, Volume 193, Issue 4, pp 1127–1155 | Cite as

The causal problem of entanglement

  • Paul M. NägerEmail author


This paper expounds that besides the well-known spatio-temporal problem there is a causal problem of entanglement: even when one neglects spatio-temporal constraints, the peculiar statistics of EPR/B experiment is inconsistent with usual principles of causal explanation as stated by the theory of causal Bayes nets. The conflict amounts to a dilemma that either there are uncaused correlations (violating the causal Markov condition) or there are caused independences (violating the causal faithfulness condition). I argue that the central ideas of causal explanations can be saved if one accepts the latter horn and explains the unfaithful independences by a stable fine-tuning of the causal parameters.


Quantum entanglement Bell theorem Scientific explanation Causal Bayes nets Causal Markov condition Causal faithfulness condition 



I would like to thank Frederick Eberhardt, Alexander Gebharter, Clark Glymour, Kevin Kelly, Meinard Kuhlmann, Gerhard Schurz, Manfred Stöckler, Michael Zehetleitner and audiences at the Düsseldorf Center for Logic and Philosophy of Science, at the Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy and at the Workshop ‘Physics and Causality’ (Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft, Munich, 2012) for helpful comments and discussion. Research for this paper was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).


  1. Aspect, A., Dalibard, J., & Roger, G. (1982). Experimental test of Bell’s inequalities using time-varying analyzers. Physical Review Letters, 49, 1804–1807.Google Scholar
  2. Bell, J. S. (1964). On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Physics, 1(3), 195–200.Google Scholar
  3. Bell, J. S. (1975). The theory of local beables. TH-2053-CERN (Reprinted in Bell 1987).Google Scholar
  4. Bell, J. S. (1987). Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics: Collected papers on quantum mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bohm, D. (1951). Quantum theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  6. Butterfield, J. (1989). A space-time approach to the Bell inequality. In J. T. Cushing & E. McMullin (Eds.), Philosophical consequences of quantum theory: Reflections on Bell’s theorem (pp. 114–144). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cartwright, N. (1988). How to tell a common cause. In J. H. Fetzer (Ed.), Probability and causality: Essays in honor of Wesley C. Salmon (pp. 181–188). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cartwright, N. (2007). Hunting causes and using them: Approaches in philosophy and economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clauser, J. F., & Horne, M. A. (1974). Experimental consequences of objective local theories. Physical Review D, 10(2), 526–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cramer, J. G. (1986). The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 58, 647–687.Google Scholar
  11. Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., & Rosen, N. (1935). Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review, 47, 777–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fine, A. (1982). Some local models for correlation experiments. Synthese, 50, 279–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Glymour, C. (2006). Markov properties and quantum experiments. In W. Demopoulos & I. Pitowsky (Eds.), Physical theory and its interpretation: Essays in honor of Jeffrey Bub (pp. 117–125). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grangier, P. (2001). Quantum physics: Count them all. Nature, 409, 774–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jarrett, J. P. (1989). Bell’s theorem: A guide to the implications. In J. T. Cushing & E. McMullin (Eds.), Philosophical consequences of quantum theory: Reflections on Bell’s theorem (pp. 60–79). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  16. Maudlin, T. (1994). Quantum non-locality and relativity: Metaphysical intimations of modern physics. Oxford: Blackwell. (3rd ed. Wiley-Blackwell 2011).Google Scholar
  17. Näger, P. M. (2013a). Causal graphs for EPR experiments. Preprint.
  18. Näger, P. M. (2013b). A stronger Bell argument for quantum non-locality. Preprint.
  19. Pearl, J. (1988). Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: Networks of plausible inference. San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  20. Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Pearle, P. M. (1970). Hidden-variable example based upon data rejection. Physical Review D, 2(8), 1418–1425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rowe, M. A., Kielpinski, D., Meyer, V., Sackett, C. A., Itano, W. M., Monroe, C., et al. (2001). Experimental violation of a Bell’s inequality with efficient detection. Nature, 409, 791–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schurz, G., & Gebharter, A. (2015). Causality as a theoretical concept: Explanatory warrant and empirical content of the theory of causal nets. Synthese. doi: 10.1007/s11229-014-0630-z.
  24. Shimony, A. (1984). Controllable and uncontrollable non-locality. In S. Kamefuchi (Ed.), Foundations of quantum mechanics in the light of new technology (pp. 225–230). Tokyo: The Physical Society of Japan.Google Scholar
  25. Spirtes, P., Glymour, C., & Scheines, R. (1993). Causation, prediction, and search. New York: Springer. (2nd ed. MIT Press 2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Suppes, P., & Zanotti, M. (1981). When are probabilistic explanations possible? Synthese, 48, 191–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. van Fraassen, B. C. (1982a). The charybdis of realism: Epistemological implications of Bell’s inequality. Synthese, 52, 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. van Fraassen, B. C. (1982b). Rational belief and the common cause principle. In R. McLaughlin (Ed.), What? Where? When? Why? Essays on induction, space and time, explanation (pp. 193–209). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Weihs, G., Jennewein, T., Simon, C., Weinfurter, H., & Zeilinger, A. (1998). Violation of Bell’s inequality under strict Einstein locality conditions. Physical Review Letters, 81(23), 5039–5043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wood, C. J. & R. W. Spekkens (2012). The lesson of causal discovery algorithms for quantum correlations: Causal explanations of Bell-inequality violations require fine-tuning. Preprint.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of MünsterMünsterGermany

Personalised recommendations