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:1312.2888

A proof-of-principle quantum-optical experiment challenging the import of the 'no-signaling' theorem

Demetrios A. Kalamidas

Published Dec 10, 2013• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

We present, and mathematically describe, a proof-of-principle quantum-optical experiment that seemingly enables superluminal signaling, contrary to the import of the 'no-signaling' theorem.
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1312.2888

Related papers

Proposal for a feasible quantum-optical experiment to test the validity of the no-signaling theorem

Demetrios A. Kalamidas

Motivated by a proposal from [Phys. Scr.T76, 57 (1998)10.1238/Physica.Topical.076a00057PHSTBO0031-8949] for superluminal signaling and inspired by an experiment from [Phys. Rev. Lett.67, 318 (1991)10.1103/PhysRevLett.67.318PRLTAO0031-9007] showing interference effects within multiparticle entanglement without coincidence detection, we propose a feasible quantum-optical experiment that purports to manifest the capacity for superluminal transfer of information between distant parties.

arXiv:1110.4629•Journal of the Optical Society of America B•Apr 22, 2013•5 citations

Superluminal signals in quantum Optics

B. A. V Eklenko

Сборник тезисов конференции «Complex Systems of Charged Particles and their Interactions with Electromagnetic Radiation»•Jan 1, 2016•1 citation

Is Superluminal Signaling Possible in Collapse Theories of Quantum Mechanics?

Shan Gao

Foundations of Physics•Sep 23, 2023•0 citations

Quantum spatial superpositions and the possibility of superluminal signaling

P. Ávila, Elias Okon, Daniel Sudarsky +1 more

A recently proposed gedanken experiment involving the (gravitational or electromagnetic) interaction between two objects---one placed in a state of quantum superposition of two locations---seems to allow for faster-than-light communication. However, it has been argued that, if the mediating fields are endowed with quantum properties, then the possibility for superluminal signaling is fully avoided. Moreover, in the gravitational case, this conclusion has been used to argue for the view that the gravitational field must be quantized. In this work, we clarify and complement some aspects of the discussion. In particular, by focusing on the way in which entanglement spreads across the components of the system, we offer some insights into the fundamental quantum features behind the impossibility of superluminal signaling and we provide a more general proof of such an impossibility in this and related protocols.

arXiv:2204.01190•Physical review. D/Physical review. D.•Oct 17, 2023•3 citations

A Structural Proof of the No-Signaling Theorem

prometheus engineering university

The no-signaling principle in quantum mechanics—that local operations on onesubsystem of an entangled pair cannot transmit information to a distant subsystem—has never been structurally proven from independent physical principles. Everyexisting derivation is circular: von Neumann constructed the tensor product for-malism specifically to enforce no-signaling [1], and all subsequent “proofs” deriveno-signaling from a structure that was designed to contain it [2, 3]. We present anon-circular structural proof. Starting from two premises independent of quantumformalism—the relativistic propagation limit c and the experimental record of Belltests, quantum erasers, and which-path experiments—we derive the no-signaling re-sult as a mathematical consequence of the tensor contraction structure. The proofproceeds in four steps: (i) the inscription tensor formalism, which encodes correla-tions in a rank-r tensor whose contraction rules are fixed by the mathematics, notby postulate; (ii) an exhaustive enumeration of all nine measurement configurationsfor an entangled pair, showing that partial contraction yields 12 in every case, in-dependent of the distant party’s choice; (iii) the cross-term kill theorem, provingthat one environmental inscription produces an exact, immediate, and idempotenttransition from quantum to classical probability structure; and (iv) the proof bycontrapositive via which-path and quantum eraser experiments, confirming bothdirections of the theorem against the complete experimental record. Four inde-pendent confirmations—information-theoretic, conservation-law, operational, andsymmetry-based—close every remaining escape route. The proof requires no newphysics, no new axioms, and no ontological commitment beyond what the existingformalism and experimental record already contain. We note that the Entropic Lat-tice Ontology’s fourth spatial degree provides a geometric explanation for why theproof works—the correlation occupies a spatial degree with no three-dimensionaladdress—but this theoretical framework is not required for the proof’s validity

•Jun 6, 2026•0 citations

Quantum non-locality based on finite-speed causal influences leads to superluminal signalling

Jean-Daniel Bancal, Stefano Pironio, Antonio Acín +3 more

arXiv:1110.3795•Nature Physics•Oct 26, 2012•153 citations
A recently proposed gedanken experiment involving the (gravitational or electromagnetic) interaction between two objects---one placed in a state of quantum superposition of two locations---seems to allow for faster-than-light communication. However, it has been argued that, if the mediating fields are endowed with quantum properties, then the possibility for superluminal signaling is fully avoided. Moreover, in the gravitational case, this conclusion has been used to argue for the view that the gravitational field must be quantized. In this work, we clarify and complement some aspects of the discussion. In particular, by focusing on the way in which entanglement spreads across the components of the system, we offer some insights into the fundamental quantum features behind the impossibility of superluminal signaling and we provide a more general proof of such an impossibility in this and related protocols.
The no-signaling principle in quantum mechanics—that local operations on onesubsystem of an entangled pair cannot transmit information to a distant subsystem—has never been structurally proven from independent physical principles. Everyexisting derivation is circular: von Neumann constructed the tensor product for-malism specifically to enforce no-signaling [1], and all subsequent “proofs” deriveno-signaling from a structure that was designed to contain it [2, 3]. We present anon-circular structural proof. Starting from two premises independent of quantumformalism—the relativistic propagation limit c and the experimental record of Belltests, quantum erasers, and which-path experiments—we derive the no-signaling re-sult as a mathematical consequence of the tensor contraction structure. The proofproceeds in four steps: (i) the inscription tensor formalism, which encodes correla-tions in a rank-r tensor whose contraction rules are fixed by the mathematics, notby postulate; (ii) an exhaustive enumeration of all nine measurement configurationsfor an entangled pair, showing that partial contraction yields 12 in every case, in-dependent of the distant party’s choice; (iii) the cross-term kill theorem, provingthat one environmental inscription produces an exact, immediate, and idempotenttransition from quantum to classical probability structure; and (iv) the proof bycontrapositive via which-path and quantum eraser experiments, confirming bothdirections of the theorem against the complete experimental record. Four inde-pendent confirmations—information-theoretic, conservation-law, operational, andsymmetry-based—close every remaining escape route. The proof requires no newphysics, no new axioms, and no ontological commitment beyond what the existingformalism and experimental record already contain. We note that the Entropic Lat-tice Ontology’s fourth spatial degree provides a geometric explanation for why theproof works—the correlation occupies a spatial degree with no three-dimensionaladdress—but this theoretical framework is not required for the proof’s validity