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:1403.3588 · Journal of Physics Conference Series

The Non-Signalling theorem in generalizations of Bell's theorem

Jan Walleczek, Gerhard Grössing

Published Apr 14, 2014• 14 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Does "epistemic non-signalling" ensure the peaceful coexistence of special relativity and quantum nonlocality? The possibility of an affirmative answer is of great importance to deterministic approaches to quantum mechanics given recent developments towards generalizations of Bell's theorem. By generalizations of Bell's theorem we here mean efforts that seek to demonstrate the impossibility of any deterministic theories to obey the predictions of Bell's theorem, including not only local hidden-variables theories (LHVTs) but, critically, of nonlocal hidden-variables theories (NHVTs) also, such as de Broglie-Bohm theory. Naturally, in light of the well-established experimental findings from quantum physics, whether or not a deterministic approach to quantum mechanics, including an emergent quantum mechanics, is logically possible, depends on compatibility with the predictions of Bell's theorem. With respect to deterministic NHVTs, recent attempts to generalize Bell's theorem have claimed the impossibility of any such approaches to quantum mechanics. The present work offers arguments showing why such efforts towards generalization may fall short of their stated goal. In particular, we challenge the validity of the use of the non-signalling theorem as a conclusive argument in favor of the existence of free randomness, and therefore reject the use of the non-signalling theorem as an argument against the logical possibility of deterministic approaches. We here offer two distinct counter-arguments in support of the possibility of deterministic NHVTs: one argument exposes the circularity of the reasoning which is employed in recent claims, and a second argument is based on the inconclusive metaphysical status of the non-signalling theorem itself. We proceed by presenting an entirely informal treatment of key physical and metaphysical assumptions, and of their interrelationship, in attempts seeking to generalize Bell's theorem on the basis of an ontic, foundational interpretation of the non-signalling theorem. We here argue that the non-signalling theorem must instead be viewed as an epistemic, operational theorem i.e. one that refers exclusively to what epistemic agents can, or rather cannot, do. That is, we emphasize that the non-signalling theorem is a theorem about the operational inability of epistemic agents to signal information. In other words, as a proper principle, the non-signalling theorem may only be employed as an epistemic, phenomenological, or operational principle. Critically, our argument emphasizes that the non-signalling principle must not be used as an ontic principle about physical reality as such, i.e. as a theorem about the nature of physical reality independently of epistemic agents e.g. human observers. One major reason in favor of our conclusion is that any definition of signalling or of non-signalling invariably requires a reference to epistemic agents, and what these agents can actually measure and report. Otherwise, the non-signalling theorem would equal a general "no-influence" theorem. In conclusion, under the assumption that the non-signalling theorem is epistemic (i.e. "epistemic non-signalling"), the search for deterministic approaches to quantum mechanics, including NHVTs and an emergent quantum mechanics, continues to be a viable research program towards disclosing the foundations of physical reality at its smallest dimensions.

DOI
10.1088/1742-6596/504/1/012001

Related papers

Nonlocal Quantum Information Transfer Without Superluminal Signalling and Communication

Jan Walleczek, Gerhard Grössing

It is a frequent assumption that—via superluminal information transfers—superluminal signals capable of enabling communication are necessarily exchanged in any quantum theory that posits hidden superluminal influences. However, does the presence of hidden superluminal influences automatically imply superluminal signalling and communication? The non-signalling theorem mediates the apparent conflict between quantum mechanics and the theory of special relativity. However, as a ‘no-go’ theorem there exist two opposing interpretations of the non-signalling constraint: foundational and operational. Concerning Bell’s theorem, we argue that Bell employed both interpretations, and that he finally adopted the operational position which is associated often with ontological quantum theory, e.g., de Broglie–Bohm theory. This position we refer to as “effective non-signalling”. By contrast, associated with orthodox quantum mechanics is the foundational position referred to here as “axiomatic non-signalling”. In search of a decisive communication-theoretic criterion for differentiating between “axiomatic” and “effective” non-signalling, we employ the operational framework offered by Shannon’s mathematical theory of communication, whereby we distinguish between Shannon signals and non-Shannon signals. We find that an effective non-signalling theorem represents two sub-theorems: (1) Non-transfer-control (NTC) theorem, and (2) Non-signification-control (NSC) theorem. Employing NTC and NSC theorems, we report that effective, instead of axiomatic, non-signalling is entirely sufficient for prohibiting nonlocal communication. Effective non-signalling prevents the instantaneous, i.e., superluminal, transfer of message-encoded information through the controlled use—by a sender-receiver pair —of informationally-correlated detection events, e.g., in EPR-type experiments. An effective non-signalling theorem allows for nonlocal quantum information transfer yet—at the same time—effectively denies superluminal signalling and communication.

arXiv:1501.07177•Foundations of Physics•Jan 29, 2016•17 citations

Causality, Bell's theorem, and Ontic Definiteness

Joe Henson C

Bell's theorem shows that the reasonable relativistic causal principle known as "local causality" is not compatible with the predictions of quantum mechanics. It is not possible maintain a satisfying causal principle of this type while dropping any of the better-known assumptions of Bell's theorem. However, another assumption of Bell's theorem is the use of classical logic. One part of this assumption is the principle of "ontic definiteness", that is, that it must in principle be possible to assign definite truth values to all propositions treated in the theory. Once the logical setting is clarified somewhat, it can be seen that rejecting this principle does not in any way undermine the type of causal principle used by Bell. Without ontic definiteness, the deterministic causal condition known as Einstein Locality succeeds in banning superluminal influence (including signalling) whilst allowing correlations that violate Bell's inequalities. Objections to altering logic, and the consequences for operational and realistic viewpoints, are also addressed.

arXiv:1102.2855•Bulletin of the American Physical Society•Feb 14, 2011•2 citations

No-Signalling Is Equivalent To Free Choice of Measurements

Samson Abramsky, Adam M. Brandenburger, Andrei Savochkin

No-Signalling is a fundamental constraint on the probabilistic predictions made by physical theories. It is usually justified in terms of the constraints imposed by special relativity. However, this justification is not as clear-cut as is usually supposed. We shall give a different perspective on this condition by showing an equivalence between No-Signalling and Lambda Independence, or "free choice of measurements", a condition on hidden-variable theories which is needed to make no-go theorems such as Bell's theorem non-trivial. More precisely, we shall show that a probability table describing measurement outcomes is No-Signalling if and only if it can be realized by a Lambda-Independent hidden-variable theory of a particular canonical form, in which the hidden variables correspond to non-contextual deterministic predictions of measurement outcomes. The key proviso which avoids contradiction with Bell's theorem is that we consider hidden-variable theories with signed probability measures over the hidden variables - i.e. negative probabilities. Negative probabilities have often been discussed in the literature on quantum mechanics. We use a result proved previously in "The Sheaf-theoretic Structure of Locality and Contextuality" by Abramsky and Brandenburger, which shows that they give rise to, and indeed characterize, the entire class of No-Signalling behaviours. In the present paper, we put this result in a broader context, which reveals the surprising consequence that the No-Signalling condition is equivalent to the apparently completely different notion of free choice of measurements.

arXiv:1412.8523•Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science•Dec 26, 2014•10 citations

Relativity, signal locality and the uncertainty principle (or How Bohr could have replied to Einstein if he knew about Bell)

Eric G. Cavalcanti

In the early stages of the famous debates between Einstein and Bohr on the foundations of quantum mechanics, Einstein attempted to devise thought experiments aiming at showing that arbitrarily accurate predictions of incompatible physical quantities was possible, in violation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Bohr was able to defend quantum mechanics from those attacks by showing that a careful application of the uncertainty principle to the experimental apparata as well as the measured system lead to consistent results. Could Bohr have given an independent argument for the irreducible unpredictability implied by the uncertainty principle? The celebrated 1964 theorem of John Bell shows that no model that reproduces the predictions of quantum mechanics can simultaneously satisfy the ontological concepts of locality and determinism. However, nothing can be concluded from Bell's theorem alone about locality by itself or determinism by itself--it is possible to reproduce quantum-mechanical predictions with deterministic models which violate locality as well as indeterministic models which satisfy locality. On the other hand, there's almost universal agreement that the epistemic form of locality--signal locality, or the impossibility of faster-than-light communication--must hold in a relativistic universe. By making a similar distinction between determinism and the epistemic concept of predictability, I show that signal locality plus the bare observed phenomena of Bell inequality violations lead to the remarkable conclusion that Nature is fundamentally unpredictable. This result grounds the quantum-mechanical prohibition of arbitrarily accurate predictions on the principle of relativity, regardless of any postulates of quantum mechanics.

•Nov 12, 2009•3 citations

Some Thoughts on Quantum Nonlocality and Its Apparent Incompatibility with Relativity

Shan Gao

It may well be that a relativistic version of the theory, while Lorentz invariant and local at the observational level, may be necessarily non-local and with a preferred frame (or aether) at the fundamental level. – John Bell [1] Introduction Bell's theorem establishes a contradiction between locality (and a few other assumptions) and certain predictions of quantum mechanics [2]. There have been two main issues surrounding the deep implications of this celebrated theorem. The first issue is basic, and it concerns whether the theorem really establishes that nonlocality is a necessary feature of any empirically viable theory and hence a feature of nature itself. One aspect of the issue concerns exactly what the underlying assumptions of Bell's theorem are. For example, some argue that these assumptions include the assumption of counterfactual definiteness [3–5], while others disagree [6–8]. The other aspect of the issue concerns which assumption should be dropped due to the resulting contradiction. Some believe that standard quantum mechanics may avoid nonlocality by denying counterfactual definiteness [3–5]. The second issue is much deeper, and it concerns how to make sense of the strange nonlocality when assuming that Bell's theorem establishes that our world is nonlocal. In particular, it has yet to be determined whether such quantum nonlocality is compatible with the theory of relativity, e.g., whether the nonlocality requires the existence of a preferred Lorentz frame [7, 9, 10]. It seems that “there is a preferred frame of reference, and in this preferred frame of reference things do go faster than light … Behind the apparent Lorentz invariance of the phenomena, there is a deeper level which is not Lorentz invariant” [11]. But it also seems possible that the existence of a preferred Lorentz frame is an illusion, since it cannot be detected according to standard quantum mechanics. A more subtle issue is whether quantum nonlocality permits superluminal signaling. It is widely thought that the answers to these questions will lead to a deeper understanding of Bell's theorem and quantum nonlocality. In this paper, we will present a new analysis of quantum nonlocality and its apparent incompatibility with relativity.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Aug 31, 2016•1 citation

Quantum Solipsism and Nonlocality

Travis Norsen

J.S. Bell's remarkable 1964 theorem showed that any theory sharing the empirical predictions of orthodox quantum mechanics would have to exhibit a surprising – and, from the point of view of relativity theory, very troubling – kind of nonlocality. Unfortunately, even still on this 50th anniversary, many commentators and textbook authors continue to misrepresent Bell's theorem. In particular, one continues to hear the claim that Bell's result leaves open the option of concluding either nonlocality or the failure of some unorthodox “hidden variable” (or “determinism” or “realism”) premise. This mistaken claim is often based on a failure to appreciate the role of the earlier 1935 argument of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen in Bell's reasoning. After briefly reviewing this situation, I turn to two alternative versions of quantum theory – the “many worlds” theory of Everett and the quantum Bayesian interpretation of Fuchs, Schack, Caves, and Mermin – that purport to provide actual counterexamples to Bell's claim that nonlocality is required to account for the empirically verified quantum predictions. After analyzing each theory's grounds for claiming to explain the EPR–Bell correlations locally, however, one can see that (despite a number of fundamental differences) the two theories share a common for-all-practical-purposes (FAPP) solipsistic character. This dramatically undermines such theories’ claims to provide a local explanation of the correlations and thus, by concretizing the ridiculous philosophical lengths to which one must go to elude Bell's own conclusion, reinforces the assertion that nonlocality really is required to coherently explain the empirical data. Introduction Fifty years ago, in 1964 [1], John Stewart Bell first proved the theorem that has become widely known as “Bell's Theorem” but that Bell himself instead referred to as the “locality inequality theorem” [2]. In Bell's own view, the theorem showed that the empirical predictions of local theories will be constrained by Bell's inequality (or as Bell himself preferred to call it, the “locality inequality”). Hence, nonlocality is a necessary feature of any theory that shares the empirical predictions of standard quantum mechanics.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Aug 31, 2016•22 citations
Does "epistemic non-signalling" ensure the peaceful coexistence of special relativity and quantum nonlocality? The possibility of an affirmative answer is of great importance to deterministic approaches to quantum mechanics given recent developments towards generalizations of Bell's theorem. By generalizations of Bell's theorem we here mean efforts that seek to demonstrate the impossibility of any deterministic theories to obey the predictions of Bell's theorem, including not only local hidden-variables theories (LHVTs) but, critically, of nonlocal hidden-variables theories (NHVTs) also, such as de Broglie-Bohm theory. Naturally, in light of the well-established experimental findings from quantum physics, whether or not a deterministic approach to quantum mechanics, including an emergent quantum mechanics, is logically possible, depends on compatibility with the predictions of Bell's theorem. With respect to deterministic NHVTs, recent attempts to generalize Bell's theorem have claimed the impossibility of any such approaches to quantum mechanics. The present work offers arguments showing why such efforts towards generalization may fall short of their stated goal. In particular, we challenge the validity of the use of the non-signalling theorem as a conclusive argument in favor of the existence of free randomness, and therefore reject the use of the non-signalling theorem as an argument against the logical possibility of deterministic approaches. We here offer two distinct counter-arguments in support of the possibility of deterministic NHVTs: one argument exposes the circularity of the reasoning which is employed in recent claims, and a second argument is based on the inconclusive metaphysical status of the non-signalling theorem itself. We proceed by presenting an entirely informal treatment of key physical and metaphysical assumptions, and of their interrelationship, in attempts seeking to generalize Bell's theorem on the basis of an ontic, foundational interpretation of the non-signalling theorem. We here argue that the non-signalling theorem must instead be viewed as an epistemic, operational theorem i.e. one that refers exclusively to what epistemic agents can, or rather cannot, do. That is, we emphasize that the non-signalling theorem is a theorem about the operational inability of epistemic agents to signal information. In other words, as a proper principle, the non-signalling theorem may only be employed as an epistemic, phenomenological, or operational principle. Critically, our argument emphasizes that the non-signalling principle must not be used as an ontic principle about physical reality as such, i.e. as a theorem about the nature of physical reality independently of epistemic agents e.g. human observers. One major reason in favor of our conclusion is that any definition of signalling or of non-signalling invariably requires a reference to epistemic agents, and what these agents can actually measure and report. Otherwise, the non-signalling theorem would equal a general "no-influence" theorem. In conclusion, under the assumption that the non-signalling theorem is epistemic (i.e. "epistemic non-signalling"), the search for deterministic approaches to quantum mechanics, including NHVTs and an emergent quantum mechanics, continues to be a viable research program towards disclosing the foundations of physical reality at its smallest dimensions.
It is a frequent assumption that—via superluminal information transfers—superluminal signals capable of enabling communication are necessarily exchanged in any quantum theory that posits hidden superluminal influences. However, does the presence of hidden superluminal influences automatically imply superluminal signalling and communication? The non-signalling theorem mediates the apparent conflict between quantum mechanics and the theory of special relativity. However, as a ‘no-go’ theorem there exist two opposing interpretations of the non-signalling constraint: foundational and operational. Concerning Bell’s theorem, we argue that Bell employed both interpretations, and that he finally adopted the operational position which is associated often with ontological quantum theory, e.g., de Broglie–Bohm theory. This position we refer to as “effective non-signalling”. By contrast, associated with orthodox quantum mechanics is the foundational position referred to here as “axiomatic non-signalling”. In search of a decisive communication-theoretic criterion for differentiating between “axiomatic” and “effective” non-signalling, we employ the operational framework offered by Shannon’s mathematical theory of communication, whereby we distinguish between Shannon signals and non-Shannon signals. We find that an effective non-signalling theorem represents two sub-theorems: (1) Non-transfer-control (NTC) theorem, and (2) Non-signification-control (NSC) theorem. Employing NTC and NSC theorems, we report that effective, instead of axiomatic, non-signalling is entirely sufficient for prohibiting nonlocal communication. Effective non-signalling prevents the instantaneous, i.e., superluminal, transfer of message-encoded information through the controlled use—by a sender-receiver pair —of informationally-correlated detection events, e.g., in EPR-type experiments. An effective non-signalling theorem allows for nonlocal quantum information transfer yet—at the same time—effectively denies superluminal signalling and communication.
Bell's theorem shows that the reasonable relativistic causal principle known as "local causality" is not compatible with the predictions of quantum mechanics. It is not possible maintain a satisfying causal principle of this type while dropping any of the better-known assumptions of Bell's theorem. However, another assumption of Bell's theorem is the use of classical logic. One part of this assumption is the principle of "ontic definiteness", that is, that it must in principle be possible to assign definite truth values to all propositions treated in the theory. Once the logical setting is clarified somewhat, it can be seen that rejecting this principle does not in any way undermine the type of causal principle used by Bell. Without ontic definiteness, the deterministic causal condition known as Einstein Locality succeeds in banning superluminal influence (including signalling) whilst allowing correlations that violate Bell's inequalities. Objections to altering logic, and the consequences for operational and realistic viewpoints, are also addressed.
No-Signalling is a fundamental constraint on the probabilistic predictions made by physical theories. It is usually justified in terms of the constraints imposed by special relativity. However, this justification is not as clear-cut as is usually supposed. We shall give a different perspective on this condition by showing an equivalence between No-Signalling and Lambda Independence, or "free choice of measurements", a condition on hidden-variable theories which is needed to make no-go theorems such as Bell's theorem non-trivial. More precisely, we shall show that a probability table describing measurement outcomes is No-Signalling if and only if it can be realized by a Lambda-Independent hidden-variable theory of a particular canonical form, in which the hidden variables correspond to non-contextual deterministic predictions of measurement outcomes. The key proviso which avoids contradiction with Bell's theorem is that we consider hidden-variable theories with signed probability measures over the hidden variables - i.e. negative probabilities. Negative probabilities have often been discussed in the literature on quantum mechanics. We use a result proved previously in "The Sheaf-theoretic Structure of Locality and Contextuality" by Abramsky and Brandenburger, which shows that they give rise to, and indeed characterize, the entire class of No-Signalling behaviours. In the present paper, we put this result in a broader context, which reveals the surprising consequence that the No-Signalling condition is equivalent to the apparently completely different notion of free choice of measurements.
In the early stages of the famous debates between Einstein and Bohr on the foundations of quantum mechanics, Einstein attempted to devise thought experiments aiming at showing that arbitrarily accurate predictions of incompatible physical quantities was possible, in violation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Bohr was able to defend quantum mechanics from those attacks by showing that a careful application of the uncertainty principle to the experimental apparata as well as the measured system lead to consistent results. Could Bohr have given an independent argument for the irreducible unpredictability implied by the uncertainty principle? The celebrated 1964 theorem of John Bell shows that no model that reproduces the predictions of quantum mechanics can simultaneously satisfy the ontological concepts of locality and determinism. However, nothing can be concluded from Bell's theorem alone about locality by itself or determinism by itself--it is possible to reproduce quantum-mechanical predictions with deterministic models which violate locality as well as indeterministic models which satisfy locality. On the other hand, there's almost universal agreement that the epistemic form of locality--signal locality, or the impossibility of faster-than-light communication--must hold in a relativistic universe. By making a similar distinction between determinism and the epistemic concept of predictability, I show that signal locality plus the bare observed phenomena of Bell inequality violations lead to the remarkable conclusion that Nature is fundamentally unpredictable. This result grounds the quantum-mechanical prohibition of arbitrarily accurate predictions on the principle of relativity, regardless of any postulates of quantum mechanics.
It may well be that a relativistic version of the theory, while Lorentz invariant and local at the observational level, may be necessarily non-local and with a preferred frame (or aether) at the fundamental level. – John Bell [1] Introduction Bell's theorem establishes a contradiction between locality (and a few other assumptions) and certain predictions of quantum mechanics [2]. There have been two main issues surrounding the deep implications of this celebrated theorem. The first issue is basic, and it concerns whether the theorem really establishes that nonlocality is a necessary feature of any empirically viable theory and hence a feature of nature itself. One aspect of the issue concerns exactly what the underlying assumptions of Bell's theorem are. For example, some argue that these assumptions include the assumption of counterfactual definiteness [3–5], while others disagree [6–8]. The other aspect of the issue concerns which assumption should be dropped due to the resulting contradiction. Some believe that standard quantum mechanics may avoid nonlocality by denying counterfactual definiteness [3–5]. The second issue is much deeper, and it concerns how to make sense of the strange nonlocality when assuming that Bell's theorem establishes that our world is nonlocal. In particular, it has yet to be determined whether such quantum nonlocality is compatible with the theory of relativity, e.g., whether the nonlocality requires the existence of a preferred Lorentz frame [7, 9, 10]. It seems that “there is a preferred frame of reference, and in this preferred frame of reference things do go faster than light … Behind the apparent Lorentz invariance of the phenomena, there is a deeper level which is not Lorentz invariant” [11]. But it also seems possible that the existence of a preferred Lorentz frame is an illusion, since it cannot be detected according to standard quantum mechanics. A more subtle issue is whether quantum nonlocality permits superluminal signaling. It is widely thought that the answers to these questions will lead to a deeper understanding of Bell's theorem and quantum nonlocality. In this paper, we will present a new analysis of quantum nonlocality and its apparent incompatibility with relativity.
J.S. Bell's remarkable 1964 theorem showed that any theory sharing the empirical predictions of orthodox quantum mechanics would have to exhibit a surprising – and, from the point of view of relativity theory, very troubling – kind of nonlocality. Unfortunately, even still on this 50th anniversary, many commentators and textbook authors continue to misrepresent Bell's theorem. In particular, one continues to hear the claim that Bell's result leaves open the option of concluding either nonlocality or the failure of some unorthodox “hidden variable” (or “determinism” or “realism”) premise. This mistaken claim is often based on a failure to appreciate the role of the earlier 1935 argument of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen in Bell's reasoning. After briefly reviewing this situation, I turn to two alternative versions of quantum theory – the “many worlds” theory of Everett and the quantum Bayesian interpretation of Fuchs, Schack, Caves, and Mermin – that purport to provide actual counterexamples to Bell's claim that nonlocality is required to account for the empirically verified quantum predictions. After analyzing each theory's grounds for claiming to explain the EPR–Bell correlations locally, however, one can see that (despite a number of fundamental differences) the two theories share a common for-all-practical-purposes (FAPP) solipsistic character. This dramatically undermines such theories’ claims to provide a local explanation of the correlations and thus, by concretizing the ridiculous philosophical lengths to which one must go to elude Bell's own conclusion, reinforces the assertion that nonlocality really is required to coherently explain the empirical data. Introduction Fifty years ago, in 1964 [1], John Stewart Bell first proved the theorem that has become widely known as “Bell's Theorem” but that Bell himself instead referred to as the “locality inequality theorem” [2]. In Bell's own view, the theorem showed that the empirical predictions of local theories will be constrained by Bell's inequality (or as Bell himself preferred to call it, the “locality inequality”). Hence, nonlocality is a necessary feature of any theory that shares the empirical predictions of standard quantum mechanics.