Reality Without Spooky Action:

How Relational Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Darwinism Reframe Bell’s Paradox**

The 90-Year-Old Problem That Refuses to Die

Quantum mechanics works spectacularly well. It predicts spectra, semiconductors, lasers, and quantum computers. Yet since the 1930s, physicists have argued bitterly about what it says about reality itself.

The dispute began with Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR). Their concern was simple and deeply physical:

If physics is about reality, then distant things should have their own real states, independent of what we do elsewhere.

Quantum mechanics seemed to violate that idea.

When two particles are entangled, measuring one lets you predict the outcome of the other instantly, no matter how far apart they are. Einstein famously called this “spooky action at a distance.”

Einstein was not objecting to randomness. He was objecting to the idea that reality itself might not be locally well defined.

Bohr’s Answer — and Why It Never Fully Satisfied

Niels Bohr responded that EPR had misunderstood quantum mechanics. According to Bohr:

Physical properties are not absolute
They are defined only within experimental contexts
Asking what a particle “really has” before measurement is meaningless

Bohr was probably right mathematically — but his explanation was vague. It avoided saying what exists, or why measurements behave the way they do. It sounded like philosophy, not physics.

Even today, many physicists accept Bohr’s view pragmatically, but feel uneasy about it.

Bell Changes the Rules of the Game

In 1964, John Bell made the debate unavoidable.

Bell proved a precise theorem:
No theory that is both local and realist (in Einstein’s sense) can reproduce all predictions of quantum mechanics.

Experiments have since confirmed Bell’s inequalities are violated.

This result is often misinterpreted. Bell did not prove that:

Reality is subjective
Faster-than-light signals exist
Physics is inconsistent

What Bell showed is more subtle:

You cannot build reality out of independent local pieces.

This idea — called separability — fails.

Why Existing Solutions Feel Unsatisfactory

Physicists responded to Bell in different ways:

🔹 Bohmian mechanics

Keeps realism, but introduces explicit nonlocal influences.

🔹 Copenhagen interpretation

Avoids the question of reality entirely, treating measurement as primitive.

🔹 Many-Worlds interpretation

Keeps locality and unitary evolution, but at a price:

An effectively infinite number of branching worlds
No clear explanation of why probabilities follow the Born rule
An ontologically extravagant picture of reality

Each option works mathematically — but each sacrifices something deeply intuitive.

Relational Quantum Mechanics: A Different Move

Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) takes a surprisingly simple step:

Physical properties exist only relative to interactions.

In this view:

A system does not have properties “by itself”
Properties exist only for other systems
Measurement is just interaction, not collapse

Crucially:

Nothing travels faster than light
No distant system is physically affected by a local measurement

What disappears is the idea of observer-independent joint facts at a distance.

This resolves “spooky action” — but introduces a new worry:

If facts are relative, why does the world look objective?

Quantum Darwinism: Why the World Looks Classical

This is where Quantum Darwinism enters.

Quantum Darwinism explains why classical reality emerges from quantum physics:

Systems interact with their environment
Certain states (called pointer states) get copied again and again
Information about these states spreads redundantly into the environment
Many observers can independently access the same information

Objectivity, in this picture, is not fundamental.
It emerges because some facts are copied everywhere.

This is why:

Everyone sees the same pointer on a dial
Everyone agrees on measurement outcomes
Classical reality appears stable and shared

Putting the Two Together: Reality Without Separability

When we combine RQM + Quantum Darwinism, something remarkable happens.

RQM tells us when facts exist — through interaction
Quantum Darwinism tells us why facts become stable and shared

The result is a world that is:

Objective (in practice)
Local (in interactions)
Non-separable (at the fundamental level)

Nothing spooky travels across space.
But reality is not built from independent local building blocks.

Bell’s theorem is satisfied — not by abandoning objectivity, but by abandoning separability.

What About Bell Experiments, Exactly?

In a Bell experiment:

Alice and Bob each get objective, classical records
Their detectors decohere locally
Their results are redundantly recorded in the environment

Only later, when they communicate, do joint facts come into existence for them.

The correlations violate Bell inequalities — but:

No signal travels faster than light
No outcome is changed at a distance
The correlations reflect a shared, non-separable quantum structure

Can This Be Tested?

Relational Quantum Mechanics and Many-Worlds make the same numerical predictions — but both differ from interpretations that posit real, irreversible collapse.

This leads to experimental proposals such as:

Extended Wigner’s friend experiments
“Local friendliness” tests
Experiments where entire “observers” are put into controlled superpositions

If interference survives at larger and larger scales, collapse theories become increasingly implausible.

The Big Takeaway

Quantum mechanics does not tell us that reality is subjective.
It tells us something stranger — and deeper:

Reality is objective, but not separable.

Classical intuition assumed:

Independent parts
Local states
Global reality as a sum of pieces

Quantum physics says:

Reality is relational
Objectivity emerges through redundancy
The universe is fundamentally holistic

Einstein was right to worry — but the resolution is not nonlocal magic.
It is a new understanding of what “real” means.

Appendix A — Minimal Mathematical Framework

(RQM + Quantum Darwinism)**

This appendix summarizes the mathematics underlying Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) combined with Quantum Darwinism (QD), without assuming a preferred interpretation beyond standard quantum theory.

A.1 Relational States and Measurement as Interaction

Consider a quantum system $S$ and an observer (or apparatus) $O$ .

A “measurement” is modeled as a unitary interaction:

$U_{SO}:\quad |s_i\rangle|O_0\rangle \;\longrightarrow\; |s_i\rangle|O_i\rangle$

For a superposition:

$\left(\sum_i c_i |s_i\rangle\right)|O_0\rangle \;\xrightarrow{U_{SO}}\; \sum_i c_i |s_i\rangle|O_i\rangle$

RQM interpretation:

The outcome $i$ is a fact relative to $O$ once $O$ occupies $|O_i\rangle$ .
A third system $W$ that has not interacted with $S$ or $O$ may still describe the pair as an entangled superposition.

There is no collapse; facts are relational.

A.2 Decoherence and Pointer States

Introduce an environment $E$ interacting with $O$ :

$|O_i\rangle|E_0\rangle \;\longrightarrow\; |O_i\rangle|E_i\rangle$

The global state becomes:

$|\Psi\rangle = \sum_i c_i |s_i\rangle|O_i\rangle|E_i\rangle$

If environment states satisfy:

$\langle E_i | E_j \rangle \approx 0 \quad (i \neq j)$

then tracing over $E$ yields:

$\rho_{SO} \approx \sum_i |c_i|^2 |s_i,O_i\rangle\langle s_i,O_i|$

This defines pointer states $|O_i\rangle$ : stable, decoherence-resistant records.

A.3 Quantum Darwinism: Redundant Encoding

Quantum Darwinism assumes the environment decomposes into fragments:

$E = \bigotimes_{k=1}^N F_k$

A Darwinized state has the form:

$|\Psi\rangle = \sum_i c_i |s_i\rangle \bigotimes_{k=1}^N |f_i^{(k)}\rangle$

with approximate orthogonality:

$\langle f_i^{(k)} | f_j^{(k)} \rangle \approx \delta_{ij}$

Each fragment $F_k$ independently carries information about the same pointer value $i$ .

A.4 Objectivity via Redundancy

Define the quantum mutual information:

$I(S:F) = H(S) + H(F) - H(SF)$

Quantum Darwinism predicts a redundancy plateau:

$I(S:F_m) \approx H_{\text{classical}}(S) \quad \text{for many small fragments } F_m$

This means:

Many observers can independently learn the same outcome
Without disturbing the system
Leading to emergent objectivity

A.5 Bell Correlations Without Separability

For an entangled pair $A,B$ :

$|\Psi\rangle_{AB} = \sum_{\alpha,\beta} c_{\alpha\beta}(a,b)\,|\alpha\rangle|\beta\rangle$

After local decoherence of detectors:

$P(\alpha,\beta|a,b) = |c_{\alpha\beta}(a,b)|^2$

Bell violations arise because:

$\rho_{AB} \neq \rho_A \otimes \rho_B$

Key point:

Local records are objective (Darwinized)
Joint statistics are non-separable
No superluminal influence is required

A.6 Summary of Appendix A

Mathematically:

RQM = relational conditioning of quantum states
QD = redundancy-based emergence of objectivity
Bell = impossibility of separable ontologies

Together:

Objective facts exist, but they are not built from independent local states.

Appendix B — Experimental Predictions and Actionable Observables

This appendix outlines experimentally testable consequences that distinguish unitary, no-collapse frameworks (RQM+QD, Many-Worlds) from collapse-based interpretations.

B.1 Core Experimental Question

Can a system that has recorded a measurement outcome still exhibit quantum interference when treated as a whole?

If yes → collapse is not fundamental
If no → collapse may be real

B.2 Extended Wigner’s Friend Scenario

Experimental roles

Friend $F$ measures a quantum system inside an isolated lab
Super-observer $W$ controls the entire lab

Measurement choices for $W$

Read basis (X): measure the friend’s record
Interference basis (Z): measure the entire lab in a superposition basis

B.3 Theoretical Predictions

Unitary theories (RQM + QD, Many-Worlds)

The lab evolves unitarily
Interference measurements are possible in principle
Certain inequalities (observer-independent facts / local friendliness) are violated

Collapse theories

Measurement inside the lab produces irreversible collapse
Interference is fundamentally impossible
Inequalities are satisfied

B.4 Observable Inequality (Conceptual Form)

An example structure:

$S = E(X_A,X_B) + E(X_A,Z_B) + E(Z_A,X_B) - E(Z_A,Z_B)$

Unitary QM predicts:

$|S| > 2$

Collapse-based models predict:

$|S| \le 2$

B.5 Role of Quantum Darwinism in Experiments

Quantum Darwinism introduces a scaling dimension:

Strong environmental coupling → classical objectivity → interference suppressed
Controlled isolation → partial Darwinization → interference recoverable

Experiments can probe:

How much redundancy is required before interference vanishes
Whether this transition is fundamental or practical

B.6 Practical Implementations

Current and near-term platforms:

Photonic qubits with controlled environments
Superconducting qubits acting as “friends”
Mesoscopic interferometers
Weak-measurement-based observer simulations

Key control parameters:

Environment coupling strength
Fragment redundancy
Coherence time of composite systems

B.7 Distinguishability Summary

Interpretation	Predicts Bell violation	Predicts interference of observers
Copenhagen (collapse)	✔	❌
Objective collapse models	✔	❌
Many-Worlds	✔	✔
RQM + QD	✔	✔

No experiment distinguishes RQM vs Many-Worlds, but both differ from collapse-based theories.

B.8 Summary of Appendix B

Experiments do not test “interpretations” directly — they test:

Unitary vs non-unitary dynamics
Fundamental vs emergent classicality
Reversibility of measurement records

The outcome determines whether objectivity is fundamental or Darwinized.

Summary

Bell showed that the universe cannot be built from independent local pieces; Relational Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Darwinism show how objective reality still emerges anyway — without spooky action at a distance.

P&L AI