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:1708.04194 · STEAM-H: Science, Technology, Engineering, Agriculture, Mathematics & Health

Bell Correlations and the Common Future

Ämin Baumeler, Julien Degorre, Stefan Wolf

Published Jan 1, 2018• 3 citations
arXivHTMLPDF
DOI
10.1007/978-3-319-74971-6_18

Related papers

Common cause and contextual realization of Bell correlation

Afshin Shafiee, Reza Maleeh, Mehdi Golshani

arXiv:quant-ph/0504121•Annals of Physics•Mar 13, 2007•5 citations

Locality, Independence and the Pro-Liberty Bell

Huw Price

Construed as an argument against hidden variable theories, Bell's Theorem assumes that hidden variables would be independent of future measurement settings. This Independence Assumption (IA) is rarely questioned. Bell considered relaxing it to avoid non-locality, but thought that the resulting view left no room for free will. However, Bell seems to have failed to distinguish two different strategies for giving up IA. One strategy takes for granted the Principle of the Common Cause, which requires that a correlation between hidden variables and measurement settings be explained by a joint correlation with some unknown factor in their common past. The other strategy rejects the Principle of the Common Cause, and argues that the required correlation might be due to the known interaction between the object system and the measuring device in their common future. Bell and most others who have discussed these issues have focussed on the former strategy, but because the two approaches have not been properly distinguished, it has not been well appreciated that there is a quite different way to relax IA. This paper distinguishes the two strategies, and argues that the latter is considerably more appealing than the former.

arXiv:quant-ph/9602020•Feb 28, 1996•7 citations

Stochastic Outcomes in Branching Space-Time: Analysis of Bell's Theorem

Tomasz Placek

The paper extends the framework of outcomes in branching space-time (Kowalski and Placek [1999]) by assigning probabilities to outcomes of events, where these probabilities are interpreted either epistemically or as weighted possibilities. In resulting models I define the notion of common cause of correlated outcomes of a single event, and investigate which setups allow for the introduction of common causes. It turns out that a deterministic common cause can always be introduced, but (surprisingly) only special setups permit the introduction of truly stochastic common causes. I analyse next the Bell-Aspect experiment and derive the Bell-CH inequalities. I observe that we postulate there not a common cause for outcomes of a single event but rather a common common cause that accounts for outcomes of many events, where 'events' mean 'measurements with (different) directions of polarization'. Since the inequalities are violated, I claim that no causal story can be told about the Bell correlations, where causality is subliminal and restricted by screening-off condition. Similarly, given certain intuitive principles, no deterministic story can be told about these correlations.

The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science•Sep 1, 2000•29 citations

Quantum Correlations and Bell's Inequality

WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks•Sep 1, 2010•0 citations

Bell’s Correlations and Spin Systems

Martin Bohata, Jan Hamhalter

Foundations of Physics•Jan 4, 2010•4 citations

Bell-type correlations from continuous variable measurements

Timothy C. Ralph, William J. Munro, Rodney Polkinghorne

•Jan 1, 2000•0 citations
Construed as an argument against hidden variable theories, Bell's Theorem assumes that hidden variables would be independent of future measurement settings. This Independence Assumption (IA) is rarely questioned. Bell considered relaxing it to avoid non-locality, but thought that the resulting view left no room for free will. However, Bell seems to have failed to distinguish two different strategies for giving up IA. One strategy takes for granted the Principle of the Common Cause, which requires that a correlation between hidden variables and measurement settings be explained by a joint correlation with some unknown factor in their common past. The other strategy rejects the Principle of the Common Cause, and argues that the required correlation might be due to the known interaction between the object system and the measuring device in their common future. Bell and most others who have discussed these issues have focussed on the former strategy, but because the two approaches have not been properly distinguished, it has not been well appreciated that there is a quite different way to relax IA. This paper distinguishes the two strategies, and argues that the latter is considerably more appealing than the former.
The paper extends the framework of outcomes in branching space-time (Kowalski and Placek [1999]) by assigning probabilities to outcomes of events, where these probabilities are interpreted either epistemically or as weighted possibilities. In resulting models I define the notion of common cause of correlated outcomes of a single event, and investigate which setups allow for the introduction of common causes. It turns out that a deterministic common cause can always be introduced, but (surprisingly) only special setups permit the introduction of truly stochastic common causes. I analyse next the Bell-Aspect experiment and derive the Bell-CH inequalities. I observe that we postulate there not a common cause for outcomes of a single event but rather a common common cause that accounts for outcomes of many events, where 'events' mean 'measurements with (different) directions of polarization'. Since the inequalities are violated, I claim that no causal story can be told about the Bell correlations, where causality is subliminal and restricted by screening-off condition. Similarly, given certain intuitive principles, no deterministic story can be told about these correlations.