Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1312.2801

Non-local common cause explanations for EPR

Matthias Egg, Michaël Esfeld

Published Dec 10, 2013• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The paper argues that a causal explanation of the correlated outcomes of EPR-type experiments is desirable and possible. It shows how Bohmian mechanics and the GRW mass density theory offer such an explanation in terms of a non-local common cause.
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1312.2801

Related papers

EPR CORRELATIONS, BELL INEQUALITIES AND COMMON CAUSE SYSTEMS

Gábor Hofer‐Szabó

Standard common causal explanations of the EPR situation assume a so-called joint common cause system that is a common cause for all correlations. However, the assumption of a joint common cause system together with some other physically motivated assumptions concerning locality and no-conspiracy results in various Bell inequalities. Since Bell inequalities are violated for appropriate measurement settings, a local, non-conspiratorial joint common causal explanation of the EPR situation is ruled out. But why do we assume that a common causal explanation of a set of correlation consists in finding a joint common cause system for all correlations and not just in finding separate common cause systems for the different correlations? What are the \nperspectives of a local, non-conspiratorial separate common causal explanation for the EPR scenario? And finally, how do Bell inequalities relate to the weaker assumption of separate common cause systems? \n

•Mar 5, 2014•1 citation

EPR robustness and the causal Markov condition

Mauricio Suárez, Iñaki San Pedro

It is still a matter of controversy whether the Principle of the Common Cause (PCC) can be used as a basis for sound causal inference. It is thus to be expected that its application to quantum mechanics should be a correspondingly controversial issue. Indeed the early 90's saw a flurry of papers addressing just this issue in connection with the EPR correlations. Yet, that debate does not seem to have caught up with the most recent literature on causal inference generally, which has moved on to consider the virtues of a generalized PCC-inspired condition, the so-called Causal Markov Condition (CMC). In this paper we argue that the CMC is an appropriate benchmark for debating possible causal explanations of the EPR corrleations. But we go on to take issue with some pronouncements on EPR by defenders of the CMC.

•Aug 19, 2007•2 citations

Measurement Dependence is not Conspiracy: A Common Cause Model of EPR Correlations

Iñaki San Pedro

In this paper I assess the adequacy of no-conspiracy conditions present in the usual derivations of the Bell inequality in the context of EPR correlations. First, I look at the EPR correlations from a purely phenomenological point of view and claim that common cause explanations of these can not be ruled out. I argue that an appropriate common cause explanation requires that no-conspiracy conditions are re-interpreted as mere common cause-measurement independence conditions. Violations of measurement independence thus need not entail any kind of conspiracy (nor backwards in time causation). This new reading of measurement dependence provides the grounds for an explicitly non-factorizable (in the sense of Bell’s factorizability) common cause model for EPR. 1

•May 26, 2009•0 citations

Causation, Robustness, and EPR

Richard Healey

In his recent work, Michael Redhead (1986, 1987, 1989, 1990) has introduced a condition he calls robustness which, he argues, a relation must satisfy in order to be causal. He has used this condition to argue further that EPR-type correlations are neither the result of a direct causal connection between the correlated events, nor the result of a common cause associated with the source of the particle pairs which feature in these events. Andrew Elby (1992) has used this same condition as a premise in an independent argument for the conclusion that EPR-type correlations cannot be causally explained (except, perhaps, by a nonlocal hidden variable theory). I wish to argue here that robustness is itself too fragile a notion to support such conclusions.

Philosophy of Science•Jun 1, 1992•26 citations

Reichenbach's Common Cause Principle and EPR correlations

Gábor Hofer‐Szabó, Miklós Rédei, László E. Szabó

Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) correlations Explaining the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics in the case of joint quantum systems of the EPR type has proved to be a major challenge for the Common Cause Principle. The EPR correlations have been confirmed by a large number of sophisticated experiments carried out since the early 1980s, and, since quantum theory does not give us any hints as to where to look for possible common causes that could explain the correlations in question, the suspicion arose that common causes of EPR correlations might not exist at all. If this were indeed the case, then the EPR correlations would constitute strong empirical evidence against Reichenbach's Common Cause Principle. But how could this be possible in view of the results presented in the previous chapters? As we have seen (Chapter 3), every common cause incomplete probability space is common cause extendible (even strongly common cause extendible with respect to any finite set of correlations; Proposition 3.9); therefore every correlation can, in principle, be explained by a (possibly hidden) common cause, including the (finite number of) EPR correlations. Could the EPR correlations (not) be explained by referring to such hidden common causes? To answer this question, one has to realize first that it is not quite obvious how to link the Common Cause Principle to quantum mechanics because Reichenbach's notion of common cause was defined in terms of classical probability theory (Chapter 2), not in terms of quantum probability theory.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•May 16, 2013•0 citations

Why "noncommuting common causes" don't explain anything

Dustin Lazarovici

In my commentary, I will argue that the conclusions drawn in the paper "Noncommutative causality in algebraic quantum field" theory by Gábor Hofer-Szabó (and similar publications) are incorrect. As proven by J.S. Bell, a local common causal explanation of correlations violating the Bell inequality is impossible.

arXiv:1310.1489•Oct 5, 2013•3 citations
Standard common causal explanations of the EPR situation assume a so-called joint common cause system that is a common cause for all correlations. However, the assumption of a joint common cause system together with some other physically motivated assumptions concerning locality and no-conspiracy results in various Bell inequalities. Since Bell inequalities are violated for appropriate measurement settings, a local, non-conspiratorial joint common causal explanation of the EPR situation is ruled out. But why do we assume that a common causal explanation of a set of correlation consists in finding a joint common cause system for all correlations and not just in finding separate common cause systems for the different correlations? What are the \nperspectives of a local, non-conspiratorial separate common causal explanation for the EPR scenario? And finally, how do Bell inequalities relate to the weaker assumption of separate common cause systems? \n
It is still a matter of controversy whether the Principle of the Common Cause (PCC) can be used as a basis for sound causal inference. It is thus to be expected that its application to quantum mechanics should be a correspondingly controversial issue. Indeed the early 90's saw a flurry of papers addressing just this issue in connection with the EPR correlations. Yet, that debate does not seem to have caught up with the most recent literature on causal inference generally, which has moved on to consider the virtues of a generalized PCC-inspired condition, the so-called Causal Markov Condition (CMC). In this paper we argue that the CMC is an appropriate benchmark for debating possible causal explanations of the EPR corrleations. But we go on to take issue with some pronouncements on EPR by defenders of the CMC.
In this paper I assess the adequacy of no-conspiracy conditions present in the usual derivations of the Bell inequality in the context of EPR correlations. First, I look at the EPR correlations from a purely phenomenological point of view and claim that common cause explanations of these can not be ruled out. I argue that an appropriate common cause explanation requires that no-conspiracy conditions are re-interpreted as mere common cause-measurement independence conditions. Violations of measurement independence thus need not entail any kind of conspiracy (nor backwards in time causation). This new reading of measurement dependence provides the grounds for an explicitly non-factorizable (in the sense of Bell’s factorizability) common cause model for EPR. 1
In his recent work, Michael Redhead (1986, 1987, 1989, 1990) has introduced a condition he calls robustness which, he argues, a relation must satisfy in order to be causal. He has used this condition to argue further that EPR-type correlations are neither the result of a direct causal connection between the correlated events, nor the result of a common cause associated with the source of the particle pairs which feature in these events. Andrew Elby (1992) has used this same condition as a premise in an independent argument for the conclusion that EPR-type correlations cannot be causally explained (except, perhaps, by a nonlocal hidden variable theory). I wish to argue here that robustness is itself too fragile a notion to support such conclusions.
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) correlations Explaining the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics in the case of joint quantum systems of the EPR type has proved to be a major challenge for the Common Cause Principle. The EPR correlations have been confirmed by a large number of sophisticated experiments carried out since the early 1980s, and, since quantum theory does not give us any hints as to where to look for possible common causes that could explain the correlations in question, the suspicion arose that common causes of EPR correlations might not exist at all. If this were indeed the case, then the EPR correlations would constitute strong empirical evidence against Reichenbach's Common Cause Principle. But how could this be possible in view of the results presented in the previous chapters? As we have seen (Chapter 3), every common cause incomplete probability space is common cause extendible (even strongly common cause extendible with respect to any finite set of correlations; Proposition 3.9); therefore every correlation can, in principle, be explained by a (possibly hidden) common cause, including the (finite number of) EPR correlations. Could the EPR correlations (not) be explained by referring to such hidden common causes? To answer this question, one has to realize first that it is not quite obvious how to link the Common Cause Principle to quantum mechanics because Reichenbach's notion of common cause was defined in terms of classical probability theory (Chapter 2), not in terms of quantum probability theory.