Entanglement is often described as the quintessential quantum mystery — a strange, nonlocal connection between particles that seems to defy classical intuition. Two systems interact, then separate, yet measurements on one instantly affect the other. Einstein called it “spooky action at a distance.” Bell’s theorem and decades of experiments have confirmed that quantum correlations cannot be explained by any local hidden variable theory.
But what if the mystery arises not from the phenomenon itself, but from the framework used to describe it?
In standard interpretations, entanglement implies:
-
That systems are initially separable, become entangled through interaction, and then evolve independently,
-
That once entangled, they somehow maintain a nonlocal connection despite spatial separation,
-
That this connection is both real and non-causal, preserving relativistic constraints while violating classical expectations.
From a relational perspective, this entire framing collapses. Entanglement is not a strange link between separate things. It is a manifestation of non-separability: a sign that the assumption of independent systems was never valid to begin with.
1. Systems Are Not Given, but Cut
-
In object-based metaphysics, a system is an entity with boundaries, state, and dynamics,
-
In a relational ontology, a “system” is a perspectival construal — a temporary localisation of coherence within a relational field,
-
The assumption of separability is a cut, not a fact: a way of partitioning relational potential into analysable components.
2. Entanglement as Mutual Constraint
-
Entanglement does not arise between systems. It is the expression of coherence across a shared topology,
-
What appears as correlation between distinct measurements is in fact the relational residue of a field that never divided in the first place,
-
The field constrains how phenomena can actualise — not due to hidden variables or faster-than-light signals, but due to inherent non-separability.
3. Nonlocality Without Violation
-
In standard formulations, Bell inequalities are violated, suggesting some form of nonlocal influence,
-
But from a relational standpoint, locality is a property of a construal, not a fundamental feature of reality,
-
There is no signal from A to B — there is a shared field undergoing joint resolution under distinct constraint conditions.
4. The Fallacy of Subsystems
-
Much of quantum information theory treats entangled systems as tensor products of smaller Hilbert spaces — subsystems with individual identities,
-
But this decomposition presumes a separability that the entanglement itself discredits,
-
In relational terms, subsystems are derived abstractions — useful for analysis, but ontologically secondary to the whole configuration.
5. What Correlation Reveals
-
When we measure one part of an entangled configuration and infer something about the other, we are not learning about a distant object,
-
We are resolving a structure — constraining one aspect of the field, and thereby reshaping the coherence of the whole,
-
The “information” is not transmitted. It is constituted through construal — the act of local measurement restructures the potential for meaning elsewhere.
Closing
Entanglement is not a paradox. It is a symptom of ontological mismatch — the result of applying assumptions of separability to a domain where they no longer hold.
From a relational perspective, there are no “spooky actions,” no instantaneous influences. There are only patterns of coherence resolving under constraint. What we call “two systems” is simply a useful cut across a deeper unity — and entanglement is what appears when that cut is forced to reveal its limits.
In the next post, we’ll turn to the heart of this non-separability: the quantum field — not as a stage for particles to move through, but as the primary structure of potential from which all apparent individuation emerges.
No comments:
Post a Comment