To make precise the sense in which nature fails to respect classical physics, one requires a formal notion of classicality. Ideally, such a notion should be defined operationally, so that it can be subject to direct experimental test, and it should be applicable in a wide variety of experimental scenarios so that it can cover the breadth of phenomena thought to defy classical understanding. Bell's notion of local causality fulfils the first criterion but not the second. The notion of noncontextuality fulfils the second criterion, but it is a long-standing question whether it can be made to fulfil the first. Previous attempts to test noncontextuality have all assumed idealizations that real experiments cannot achieve, namely noiseless measurements and exact operational equivalences. Here we show how to devise tests that are free of these idealizations. We perform a photonic implementation of one such test, ruling out noncontextual models with high confidence.
To make precise the sense in which nature fails to respect classical physics, one requires a formal notion of classicality. Ideally, such a notion should be defined operationally, so that it can be subject to direct experimental test, and it should be applicable in a wide variety of experimental scenarios so that it can cover the breadth of phenomena thought to defy classical understanding. Bell's notion of local causality fulfils the first criterion but not the second. The notion of noncontextuality fulfils the second criterion, but it is a long-standing question whether it can be made to fulfil the first. Previous attempts to test noncontextuality have all assumed idealizations that real experiments cannot achieve, namely noiseless measurements and exact operational equivalences. Here we show how to devise tests that are free of these idealizations. We perform a photonic implementation of one such test, ruling out noncontextual models with high confidence.
Generalized noncontextuality is a well-studied notion of classicality that is applicable to a single system, as opposed to Bell locality. It relies on representing operationally indistinguishable procedures identically in an ontological model. However, operational indistinguishability depends on the set of operations that one may use to distinguish two procedures: we refer to this set as the reference of indistinguishability. Thus, whether or not a given experiment is noncontextual depends on the choice of reference. The choices of references appearing in the literature are seldom discussed, but typically relate to an implicit notion of a system underlying the experiment. This shift in perspective then begs the question: how should one define the extent of the system underlying an experiment? This question depends in part on one's beliefs in the universe being fundamentally continuous or fundamentally composite. To draw a coherent picture of the possible approaches one may use, we start by formulating a notion of noncontextuality for prepare-and-measure scenarios with respect to an explicit reference of indistinguishability. We investigate how verdicts of noncontextuality depend on this choice of reference, and in the process we introduce the concept of the noncontextuality graph of a prepare-and-measure scenario. We then discuss several proposals that one may appeal to in order to fix the reference to a specific choice, and we relate these proposals to different conceptions of what a system really is. With this discussion, we advocate that whether or not an experiment is noncontextual is not as absolute as often perceived. Published by the American Physical Society 2024
Since Bell's theorem, it is known that local realism fails to explain quantum phenomena. Bell inequality violations manifestly show the incompatibility of quantum theory with classical notions of cause and effect. As recently found, however, the instrumental scenario-a pivotal tool in causal inference-allows for nonclassicality signatures going beyond this paradigm. If we are not limited to observational data and can intervene in our setup, then we can witness quantum violations of classical bounds on the causal influence among the involved variables even when no Bell-like violation is possible. That is, through interventions, the quantum behavior of a system that would seem classical can be demonstrated. Using a photonic setup-faithfully implementing the instrumental causal structure and switching between observation and intervention run by run-we experimentally witness such a nonclassicality. We also test quantum bounds for the causal influence, showing that they provide a reliable tool for quantum causal modeling.
To date, quantum theory is the most successful physical theory that has been discovered. However, there is still the possibility that an inconsistency between experimental observations and the predictions of quantum theory may one day be found, thus prompting the replacement of quantum theory with a superior, post-quantum theory. To narrow down the scope of possibilities for the true theory that describes nature, one can perform experiments that falsify other physical theories, by demonstrating an incompatibility between experimental observations and the predictions of these theories. This thesis details two such experiments. First we provide relevant background information, beginning with a review of experimental quantum optics. Next, we review noncontextual ontological theories and discuss requirements for experimental tests of such theories. Finally, we discuss the framework of generalised probabilistic theories before introducing the two experiments. \n \n \nThe first experiment is a test of noncontextual ontological (or hidden-variable) models of nature. An ontological model of a physical theory is one in which systems have preexisting properties, and a noncontextual ontological model is one in which systems that are indistinguishable experimentally are represented identically in the model. Physical theories that cannot be represented by a noncontextual ontological model are said to be nonclassical; quantum theory is an example of such a physical theory that is nonclassical in this sense. Prior to this thesis, experimental tests of the assumption of noncontextuality had assumed that the experiments were free of both systematic and statistical errors, which is not justifiable for any experiment. We introduce new analytical techniques that allow us to avoid making these assumptions, and perform an experiment with single photons that, with high confidence, rules out the possibility of describing nature with a noncontextual ontological model. \n \n \nThe second experiment is a demonstration of self-consistent state and measurement tomography in the framework of generalised probabilistic theories (GPTs). The GPT framework is a very general, operationally-motivated framework for describing a physical theory in terms of the observable events predicted by the theory. We develop a technique for inferring the GPT description of a set of states and measurements directly from experimental data. By analysing our data in this general framework, we are able to test various candidate physical theories of nature. We perform an experiment with single photons, and quantify the size of possible variations between quantum theory and the true physical theory that describes nature.
Generalized noncontextuality is a well-studied notion of classicality that is applicable to a single system, as opposed to Bell locality. It relies on representing operationally indistinguishable procedures identically in an ontological model. However, operational indistinguishability depends on the set of operations that one may use to distinguish two procedures: we refer to this set as the reference of indistinguishability. Thus, whether or not a given experiment is noncontextual depends on the choice of reference. The choices of references appearing in the literature are seldom discussed, but typically relate to a notion of system underlying the experiment. This shift in perspective then begs the question: how should one define the extent of the system underlying an experiment? Our paper primarily aims at exposing this question rather than providing a definitive answer to it. We start by formulating a notion of relative noncontextuality for prepare-and-measure scenarios, which is simply noncontextuality with respect to an explicit reference of indistinguishability. We investigate how verdicts of relative noncontextuality depend on this choice of reference, and in the process introduce the concept of the noncontextuality graph of a prepare-and-measure scenario. We then discuss several proposals that one may appeal to in order to fix the reference to a specific choice, and relate these proposals to different conceptions of what a system really is. With this discussion, we advocate that whether or not an experiment is noncontextual is not as absolute as often perceived.
Explaining observations in terms of cause-and-effect (causal) relations is central to empirical science. However, in his seminal 1964 work [1], John Bell showed that the correlations between entangled quantum systems cannot be explained in terms of, possibly hidden, cause and effect relations. After four decades of experimental effort, Bell's prediction has recently been confirmed in an unambiguous way by a series of loophole-free Bell-test experiments [2-4]. These experiments, however, cannot reveal where exactly quantum mechanics breaks with our classical notion of cause and effect. Specifically, Bell's theorem is based on the central assumptions of realism and local causality. Realism posits that physical systems have real, objective properties, independent of whether we observe them or not, and local causality assumes that causal influences cannot propagate faster than the speed of light.
Explaining observations in terms of causes and effects is central to empirical science. However, correlations between entangled quantum particles seem to defy such an explanation. This implies that some of the fundamental assumptions of causal explanations have to give way. We consider a relaxation of one of these assumptions, Bell's local causality, by allowing outcome dependence: a direct causal influence between the outcomes of measurements of remote parties. We use interventional data from a photonic experiment to bound the strength of this causal influence in a two-party Bell scenario, and observational data from a Bell-type inequality test for the considered models. Our results demonstrate the incompatibility of quantum mechanics with a broad class of nonlocal causal models, which includes Bell-local models as a special case. Recovering a classical causal picture of quantum correlations thus requires an even more radical modification of our classical notion of cause and effect.