The instantaneous aspect of nonlocality appears to violate the speed limit of light as postulated by special relativity. Nonlocality is also said to render scientific realism untenable. Photons exhibiting quantum nonlocality (entanglement) are said to be "conjoined" so it would be ideal if we could identify something that connected these photons together and rendered them portions of a whole. Photons are entities just as material particles are entities and the latter can certainly bind together in a way that we understand. Is it possible that photons as entities also bind together in a way that makes sense physically? If not, we are stuck with characterizing nonlocality as "spooky."

If there is a reasonable/realist/non-spooky explanation for nonlocality – as Einstein would have insisted there must be – then we must expect the presence of something physical (mass or energy) that binds conjoined photons together despite their (apparent) space separation. We first need to take a close look at the ontology of particles, projectiles and photons beginning with some definitions.

When energy is stored it is potential and when it is not stored it is kinetic. Applying the same terminology, ordinary mass (rest mass) is kinetic and mass attributed to energy (mass deficit, relativistic mass) is stored and therefore is potential. Kinetic mass, as we know, extends in space which means that it has a physical presence in the space dimension. You cannot have physically real mass (matter) that does not occupy space. Similarly, kinetic energy extends in time which means that any occurrence (projectile motion, photon emission, photon absorption, etc.) must extend over some finite time interval. Kinetic energy has a physically real event-presence in time.

A projectile combines both kinetic (rest) mass and kinetic energy and it therefore has a real presence in both dimensions, space and time. But what happens when we subtract one of those components from projectile motion? If you have kinetic energy of motion but no kinetic mass then you have the photon, a massless entity traversing space. If you subtract the kinetic energy from a projectile then you have an inertial/at-rest mass, space-stationary relative to some observer. The photon, which is stationary in time, and the inertial mass, which is stationary in space, are known as "pure" entities in ontology since they feature kinetic mass or kinetic energy, but not both. Pure entities obviously have a kinetic identity, but they also have a potential identity. This means that pure entities will store their opposite number: unchanging inertial mass stores potential energy while the photon stores potential (relativistic) mass.

The photon is pure occurrence and is devoid of any rest mass to give it space location or existence. The unchanging inertial mass is pure existence and is devoid of any kinetic energy to give it time location or fluctuation/occurrence. Since they do not mix kinetic mass with kinetic energy, the photon and the inertial mass are quite unlike the massy projectile in terms of space and time extension/location.

Pure entities only extend (have physical presence and relative location) in one dimension. Hence the unchanging inertial mass is not located in time, rather it progresses there and its potential identity (stored energy) will possibly release there at some point. The same holds true for the photon. It is not located in space, instead it progresses there and its potential identity (stored mass) will possibly release there at some point in its progression. It is the potential (stored) identities of pure entities that traverse the space or time paths of the progression dimension whereas the kinetic identities maintain entity existence-or-occurrence plus entity extension and dimensional presence. Obviously, radiation entities (photons) traverse space and release their potential mass (and therefore momentum) to matter and (inertial/at-rest) matter entities traverse time and release their potential energy (as photons) to radiation. To summarize, pure entities are stationary in their extension dimension where they have location and physical presence and it is their potential identities, sans location, that progress (not extend) over the opposite dimension advancing toward their release/conversion. For the photon, its potential identity will disperse (and attenuate) over the three dimensions of space, but this does not affect the unity of photon potential mass. Photon kinetic energy is oscillatory and so is the mass which it stores. As a consequence, oscillation plus space progression makes photon potential mass a wave and this permits interference effects and creates a probability distribution over space of possible photon termination points.

Because the photon’s kinetic identity and physical presence are confined to the time dimension, the space progression of potential mass does not burden photon space paths with anything substantive. Photon potential mass can spread indefinitely in space and yet be annihilated instantaneously because it is non-material: it is a unitary, latent, space-progressing occurrence. The reception of a photon upon a material target is a two-part process. First, a single space point for termination is selected and all of the dispersed, occurring photon potential mass becomes actual at this one space point: the unitary, space-smeared occurrence ceases to occur. Second, the actual transfer of photon energy and momentum to the target begins, a process taking some finite amount of time. Although the photon itself is a wave, its termination constitutes a conversion of its stored mass from potential and space-continuous to kinetic and space-discrete. Photon termination therefore gives the impression of an impacting particle.

With a very basic understanding of the wave nature of the photon and the role of its potential mass, we are now able to make sense of quantum nonlocality. As mentioned, conjoined (entangled) photons are created by one atomic event and the two (or more) photons share/conserve properties such as momentum and spin. Conjoined photons remain separate entities but share potential mass which mediates between them. Spin up and spin down are shared between the two conjoined photons such that these properties belong to the whole occurrence and not to an individual photon. But when one of these photons is measured, i.e. terminated, the occurring potential mass linking it with its twin is instantaneously canceled/annihilated and the shared spin property is (probabilistically) determined for the measured photon and therefore for its unmeasured twin as well.

It is a serious (albeit common) mistake to conceive of two conjoined photons as particle-like, space-located entities needing a superluminal signal to coordinate their properties. Rather, conjoined photons must be thought of as linked wave fronts of potential mass progressing on multiple space paths. Potential mass is a real wave but it is not physical in the material sense hence its collapse – and the setting of spin up and spin down – needs no time interval. Potential (stored) mass is a real, immaterial wave just as potential (stored) energy is a real, immaterial field.

Potential mass as an entity, not a quantity, has escaped the notice of physicists and philosophers because: 1) it is an occurrence that has no dependence upon an existent, 2) it is a wave that requires no supporting medium, and 3) it can only be measured once it has changed its identity and form (once the stored, space-continuous mass terminates its space travel to become unstored, space-discrete, impacting mass). Occurring potential mass as a wave is the only entity that can explain the following. A single photon encounters a half-silvered mirror and diverges into two separate space paths which after some arbitrary distance are reunited whereby the two photon portions can interfere with each other and still produce a single, space-discrete termination point on a material target. The photon as quantized kinetic occurrence with its temporal extension (interval) cannot subdivide; but its other identiy – potential, space-continuous mass as wave – can subdivide without limit and then still be reunited to interfere with itself.

The conceptual difficulties, even contradictions, of modern physics have three major sources. First has been our inability to distinguish ontologically pure entities, such as the photon, from ontologically mixed entities such as the massy projectile. Second has been the disregard of potential mass and the failure to give it ontological equality with potential energy. And the third source of our difficulties has been our inability to distinguish between kinetic mass which extends in space because it has a physical presence there, and potential mass which can only progress in space because of its dependence upon space-progressing kinetic energy (radiation). The latter fact has, as it must, a strict ontological parallel in the realm of energy: kinetic, oscillatory energy (radiation) extends in time because it has a physical presence there whereas static potential energy (e.g. strain) can only progress in time because of its dependence upon time-progressing kinetic mass (matter).

Regarding conjoined entities Bernard d’Espagnat wrote (and John Bell quoted): "That the guiding wave...propagates not in ordinary three-space but in multidimensional-configuration space is the origin of the notorious ’nonlocality’ of quantum mechanics...." The physical reality behind this "guiding wave" is a potential mass wave that can progress in three-space without having a substantive presence there to encumber either its reach or its haste.

Throughout the centuries physicists have based their discipline upon a naïve and commonsense ontology. Philosophers of science have not provided physicists with much help in correcting this and the task did not seemed urgent until the past 100 years. But quantum nonlocality, and wave-particle duality, have made it imperative that we focus upon the nature of existence and the nature of occurrence as they relate to physics. Quantum instantaneous action at a distance has revealed the limitations of our naïve ontology. We must finally recognize that pure occurrence entities (photons) may be linked by space-smeared potential mass just as pure existence entities (inertial particles) may be linked by time-smeared potential energy. Once that is understood, quantum nonlocality makes perfect physical sense and realism is not confounded; quantum nonlocality is not spooky.

Quantum nonlocality: OpEd

Skeptic: This strikes me as word games you are playing on the subject of quantum nonlocality.

Author: Words such as existence and occurrence have a real meaning and it is no coincidence that they are conceptually aligned with the physics of mass and radiation respectively; one exists and one occurs.

Skeptic: You take a simple object like inertial matter and make it very complicated. Its kinetic identity extends in space but in time it has both a “presence” and a progression of its potential identity. Why the complexity? Why can't inertial matter simply exist singular in space and time?

Author: That is the naïve view. The consequences are not too bad for inertial mass, but they are serious when you treat the photon in a similar vein. The complexities of photon behavior can only be explained by dissecting it ontologically.

Skeptic: You make some valid points about quantum nonlocality and the realm of radiation. But what bothers me is when you make these analogies between radiation and matter or, as you would say, between kinetic energy and kinetic mass. I don’t think you can apply analogies to something like quantum nonlocality. I don’t think analogies have any place in physics.

Author: You have forgotten perhaps that the central argument of Einstein’s 1905 "Heuristic Viewpoint" paper depended upon an analogy between mass quanta and radiation quanta. And in the early 1920’s Louis de Broglie developed his matter wave theory by analogy with Einstein’s wave-particle duality view of radiation. And finally, Schrödinger’s wave equation depended upon Hamiltonian mechanics which itself was based upon an analogy between the classical mechanics of particles and the physics of light rays.

Skeptic: I see you won’t let go of analogies. In that case what is the analogy of quantum nonlocality?

Author: Quantum nonlocality features radiation quanta (photons) that are linked by potential mass and then are measured at different space locations. The analog of quantum nonlocality is more familiar to us: two or more mass quanta (particles) linked by potential energy, each measured at different time locations. The measurement of the first particle obviously will affect the conjoined particle.

Skeptic: You only talk about photons yet particles such as electrons can also become entangled.

Author: Speeding electrons also have potential mass and entangled electrons will have shared, occurring potential mass.

Skeptic: Having some plausible arguments on your side is no guarantee of success. Who do you think is going to believe these unfamiliar ontological arguments about quantum nonlocality?

Author: I remain optimistic. Young graduate students will have an open mind and perhaps some young professors in philosophy of science as well. It will be a tougher sell to older “experts” in the field. As Leo Tolstoy wrote:

“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the highest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”