A violation of Bell-CHSH inequalities does not justify speculations about quantum non-locality, conspiracy and retro-causation. Such speculations are rooted in a belief that setting dependence of hidden variables in a probabilistic model (called a violation of measurement independence (MI)) would mean a violation of experimenters’ freedom of choice. This belief is unfounded because it is based on a questionable use of Bayes Theorem and on incorrect causal interpretation of conditional probabilities. In Bell-local realistic model, hidden variables describe only photonic beams created by a source, thus they cannot depend on randomly chosen experimental settings. However, if hidden variables describing measuring instruments are correctly incorporated into a contextual probabilistic model a violation of inequalities and an apparent violation of no-signaling reported in Bell tests can be explained without evoking quantum non-locality. Therefore, for us, a violation of Bell-CHSH inequalities proves only that hidden variables have to depend on settings confirming contextual character of quantum observables and an active role played by measuring instruments. Bell thought that he had to choose between non-locality and the violation of experimenters’ freedom of choice. From two bad choices he chose non-locality. Today he would probably choose the violation of MI understood as contextuality.
A violation of Bell-CHSH inequalities does not justify speculations about quantum non-locality, conspiracy and retro-causation. Such speculations are rooted in a belief that setting dependence of hidden variables in a probabilistic model (called a violation of measurement independence (MI)) would mean a violation of experimenters’ freedom of choice. This belief is unfounded because it is based on a questionable use of Bayes Theorem and on incorrect causal interpretation of conditional probabilities. In Bell-local realistic model, hidden variables describe only photonic beams created by a source, thus they cannot depend on randomly chosen experimental settings. However, if hidden variables describing measuring instruments are correctly incorporated into a contextual probabilistic model a violation of inequalities and an apparent violation of no-signaling reported in Bell tests can be explained without evoking quantum non-locality. Therefore, for us, a violation of Bell-CHSH inequalities proves only that hidden variables have to depend on settings confirming contextual character of quantum observables and an active role played by measuring instruments. Bell thought that he had to choose between non-locality and the violation of experimenters’ freedom of choice. From two bad choices he chose non-locality. Today he would probably choose the violation of MI understood as contextuality.
Bell inequalities may only be derived, if hidden variables do not depend on the experimental settings. The stochastic independence of hidden and setting variables is called: freedom of choice, free will, measurement independence or no conspiracy. By imbedding the Bell causal structure in a larger causal network the authors correctly prove, that one can explain and quantify possible violation of measurement independence without evoking the super-determinism. They assume the independence of the variables that causally determine the settings and investigate how they might become correlated with hidden variables. Using their extended causal networks they derive a contextual probabilistic model on which their further correct results are based. The authors seem to ignore that contextual probabilistic model may be derived directly using only probabilistic concepts and incorporating correctly setting dependent variables describing measuring instruments. In these contextual probabilistic models experimenters freedom of choice is not compromised and the results of Bell Tests including an apparent violation of Einsteinian nonsignaling may be explained in a locally causal way. Talking about freedom of choice is misleading and is rooted in incorrect understanding of Bayes Theorem. We explain why freedom of choice should be called noncontextuality and why its violation in Bell Tests confirms only the contextual character of quantum observables. Therefore, contextuality and not experimenters freedom of choice are important resources in quantum information.
Contextuality and entanglement are valuable resources for quantum computing and quantum information. Bell inequalities are used to certify entanglement; thus, it is important to understand why and how they are violated. Quantum mechanics and behavioural sciences teach us that random variables 'measuring' the same content (the answer to the same Yes or No question) may vary, if 'measured' jointly with other random variables. Alice's and BoB's raw data confirm Einsteinian non-signaling, but setting dependent experimental protocols are used to create samples of coupled pairs of distant ±1 outcomes and to estimate correlations. Marginal expectations, estimated using these final samples, depend on distant settings. Therefore, a system of random variables 'measured' in Bell tests is inconsistently connected and it should be analyzed using a Contextuality-by-Default approach, what is done for the first time in this paper. The violation of Bell inequalities and inconsistent connectedness may be explained using a contextual locally causal probabilistic model in which setting dependent variables describing measuring instruments are correctly incorporated. We prove that this model does not restrict experimenters' freedom of choice which is a prerequisite of science. Contextuality seems to be the rule and not an exception; thus, it should be carefully tested.
In his article in Science, Nicolas Gisin claimed that quantum correlations emerge from outside space–time. We explainthat they are due to space-time symmetries. This paper is a critical review of metaphysical conclusions found in many recent articles. It advocates the importance of contextuality, Einstein -causality and global symmetries. Bell tests allow only rejecting probabilistic coupling provided by a local hidden variable model, but they do not justify metaphysical speculations about quantum nonlocality and objects which know about each other’s state, even when separated by large distances. The violation of Bell inequalities in physics and in cognitive science can be explained using the notion of Bohr- contextuality. If contextual variables, describing varying experimental contexts, are correctly incorporated into a probabilistic model, then the Bell–CHSH inequalities cannot be proven and nonlocal correlations may be explained in an intuitive way. We also elucidate the meaning of statistical independence assumption incorrectly called free choice, measurement independence or no- conspiracy. Since correlation does not imply causation, the violation of statistical independence should be called contextuality; it does not restrict the experimenter’s freedom of choice. Therefore, contrary to what is believed, closing the freedom-of choice loophole does not close the contextuality loophole.
In our contextual model, statistical independence is violated, thus it is not constrained by Bell Theorem. Individual outcomes are created locally in a deterministic way in a function of setting dependent variables describing measuring instruments and variables describing physical systems, at the moment of their interactions. These setting dependent variables may be correlated, but not necessarily due to spooky influences or superdeterminism. In several Bell Tests, two time series of distant clicks are converted into finite samples containing pairs of non zero outcomes. This data not only violates CHSH inequalities but also nonsignalling. Our model allows explaining both the raw and the final data in these experiments. Moreover, our model, does not compromise experimenters freedom of choice. The violation of nonsignaling is neither consistent with quantum description of an ideal EPRB experiment nor with standard local realistic and stochastic hidden variable models, thus the title of this article and its conclusion: Kupczynski escape route for local realism is not available are misleading.
In a sequence of papers, Marian Kupczynski has argued that Bell’s theorem can be circumvented if one takes correct account of contextual setting-dependent parameters describing measuring instruments. We show that this is not true. Despite first appearances, Kupczynksi’s concept of a contextual locally causal probabilistic model is mathematically a special case of a Bell local hidden variables model. Thus, even if one takes account of contextuality in the way he suggests, the Bell–CHSH inequality can still be derived. Violation thereof by quantum mechanics cannot be easily explained away: quantum mechanics and local realism (including Kupczynski’s claimed enlargement of the concept) are not compatible with one another. Further inspection shows that Kupczynski is actually falling back on the detection loophole. Since 2015, numerous loophole-free experiments have been performed, in which the Bell–CHSH inequality is violated, so, despite any other possible imperfections of such experiments, Kupczynski’s escape route for local realism is not available.
Loophole-free violations of Bell inequalities imply that at least one of the assumptions behind local hidden-variable theories must fail. Here, we show that, if only one fails, then it has to fail completely, therefore excluding models that partially constrain freedom of choice or allow for partial retrocausal influences, or allow partial instantaneous actions at a distance. Specifically, we show that (i) any hidden-variable theory with outcome independence (OI) and arbitrary joint relaxation of measurement independence (MI) and parameter independence (PI) can be experimentally excluded in a Bell-like experiment with many settings on high-dimensional entangled states, and (ii) any hidden-variable theory with MI, PI and arbitrary relaxation of OI can be excluded in a Bell-like experiment with many settings on qubit-qubit entangled states. Loophole-free violations of Bell inequalities imply that at least one of the assumptions formalising local hidden-variable theories must fail. Here, the authors show that, if only one is false, then it has to fail completely, therefore excluding models that allow partial instantaneous actions at a distance, partially constrain freedom of choice or allow for partial retrocausal influences.