Quantum entanglement represents one of the most profound and counterintuitive phenomena in modern physics, challenging our classical understanding of locality and causality. While the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics accurately predicts entanglement correlations, the lack of a physically intuitive mechanism has led to numerous interpretational difficulties and philosophical debates. This article presents a comprehensive analysis of existing interpretations of quantum entanglement, from the Copenhagen interpretation to many-worlds and hidden variable theories, highlighting their limitations and motivating a novel vortex-based interpretation grounded in the hydrodynamic behavior of a superfluid vacuum, drawing upon the author’s published work on electron, quark, and gravitational force dynamics. This vortex model provides a physically intuitive and causally consistent explanation for nonlocal correlations without invoking superluminal signaling, offering a bridge between classical physics and quantum mechanics. The proposed interpretation suggests that entangled particles are surface manifestations of deeper, coherent vortex structures within a continuous vacuum medium, analogous to connected vortices in a fluid system. This framework not only resolves the conceptual difficulties associated with “spooky action at a distance” but also provides a foundation for understanding quantum phenomena through classical hydrodynamic principles.
References
[1]
Einstein, A., Podolsky, B. and Rosen, N. (1935) Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? PhysicalReview, 47, 777-780. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrev.47.777
[2]
Nielsen, M.A. and Chuang, I.L. (2010) Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge University Press.
[3]
Bell, J.S. (1964) On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox. PhysicsPhysiqueFizika, 1, 195-200. https://doi.org/10.1103/physicsphysiquefizika.1.195
[4]
Einstein, A. (1947) Letter to Max Born. In: Born, M., Ed., The Born-Einstein Letters: Correspondence between Albert Einstein and Max and Hedwig Born from 1916 to 1955. Walker and Company, New York, 158.
[5]
Schlosshauer, M. (2007) Decoherence and the Quantum-To-Classical Transition. Springer-Verlag.
[6]
Aspect, A., Dalibard, J. and Roger, G. (1982) Experimental Test of Bell’s Inequalities Using Time-Varying Analyzers. PhysicalReviewLetters, 49, 1804-1807. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.49.1804
[7]
Weinberg, S. (1989) The Cosmological Constant Problem. ReviewsofModernPhysics, 61, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1103/revmodphys.61.1
[8]
Butto, N. (2020) Electron Shape and Structure: A New Vortex Theory. JournalofHighEnergyPhysics, GravitationandCosmology, 6, 340-352. https://doi.org/10.4236/jhepgc.2020.63027
[9]
Butto, N. (2020) New Theory to Understand the Mechanism of Gravitation. JournalofHighEnergyPhysics, GravitationandCosmology, 6, 462-472. https://doi.org/10.4236/jhepgc.2020.63036
[10]
Butto, N. (2024) A New Theory Exploring the Internal Structure of Quarks. JournalofHighEnergyPhysics, GravitationandCosmology, 10, 1713-1733. https://doi.org/10.4236/jhepgc.2024.104097
[11]
Bohr, N. (1928) The Quantum Postulate and the Recent Development of Atomic Theory1. Nature, 121, 580-590. https://doi.org/10.1038/121580a0
[12]
Heisenberg, W. (1927) Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik. Zeitschrift für Physik, 43, 172-198. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01397280
[13]
Everett, H. (1957) “Relative State” Formulation of Quantum Mechanics. ReviewsofModernPhysics, 29, 454-462. https://doi.org/10.1103/revmodphys.29.454
[14]
DeWitt, B.S. and Graham, N. (1973) The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton University Press.
[15]
Deutsch, D. (1985) Quantum Theory, the Church-Turing Principle and the Universal Quantum Computer. ProceedingsoftheRoyalSocietyofLondon.A.MathematicalandPhysicalSciences, 400, 97-117. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1985.0070
[16]
Bohm, D. (1952) A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of “Hidden” Variables. I. PhysicalReview, 85, 166-179. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrev.85.166
[17]
Freedman, S.J. and Clauser, J.F. (1972) Experimental Test of Local Hidden-Variable Theories. PhysicalReviewLetters, 28, 938-941. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.28.938
[18]
Giustina, M., Versteegh, M.A.M., Wengerowsky, S., Handsteiner, J., Hochrainer, A., Phelan, K., et al. (2015) Significant-Loophole-Free Test of Bell’s Theorem with Entangled Photons. PhysicalReviewLetters, 115, Article ID: 250401. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.115.250401
[19]
Hensen, B., Bernien, H., Dréau, A.E., Reiserer, A., Kalb, N., Blok, M.S., et al. (2015) Loophole-free Bell Inequality Violation Using Electron Spins Separated by 1.3 Kilometres. Nature, 526, 682-686. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15759
[20]
Casimir, H.B.G. (1948) On the Attraction between Two Perfectly Conducting Plates. Proceedings of the KoninklijkeNederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, 51, 793-795.
[21]
Donnelly, R.J. (1991) Quantized Vortices in Helium II. Cambridge University Press.
[22]
Feynman, R.P. (1955) Application of Quantum Mechanics to Liquid Helium. Progress in Low Temperature Physics, 1, 17-53.
[23]
Onsager, L. (1949) Statistical Hydrodynamics. IlNuovoCimento, 6, 279-287. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02780991
[24]
Tinkham, M. (2004) Introduction to Superconductivity. Dover Publications.
[25]
Gross, E.P. (1961) Structure of a Quantized Vortex in Boson Systems. IlNuovoCimento, 20, 454-477. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02731494
[26]
Pitaevskii, L.P. (1961) Vortex Lines in an Imperfect Bose Gas. Soviet Physics JETP, 13, 451-454.
[27]
Butto, N. (2025) A Resolution to the Vacuum Catastrophe: The Role of the Omniom Vacuum. JournalofHighEnergyPhysics, GravitationandCosmology, 11, 973-994. https://doi.org/10.4236/jhepgc.2025.113063
