We are IntechOpen,

the world’s leading publisher of

Open Access books
Built by scientists, for scientists

7,000
Open access books available
186,000
International authors and editors
200M Downloads

Our authors are among the

154
Countries delivered to
TOP 1%
most cited scientists
12.2%
Contributors from top 500 universities

Selection of our books indexed in the Book Citation Index

in Web of Science™ Core Collection (BKCI)

Interested in publishing with us?

Contact [email protected]
Numbers displayed above are based on latest data collected.
For more information visit www.intechopen.com
Chapter

Perspective Chapter: On the

Contradiction between Special
Relativity and Quantum
Entanglement
Yoram Kirsh

Abstract

Demonstrations of quantum entanglement (QE), which confirm the violation of

Bell’s inequality, indicate that under certain conditions action at a distance is possible.
This consequence seems to contradict the relativistic principle of causality, which
asserts that an effect never precedes its cause, in any reference frame. By analyzing a
numerical example of Bell’s experiment with entangled pairs of photons, we show how
observers in two inertial reference frames can disagree about the causality relation
between two events. One observer claims that event 1 is the cause of event 2, while the
other claims that event 1 is the result of event 2. The solution we suggest to the
paradox is that in entangled systems, one can find pairs of “entangled events” which
have symmetrical causality relations. Each of the events can serve as a cause or as an
effect, depending on the frame of reference in which they are observed.

Keywords: quantum entanglement, EPR paradox, special relativity, Bell’s inequality,

entangled events

1. Introduction

Recently, several independent “loophole-free Bell violation” experiments were

reported (e.g. [1–3]). These works, as well as previous demonstrations of quantum
entanglement (QE) since the pioneering work of Freedman and Clauser [4], have
shown that under certain conditions, action at a distance between entangled systems is
possible. A straightforward interpretation of the results is that faster-than-light (FTL)
or superluminal communication is feasible. This consequence may seem to contradict an
established tenet of Special Relativity (SR) that claims that FTL transfer of information
violates causality and is therefore impossible. The purpose of this chapter was to exam-
ine in detail where the conflict arises and to propose a possible solution to the paradox.
In fact, the paradox was already hidden in the Einstein-Podosky-Rosen (EPR)
thought experiment [5]. If two identical particles, A and B, move in opposite directions
after a brief interaction which ensured that vB = vA, and if at a specific moment, t0,
when A and B are far apart, the position of A and the momentum of B are measured,
1
Quantum Entanglement in High Energy Physics

one can know both the position and the momentum of A at t0, since pA = pB. The
authors claimed that this thought experiment contradicted Heisenberg’s uncertainty
principle, and consequently that quantum mechanics (QM) is incomplete.
In addition to this explicit criticism against QM, another claim can be based on the
EPR thought experiment, concerning an inconsistency between QM and SR. Suppose
we perform a very accurate measurement of the magnitude of the momentum of A
and find that it is pA. According to the uncertainty principle, the measurement
changes the state of A so that the uncertainty in its location becomes infinite, or very
large (since ΔpΔx ≈ ħ). But since A and B are entangled, the measurement should
change the state of B as well. If we now measure pB we should certainly get pB = pA
while the uncertainty in the location of B becomes infinite, or very large. This is a
substantial change in the wave function ΨB, which prior to the measurement on A,
could be presented by a wave packet in which both ΔxB and ΔpB were finite.
The question is, how is it possible that an operation made on A instantly influences
the state of B which, in principle, could be thousands of kilometers away from A. The
effect of the measurement on A on the state of B is immediate, since the time interval
Δt between the measurements on A and on B can be arbitrarily short. It seems to
contradict SR which claims that no interaction can travel faster than the speed of light.

2. The EPR paradox in the spin version

An alternative version of the EPR paradox is based on measuring the spin direc-
tion, instead of momentum and location [6]. In this version, A and B are particles with
spin 1/2, which were created with opposite spins (e.g., by the decay of a particle with
spin 0). They arrive at two detectors DA and DB where their spin directions are
measured with respect to an arbitrary z-axis. Due to the conservation of angular
momentum, if the spin of A is found to be positive (|+½i), then the spin of B must be
negative (|–½i), and vice versa. This is truly unrelated to the distance that separates
the particles at the moment of measurement.
If we repeat the measurement but measure both spins along the x-axis (perpen-
dicularly to the z-axis), the result will be the same. If the spin of A is found to be +½,
the measured spin of B will be –½, and vice versa. The results can be explained in two
different ways.

1. The particles are entangled in such a way that when one spin is measured, the
other spin becomes its opposite. The quantum state of the system, which could
be a combination of |+½i and |–½i for both particles prior to the measurement,
collapses into |+½i for particle A and |–½i for particle B (or vice versa) because
of the measurement. This is the QM or the Copenhagen explanation.

2. The two particles were created with definite (opposite) spins around any axis in
space we may choose. This is “the hidden variable” explanation.

Both explanations seem to be problematic. In order to illustrate the problem with

the first explanation, let us assume that particle A arrives at the detector DA and after
a short time interval, Δt, particle B arrives at the detector DB. The information about
the measured spin of A should travel from DA to DB faster than the speed of light,
since the distance between them can be many kilometers, while Δt can be arbitrarily
small. This seems to violate SR.
2
Perspective Chapter: On the Contradiction between Special Relativity and Quantum…
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1002231

According to the second explanation, no information is transferred from one

detector to the other. However, we have to assume that each of the two particles is
created with definite eigenvalues of both Sz and Sx. But, according to QM, two
perpendicular components of the angular momentum cannot be simultaneously in
defined states. If a particle has a definite spin direction relative to the z-axis, its spin
direction on the x-axis should be a superposition of |+½i and |–½i so that a measure-
ment can give each state with equal probabilities. If the information about the results
of potential measurements of the spin along any arbitrary axis exists prior to the
measurement, then that information must somehow be concealed. Hence, this model
was dubbed “hidden variables.”

3. Bell’s experimental setup for photons

Until the article of John Stewart Bell [7], no experiment was made in order to find
out which of the two explanations is true, since they were thought to be indistin-
guishable in terms of experimental results. Bell pointed out that the two explanations
predict the same results if DA and DB are oriented in the same direction in space.
However, the results predicted by the two explanations may differ, if the detectors
measure the spins in different directions. Bell adopted the spin example advocated by
Bohm and Aharonov [6], but since most experiments were made with photons (where
the polarization of the photon substitutes the spin component), it will be more con-
venient in the ensuing discussion to present Bell’s thought experiment with photons.
The following scheme, depicted in Figure 1, is a simplified version of the two-channel
experimental setup first employed by Aspect et al. [8].
A source (S) emits two photons, A and B, which travel in opposite directions and
have the same polarization state. The photons reach two detectors (e.g., sensitive
photomultipliers), DA and DB, which are able to detect single photons. In front of each
detector, there is a polarizer (PA and PB). If the photon passes the polarizer and arrives
at the detector, the event is registered as 1. If the photon is stopped by the polarizer
and does not reach the detector, the event is recorded as 0.
Let us assume first that the axes of both polarizers are oriented in the z direction, as
shown in Figure 1. Since the two photons were emitted with the same polarization, we
can assume that there will be perfect correspondence between the results recorded by

Figure 1.
The setup for Bell’s experiment with photons.

3
Quantum Entanglement in High Energy Physics

the two detectors: if one detector records the series: 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1..., the second
detector will record exactly the same series. On the other hand, if polarizer PA is
oriented in the z direction while polarizer PB is oriented in the x direction, there will
be a perfect mismatch between the results: if DA records 1 then DB will record 0, and
vice versa.
Suppose that there is an angle θ between the two polarizers. We define a “matching
function” F(θ), which is the ratio of the number of matches between the two detectors
to the total number of readings, in a long series of measurements. We also define a
“mismatch function” E(θ) as the percentage of mismatches between the two detec-
tors. It’s easy to see that:


EðθÞ ¼ 1–F ðθÞ for any θ (1)

F θ ¼ 00 ¼ 1; E θ ¼ 00 ¼ 0



(2)

F θ ¼ 900 ¼ 0; E θ ¼ 900 ¼ 1



(3)

Let us consider the case of θ = 00. The correlation between DA and DB (Eq. (2))
comes as no surprise if the initial polarization of the pair of photons is parallel to the z-
axis (|zi) or to the x-axis (|xi). However, we expect to get the same correlation, even
when the initial polarization of the photons forms an arbitrary angle ϕ (00 < ϕ < 900)
with the z-axis. In this case, the initial polarization prior to the measurement can be
considered as a superposition of |zi and |xi, and the measurement actually causes the
collapse of the wave function of each photon to one of the eigenstates, |zi or |xi. As
mentioned above, the fact that in two remote locations, the collapse is to the same
eigenstate can be explained in two alternative ways: the QM interpretation (which
involves an immediate action at a distance) or the hidden-variable model.

4. Bell’s inequality and Bell’s theorem

Let us explore the following four-stage thought experiment, which will lead us to
Bell’s Inequality.
Stage 1: PA and PB both point in the z direction (θ = 0), as shown in Figure 2-1.
Two entangled photons are emitted from the source. Photon A arrives at PA while
photon B arrives at PB. The readings of the two detectors will be the same all the time,
therefore E(θ) = 0.
Stage 2: PB is rotated counterclockwise at an angle θ (00 < θ < 450, e.g., θ = 150), as
shown in Figure 2-2. Once more, two photons are emitted from the source. Let us
assume that photon A passes through PA and reaches DA. The probability that photon
B will reach DB is no longer 100%; sometimes it will arrive at DB and sometimes it will
not. In some cases, photon A will be blocked while photon B arrives at DB. Therefore,
E(θ), which corresponds to the average mismatch between DA and DB, is no longer 0.
Stage 3: PB is restored to its previous position (parallel to the z-axis) while PA is
rotated clockwise at the same angle θ, as shown in Figure 2-3. The situation is symmet-
rical to Figure 2-2, and we expect the average mismatch to be E(θ) as in Stage 2.
Stage 4: We leave PA as in Stage 3, i.e., skewed at an angle θ clockwise. We rotate
PB anticlockwise at the same angle θ. The angle between the two polarizers is now 2θ,
as shown in Figure 2-4. We repeat the series of measurements that were performed in
the previous stages. The mismatch between DA and DB is now E(2θ).
4
Perspective Chapter: On the Contradiction between Special Relativity and Quantum…
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1002231

Figure 2.
A four-stage thought experiment that leads to Bell’s inequality.

We shall now see that the two models, which explain the correlation between the
readings of DA and the readings of DB, provide different predictions about the rela-
tionship between E(2θ) and E(θ). Therefore, by measuring E(θ) and E(2θ) for various
values of θ, it can be determined as to which of the two models is correct.
According to the hidden-variable model—that rejects action at a distance—there is
no connection between the two polarizers. There is no way that polarizer PA could
sense the state of polarizer PB. Therefore, the rotation of polarizer PB between Stage 3
and Stage 4 cannot affect polarizer PA. Consequently, at Stage 4, polarizer PA will
continue to pass or block photons with the same rate of mismatch which we would
get if PB stayed upright. In other words, at Stage 4, the mismatch between the
series a (which shows the readings of DA) and a hypothetical series c (which
represents the results we would get from DB at Stage 4, if PB remained upright) is
still E(θ).
By the same token, the mismatch between c and b (the actual readings of DB at
Stage 4) will also be E(θ). One might conclude that the mismatch between a and b will
be the sum of the mismatch between a and c and the mismatch between b and c,
namely, that E(2θ) = 2E(θ). However, this conclusion is too hasty. In some cases, an
element in a will be the opposite of the corresponding element in c, and the same
element in b will also be the opposite of the element in c. In this case, the elements in a
and in b will be identical. Therefore, the average mismatch between a and b at Stage 4,
namely E(2θ), can be 2E(θ) but can also be smaller than 2E(θ). We can write:

5
Quantum Entanglement in High Energy Physics

h i
’
Eð2θÞ ≤ 2EðθÞ Bell s inequality (4)

We can demonstrate the relation between E(2θ) and 2E(θ) by the following
example. Let us assume that.

c ¼ 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0 (5)

In order to create series a, we duplicate c but randomly change 4 of the 12 digits. To

create series b, we once more duplicate c and randomly change 4 of the 12 digits. The
mismatch between c and a as well as between c and b will be 1/3.

Eðc, aÞ ¼ Eðc, bÞ ¼ 1=3 (6)

If the elements of c, which were changed to create b, were different from the
elements of c which were changed to create a, the mismatch between a and b will be
2/3. However, if the same elements were changed in both cases, the mismatch
between a and b will be 0. In the general case, we can write:

Eða, bÞ ≤ 2=3 (7)

In correspondence with Eq. (4). Eq. (4) is Bell’s inequality for the specific experi-
mental procedure described above. According to Bell’s theorem, Eq. (4) would be
verified experimentally if the hidden-variable model is true. On the other hand, if
Bell’s inequality is violated, then the QM model is true.

5. E(θ) according to quantum mechanics

We can go on and evaluate E(θ) according to the traditional interpretation of QM.

Let us assume that in Stage 2 of the thought experiment described in Section 4, photon
A passes through PA and reaches DA. This means that the polarization of photon A is
parallel to the z-axis. Since the two photons are entangled, this is also the polarization
of photon B. The angle between the axes of PA and PB is θ. Therefore, the polarization
of photon B is skewed relatively to PB at an angle θ.
According to Malus’s law, when a polarized beam of light hits a perfect polarizer,
the intensity of the light that passes through the polarizer is given by:

I ¼ I0 cos 2 θ (8)

where I0 is the initial intensity and θ is the angle between the light’s direction of
polarization and the axis of the polarizer.
When we regard the beam as a stream of photons, we can ascribe to each photon a
defined direction of polarization which creates an angle θ with PB. According to Eq. (8),
out of N photons, approximately Ncos2θ will pass PB and about Nsin2θ will be blocked.
The probability that a single photon will reach DA or DB, while its companion will be
blocked at the other detector is therefore sin2θ, and this will be the average mismatch rate
in a long series of measurements1. Thus, according to QM, at Stages 2 and 3:

1
If photon A is blocked, the probability that photon B will pass is cos2(900–θ) = sin2θ

6
Perspective Chapter: On the Contradiction between Special Relativity and Quantum…
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1002231

EðθÞ ¼ sin 2 θ ðStages 2 and 3Þ (9)

In Stage 4, the angle between the polarizers is 2θ and, according to QM, the
mismatch rate will be:

Eð2θÞ ¼ sin 2 2θ (10)

If, for example, θ = 300, we shall get in Stages 2 and 3 a mismatch rate of:

E 300 ¼ sin 2 300 ¼ 0:52 ¼ 0:25



(11)

while in Stage 4 the mismatch rate will be:

E 600 ¼ sin 2 600 ¼ 0:75



(12)

In this case, E(2θ) > 2E(θ) in contrast to Bell’s inequality (Eq. (4)). Indeed, it’s easy
to prove that E(2θ) > 2E(θ) for any θ in the range: 00 < θ < 450.
To prove this, we notice that:

sin 2 ð2θÞ ¼ 4 sin 2 ðθÞ  cos 2 ðθÞ (13)

In the range 00 ≤ θ ≤ 450, the function cos2(θ) is a monotonically descending

function, which has a minimum at θ = 450, where cos2(θ) = 0.5. At that point:

sin 2 ð2θÞ ¼ 4sin2 ðθÞ  0:5 ¼ 2 sin 2 ðθÞ ðθ ¼ 45°Þ (14)

namely, for θ = 45°, E(2θ) = 2E(θ). If 00 < θ < 45° then cos(2θ) > 0.5
and sin2(2θ) > 2sin2(θ), which means that E(2θ) > 2E(θ), in contrast with Bell’s
inequality.
Figure 3 depicts E(θ) according to the QM description (E(θ) = sin2θ) in the range
00 ≤ θ ≤ 900. On the straight line (described by E(θ) = θ/900), the relation between
E(θ) and E(2θ) is: E(2θ) = 2E(θ). One can see that in the range 00 < θ < 45°, the
function E(θ) = sin2θ (which represents QM’s results) lies below the straight line,
while Bell’s inequality Eq. (4) is valid only for points that are above the straight line.
Thus, by performing the experiment described in Section 4, one can find out whether
the QM model or the hidden-variable model is correct.
In a pioneering work of Freedman and Clauser [4], an experiment similar to the
thought experiment described above was performed. They measured the polarization
correlation of two entangled photons emitted in an atomic cascade of calcium. The
wavelengths of the photons were 551.3 nm and 422.7 nm. The measurements were
made at nine different angles in the range 00 ≤ θ ≤ 90°. The results were in agreement
with quantum mechanics and violated Bell’s inequality to a high statistical accuracy.
Actually, the curve describing the results (Figure 3 in [4]) is similar to E(θ) = sin2θ in
Figure 3 above, except for the values on the vertical axis which reflect the fact that the
efficiency of the detectors was less than 100%. The authors considered the results as
strong evidence against local hidden-variable theories.
Over the years, additional experiments demonstrated clearly the violation of Bell’s
inequality. It was established that in experiments such as those described in the EPR
and Bell’s papers, a measurement performed on one particle does affect the other
particle which can be far away. The effect is immediate, indicating that a single

7
Quantum Entanglement in High Energy Physics

Figure 3.
The points depict E(θ) according to quantum mechanics (QM) (E(θ) = sin2θ). On the straight line
(described by E(θ) = θ/90°), E(2θ) = 2E(θ).

unified wave function continues to describe the two particles even when they are far
apart. Thus, a measurement performed on one particle causes the collapse of the wave
function in the other one as well. In order to resolve the contradiction between this
action at a distance and SR, we have to see why the contradiction arises in the first
place.

6. Special relativity and action at a distance

Let S and S0 denote two inertial reference frames. S0 is moving with respect to S at a
constant velocity υ along the x-axis. At time t = 0, the spatial axes and clocks of S and
S0 coincide. Suppose that an event that occurred in S, at point x1 in time t1 creates a
signal that travels at a velocity u. The signal arrives at point x2 in time t2 and creates a
second event there (e.g., turning on a lamp). The coordinates and times of the two
events in S0 are (x01, t01) and (x02, t02). According to the Lorentz transformation:
 υx1   υx2 
t01 ¼ γ t1 ; t02 ¼ γ t2 (15)
c2 c2
½
Where γ = 1/(1–υ 2/c2) . From (15), we get:

Δt0 ¼ γ Δt–υΔx=c2


(16)

Where Δt0 = t02 – t01; Δt = t2 – t1; Δx = x2 – x1.

Since Δx = uΔt, we can write:
8
Perspective Chapter: On the Contradiction between Special Relativity and Quantum…
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1002231

Δt0 ¼ γ Δt 1–uυ=c2


(17)

If the signal velocity u is greater than the speed of light (u > c), we can define
a reference frame S0 that moves at a velocity υ which is smaller than c but close
enough to c so that uυ /c2 > 1 (in order for that to happen, υ should meet the
condition c > v > c2/u). The expression (1 – uυ/c2) in Eq. (17) will be negative, and
therefore if Δt is positive, Δt0 should be negative and vice versa. Thus, in S0 , event 1
will occur after event 2 and an observer in S0 would see the effect precede its
cause. For example, let u = 1.1c and Δx = c  1 s while υ = 0.98c (γ = 5.025). With these
values:
Δt = Δx/u = 0.9091 s.
Δt0 = 5.025  0.9091(1–0.98  1.1) = 0.356 s.
The minus sign indicates that the order of events in S and S0 is reversed. According
to an observer in S0 , event 1 (which is the cause of event 2) occurred 0.356 s after
event 2. The assumption that a signal can travel faster than the speed of light leads to a
violation of the relativistic principle of causality, which asserts that an effect never
precedes its cause, in any reference frame. This is why SR forbids instantaneous action
at a distance as well as traveling of matter, energy, or information at speeds greater
than the speed of light.
In order to demonstrate the inconsistency of Bell-like experiments with SR, let us
return to Stage 1 in the experiment described in Section 4. Both polarizers PA and PB
are oriented in the z direction (θ = 0), as shown in Figure 2-1. Thus, the readings of
the two detectors are the same all the time and E(θ) = 0. Let us assume that DA, DB,
and the source are on the x-axis of a rest frame S. The source is at x0 = 0 and the
coordinates of DA and DB are:

x1 ¼ xðDA Þ ¼ 15 m; x2 ¼ xðDB Þ ¼ 15:3 m (18)

In order to facilitate the calculations, we redefine our unit of length so that

c = 3  108 m/s exactly. We denote by t1 and t2 the times of two events. Event 1:
“Photon A reached PA and then DA registered 0 or 1,” Event 2: “Photon B reached PB
and then DB registered 0 or 1.” It’s easy to see that:

t1 ¼ 50 ns; t2 ¼ 51 ns (19)

Before checking the times in another frame, S0 , let us discuss the following ques-
tion: Can an observer in S consider event 2 as the result of event 1? I claim that she can.
The two events can be considered a combination of cause and effect for the following
reasons.

1. In frame S, event 1 precedes event 2 by 1 ns.

2. Prior to the occurrence of event 1, the reading of DB could be either 0 or 1 in

equal probabilities. After event 1 takes place, the reading of DB is definitely
determined.

3. If DA was removed after the photons left the source, and before they reached
the polarizers, the reading of DB could be either 0 or 1 in equal probabilities.
The fact that DA operated and registered the arriving photon influenced the
reading of DB.

9
Quantum Entanglement in High Energy Physics

Therefore, event 2 can be considered the result of event 1. An argument against

this claim is that the two events are separated by a space-like interval. According to
SR, only if two events are separated by a time-like or light-like interval can one event
influence the other. However, it can be claimed that the concept of causality is
metaphysically prior to the relativistic restrictions. Actually, it was argued that many
standard philosophical theories would treat the relationship between such two events
as causal, despite the contradiction with SR [9].
Let us assume a second frame S0 which is moving with respect to S in the negative
direction of the x-axis at a velocity υ = 0.6c. Let us assume that when the two
photons are ejected from the source, the clocks at S and S0 show t = t 0 = 0, and the
origins coincide. By using the Lorentz transformation (Eq. 15), we find:

t01 ¼ 100 ns; t02 ¼ 25:5 ns (20)

Thus, in S0 event 2 occurs before event 1, although we defined event 1 as the cause
of event 2. Actually, since the velocity of the signal which carries the information
between DA and DB is infinite, the paradox appears for υ as small as |υ| ≈ 0.01c for the
numerical values of the example above. In general, it occurs whenever:

t2 t1 2
υ≥ c (21)
x1 x2

7. Solutions to the paradox

Several solutions can be offered for the contradiction, which was demonstrated
in the previous section between SR and Bell-like experiments. Ballentine and
Jarrett [10] suggested a distinction between a “strong” locality principle and a
“weak” one that is needed to satisfy the demands of relativity. They claimed that QM
satisfies the latter and therefore there is no contradiction between QM and SR.
Instead, one can argue that we do not have two separate events here but only one
spatially extended but indivisible event which is “the collapse of the wave function
which represents the polarization of the two photons” ([9], p. 41). Another alternative
is to formulate a theory of causation which requires some conditions which two events
need to fulfill in order to represent a cause-and-effect relationship, and then show that
these conditions are not realized here ([9], p. 42).
The solution, which I suggest to the paradox, is based on the following principles:

1. Event 1 and event 2, in the example discussed in Section 6, are two distinct and
separate events that occur at different points in space–time.

2. There is a cause-and-effect connection between the two events.

3. According to an observer in S, event 2 is a result of event 1.

4. According to an observer in S0 , on the other hand, event 1 is a result of event 2.

5. The disagreement between the two observers does not violate the causality
principle of SR, since in this particular case the cause-and-effect relationship
10
Perspective Chapter: On the Contradiction between Special Relativity and Quantum…
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1002231

between the two events is symmetrical: each of them can be regarded as a result
of the other, depending on the frame of reference in which they are observed.

Usually, when there is a causal relationship between two remote events, they are
physically different. That’s why the effect cannot precede its cause in any reference
frame. For example, if event 1 is the ejection of a signal from point (x1, y1, z1, t1) and
event 2 is the arrival of the signal to point (x2, y2, z2, t2) where it turns on a lamp, we
demand that, in any reference frame, t2 > t1. This demand is fulfilled only if the
velocity of the signal does not exceed the speed of light, as shown in Section 6.
However, in Bell-like experiments, like the one described in Section 4, there is no
physical difference between the two events: they are totally symmetrical. Each of
them can serve as a cause or as an effect, depending on the frame of reference in
which they are observed. If event 1 is observed before event 2, event 1 is the cause and
event 2 is the result. If the order of times is reversed, then event 2 is the cause and
event 1 is the result.
It is customary to think that the causal relation between two events can be one of
the four types:

1. Event 2 is a result of event 1.

2. Event 1 is a result of event 2.

3. Both events have a common cause.

4. There is no causal relation between the two events.

The analysis of the ostensible contradiction between Bell’s theorem and SR indi-
cates that there is an additional possibility. In entangled systems, one can find pairs of
“entangled events” which have symmetrical cause-and-effect relations. Each of them
can appear to be the cause of the other, depending on the frame of reference in which
they are observed. This fifth possibility solves the paradox which the action at a
distance creates. Experimental results (e.g., [11]) can be interpreted as supporting this
suggestion.

Author details

Yoram Kirsh
The Open University of Israel, Raanana, Israel

*Address all correspondence to: [email protected]

© 2023 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original work is properly cited.
11
Quantum Entanglement in High Energy Physics

References

[1] Hensen B et al. Loophole-free Bell [10] Ballentine LE, Jarrett JP. Bell’s
inequality violation using electron spins theorem: Does quantum mechanics
separated by 1.3 kilometres. Nature. contradict relativity? American Journal
2015;526:682-686. Available from: of Physics. 1987;55:696-701.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature DOI: 10.1119/1.15059
15759
[11] Goswami K et al. Indefinite causal
[2] Giustina M et al. A significant- order in a quantum switch. Physical
loophole-free test of Bell's theorem with Review Letters. 2018;121:090503
entangled photons. Physical Review
Letters. 2015;115:250401

[3] Shalm LK et al. A strong loophole-free

test of local realism. Physical Review
Letters. 2015;115:250402

[4] Freedman SJ, Clauser JF.

Experimental test of local hidden-
variable theories. Physical Review
Letters. 1972;28:938-941. DOI: 10.1103/
PhysRevLett.28.938

[5] Einstein A, Podolsky B, Rosen N. Can

quantum-mechanical description of
physical reality be considered complete?
Physical Review. 1935;47:777-780.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.47.777

[6] Bohm D, Aharonov Y. Discussion of

experimental proof for the paradox of
Einstein, Rosen, and Podolsky. Physical
Review. 1957;108:1070-1076

[7] Bell JS. On the Einstein-Podolsky-

Rosen paradox. Physics. 1964;1:195-200.
Available from: https://cds.cern.ch/rec
ord/111654/files/vol1p195-200_001.pdf

[8] Aspect A, Grangier P, Roger G.

Experimental realization of
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm
gedankenexperiment: A new violation of
Bell's inequalities. Physical Review
Letters. 1982;49:91-94

[9] Butterfield J. David Lewis meets John

Bell. Philosophy of Science. 1992;59:
26-43
12