it more refined concepts all the way down? Can you even perceive anything real, raw, without interpreting it into a high level concept like a color or a neuron firing (Kant comes to mind).

Your comments and questions are temporally relevant to my recent experience; I'm listening to a podcast discussion between Tim Mauldin and Sam Harris: "#318, Physics & Philosophy, A Conversation with Tim Maudlin", "the author of books on the foundations of physics, logic, and foundations of mathematics. His books include Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity, Truth and Paradox, The Metaphysics Within Physics, Philosophy of Physics: Space and Time, and Philosophy of Physics: Quantum Theory." My background includes engineering and philosophy, and I plan on reading more of Mauldin's work.

To your credit, your paragraph above is in some ways a better summary of the concepts in play than the podcast above. [1] This particular interview shows Harris not at his best, but Mauldin shines.

That said, I'm puzzled by your sentence "Dig deep enough, and you'll hit the wall of the unknown rather than the real."

I claim that reality is still there, whether or not we see it or understand it. This is known as epistemological realism. Do you hold this view?

I agree that humans have the feeling of unknown as we do deeper "down the stack"; e.g. from molecules to atoms to quarks and so on. So why do we go deeper? Where do we stop? Scientists seek models for explanation and prediction. Philosophers seek truth. At some point, we stop. Why? Likely because (1) we run of technical ability; and/or (2) going further involves adding more words and concepts without aiding our 'project', whether it be models or truth.

I agree ([2]) with your rhetorical question "What is an electron, really?". An electron is either a composite of deeper things -- or we stop and say "it exists".

[1] Generally speaking, I've gained a lot of insight from Harris, his guests, and the ideas he highlights. ¶ I don't care much for caricatured or uncharitable characterizations of Harris (or anyone). These 'controversies' to me seem to be more of a sign of attention-seeking, brand-building, and tribe-definition than truth-seeking.

[2] Can one agree with a rhetorical question?

thread

dalySep 2020

De Broglie theory of matter waves suggests a particle is guided by a "pilot wave".

Aspect did an experiment that claimed entanglement collapse occurs at distances faster than light can travel.

Maudlin ("Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity") discusses super-luminal particles (tachyons) and discusses why, if they existed in general, they would undermine a lot of theory.

Consider a balloon. Starting at a point it expands when inflated. A puncture relieves stress all over the balloon very rapidly.

Now consider the point of entanglement of two particles. Assume that there is a "balloon-like surface" that connects the two particles no matter how far apart. Observation of one of the particles causes the entanglement to collapse into a definite state (aka, the balloon pops). Now assume that super-luminal "stress relief" occurs ONLY along the surface of the balloon. Then the other particle would also collapse into the same definite state.

So the De Broglie "pilot wave" is now a "balloon wave" in entanglement. The super-luminal assumption only occurs "on the balloon surface", a surface that only exists while the particles are entangled.

thread