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:1408.3125

Stronger-than-quantum bipartite correlations violate relativistic causality in the classical limit

Daniel Rohrlich

Published Aug 13, 2014• 4 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Superquantum ("PR-box") correlations, though designed to respect relativistic causality, violate relativistic causality in the classical limit. Generalizing to all stronger-than-quantum bipartite correlations, I derive Tsirelson's bound from the axioms of nonlocality, relativistic causality and the existence of a classical limit. This derivation of Tsirelson's bound does not assume quantum mechanics yet suggests how Hilbert space is implicit in quantum correlations.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1408.3125

Related papers

A Reasonable Thing That Just Might Work

Daniel Rohrlich

In 1964, John Bell proved that quantum mechanics is “unreasonable” (to use Einstein's term): there are nonlocal bipartite quantum correlations. But they are not the most nonlocal bipartite correlations consistent with relativistic causality (“no superluminal signalling”); maximally nonlocal “superquantum” (or “PR-box”) correlations are also consistent with relativistic causality. I show that – unlike quantum correlations – these correlations do not have a classical limit consistent with relativistic causality. The generalization of this result to all stronger-than-quantum nonlocal correlations is a derivation of Tsirelson's bound – a theorem of quantum mechanics – from the three axioms of relativistic causality, nonlocality, and the existence of a classical limit. But is it reasonable to derive (a part of) quantum mechanics from the unreasonable axiom of nonlocality?! I consider replacing the nonlocality axiom with an equivalent axiom that even Bell and Einstein might have considered reasonable: an axiom of local retrocausality. In 1964, John Bell [1] proved that quantum mechanics is “unreasonable,” as defined by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen [2] in 1935: “No reasonable definition of reality could be expected to permit this.” “This” (i.e., violation of “Einstein separability,” to use a technical term, or “spooky action at a distance,” as Einstein put it) turns out to be endemic to quantum mechanics. For example, pairs of photons measured at spacelike separations may yield nonlocal quantum correlations, i.e., correlations that cannot be traced to any data or “programs” the photons carry with them. As Bell [3] put it 20 years later, “For me, it is so reasonable to assume that the photons in those experiments carry with them programs, which have been correlated in advance, telling them how to behave. This is so rational that I think that when Einstein saw that, and the others refused to see it, he was the rational man. The other people, although history has justified them, were burying their heads in the sand. I feel that Einstein's intellectual superiority over Bohr, in this instance, was enormous; a vast gulf between the man who saw clearly what was needed, and the obscurantist. So for me, it is a pity that Einstein's idea doesn't work. The reasonable thing just doesn't work.”

arXiv:1507.01588•Cambridge University Press eBooks•Aug 31, 2016•1 citation

Why the Quantum?

Jeffrey Bub

What principle excludes superquantum correlations that don’t violate the nosignaling principle? In an argument using PR boxes in a 2009 Nature paper, Pawlowski and colleagues show that the Tsirelson bound – the limit achievable in a simulation of a Popescu–Rohrlich correlation with quantum resources – follows from an information-theoretic principle they call “information causality.” For three qubits, it is now known that there are superquantum correlations that cannot be excluded by a bipartite principle like information causality, so this principle does not completely characterize quantum correlations. An intriguing principle, developed by Cabello as the “exclusivity principle” or “Specker’s principle” (from Ernst Specker’s story about a seer from Nineva), and separately by Fritz and colleagues as the principle of “local orthogonality,” yields the Tsirelson bound, and also rules out correlations beyond the quantum limit for the Klyachko correlation and other cases where contextuality or nonlocality is relevant.

Oxford University Press eBooks•Feb 11, 2016•0 citations

No causal order and quantum probability assignment

Yeong Deok Han, Taeseung Choi

We have studied how relativistic causality limits on the generalization of quantum probability assignment, which can give more nonlocal (superquantum) correlations than quantum correlations. We have shown that 'no causal order' condition between two spacelike separate events is stronger than no faster-than-light-signaling condition as the requirement of relativistic causality. Using no causal order condition we have proved that Born rule is the only probability assignment to quantum measurement on an arbitrary entangled quantum state described by the Hilbert space language, consistent with relativistic causality. We have also shown that all superquantum correlations, which preserve relativistic causality, can be understood as hypothetical correlations given by applying modified quantum probability assignments to quantum measurements on a Bell state.

arXiv:1307.2026•Jul 8, 2013•0 citations

Why superquantum, no-signaling correlations cannot exist

Pierre Uzan

The idea that nonlocal correlations stronger than quantum correlations between two no-signaling systems could “theoretically” exist is based on an incorrect statistical interpretation of the no-signaling condition. This article shows that any physically realizable no-signaling “box” involving local incompatible observables indeed requires to be described in a noncommutative, quantum-like language of operators, which leads to the derivation of the Tsirelson bound and then contradicts this idea.

Physics Essays•Jun 15, 2020•1 citation

Why the Tsirelson Bound?

Jeffrey Bub

Wheeler's question 'why the quantum' has two aspects: why is the world quantum and not classical, and why is it quantum rather than superquantum, i.e., why the Tsirelson bound for quantum correlations? I discuss a remarkable answer to this question proposed by Pawłowski et al. [1], who provide an information-theoretic derivation of the Tsirelson bound from a principle they call 'information causality.'

•Aug 16, 2016•12 citations

GHZ States as Tripartite PR Boxes: Classical Limit and Retrocausality

Daniel Rohrlich, Guy Hetzroni

relativistic causality in the classical limit. As a test of this argument, we consider Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) correlations as a tripartite version of PR-box correlations, and ask whether the argument extends to GHZ correlations. If it does-i.e., if it shows that GHZ correlations violate relativistic causality in the classical limit-then the argument must be incorrect (since GHZ correlations do respect relativistic causality in the classical limit.) However, we find that the argument does not extend to GHZ correlations. We also show that both PR-box correlations and GHZ correlations can be retrocausal, but the retrocausality of PR-box correlations leads to self-contradictory causal loops, while the retrocausality of GHZ correlations does not.

arXiv:1606.04274•Entropy•Jun 20, 2018•1 citation
Superquantum ("PR-box") correlations, though designed to respect relativistic causality, violate relativistic causality in the classical limit. Generalizing to all stronger-than-quantum bipartite correlations, I derive Tsirelson's bound from the axioms of nonlocality, relativistic causality and the existence of a classical limit. This derivation of Tsirelson's bound does not assume quantum mechanics yet suggests how Hilbert space is implicit in quantum correlations.
In 1964, John Bell proved that quantum mechanics is “unreasonable” (to use Einstein's term): there are nonlocal bipartite quantum correlations. But they are not the most nonlocal bipartite correlations consistent with relativistic causality (“no superluminal signalling”); maximally nonlocal “superquantum” (or “PR-box”) correlations are also consistent with relativistic causality. I show that – unlike quantum correlations – these correlations do not have a classical limit consistent with relativistic causality. The generalization of this result to all stronger-than-quantum nonlocal correlations is a derivation of Tsirelson's bound – a theorem of quantum mechanics – from the three axioms of relativistic causality, nonlocality, and the existence of a classical limit. But is it reasonable to derive (a part of) quantum mechanics from the unreasonable axiom of nonlocality?! I consider replacing the nonlocality axiom with an equivalent axiom that even Bell and Einstein might have considered reasonable: an axiom of local retrocausality. In 1964, John Bell [1] proved that quantum mechanics is “unreasonable,” as defined by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen [2] in 1935: “No reasonable definition of reality could be expected to permit this.” “This” (i.e., violation of “Einstein separability,” to use a technical term, or “spooky action at a distance,” as Einstein put it) turns out to be endemic to quantum mechanics. For example, pairs of photons measured at spacelike separations may yield nonlocal quantum correlations, i.e., correlations that cannot be traced to any data or “programs” the photons carry with them. As Bell [3] put it 20 years later, “For me, it is so reasonable to assume that the photons in those experiments carry with them programs, which have been correlated in advance, telling them how to behave. This is so rational that I think that when Einstein saw that, and the others refused to see it, he was the rational man. The other people, although history has justified them, were burying their heads in the sand. I feel that Einstein's intellectual superiority over Bohr, in this instance, was enormous; a vast gulf between the man who saw clearly what was needed, and the obscurantist. So for me, it is a pity that Einstein's idea doesn't work. The reasonable thing just doesn't work.”
What principle excludes superquantum correlations that don’t violate the nosignaling principle? In an argument using PR boxes in a 2009 Nature paper, Pawlowski and colleagues show that the Tsirelson bound – the limit achievable in a simulation of a Popescu–Rohrlich correlation with quantum resources – follows from an information-theoretic principle they call “information causality.” For three qubits, it is now known that there are superquantum correlations that cannot be excluded by a bipartite principle like information causality, so this principle does not completely characterize quantum correlations. An intriguing principle, developed by Cabello as the “exclusivity principle” or “Specker’s principle” (from Ernst Specker’s story about a seer from Nineva), and separately by Fritz and colleagues as the principle of “local orthogonality,” yields the Tsirelson bound, and also rules out correlations beyond the quantum limit for the Klyachko correlation and other cases where contextuality or nonlocality is relevant.
We have studied how relativistic causality limits on the generalization of quantum probability assignment, which can give more nonlocal (superquantum) correlations than quantum correlations. We have shown that 'no causal order' condition between two spacelike separate events is stronger than no faster-than-light-signaling condition as the requirement of relativistic causality. Using no causal order condition we have proved that Born rule is the only probability assignment to quantum measurement on an arbitrary entangled quantum state described by the Hilbert space language, consistent with relativistic causality. We have also shown that all superquantum correlations, which preserve relativistic causality, can be understood as hypothetical correlations given by applying modified quantum probability assignments to quantum measurements on a Bell state.
The idea that nonlocal correlations stronger than quantum correlations between two no-signaling systems could “theoretically” exist is based on an incorrect statistical interpretation of the no-signaling condition. This article shows that any physically realizable no-signaling “box” involving local incompatible observables indeed requires to be described in a noncommutative, quantum-like language of operators, which leads to the derivation of the Tsirelson bound and then contradicts this idea.
relativistic causality in the classical limit. As a test of this argument, we consider Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) correlations as a tripartite version of PR-box correlations, and ask whether the argument extends to GHZ correlations. If it does-i.e., if it shows that GHZ correlations violate relativistic causality in the classical limit-then the argument must be incorrect (since GHZ correlations do respect relativistic causality in the classical limit.) However, we find that the argument does not extend to GHZ correlations. We also show that both PR-box correlations and GHZ correlations can be retrocausal, but the retrocausality of PR-box correlations leads to self-contradictory causal loops, while the retrocausality of GHZ correlations does not.