The causal modelling of Bell experiments relies on three fundamental assumptions: locality, freedom of choice and arrow-of-time. It turns out that nature violates Bell inequalities, which implies the failure of at least one of those assumptions. Since rejecting any of them, even partially, is sufficient to explain the observed correlations, it is natural to inquire about the cost in each case. This paper builds upon the findings in Blasiak et al. 2021 Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118 , e2020569118 ( doi:10.1073/pnas.2020569118 ) showing the equivalence between the locality and free choice assumptions. Here, we include retrocausal models to complete the picture of causal explanations of the observed correlations. Furthermore, we refine the discussion by considering more challenging causal scenarios which allow only single-arrow type violations of a given assumption. The figure of merit chosen for the comparison of the causal cost is defined as the minimal frequency of violation of the respective assumption required for a simulation of the observed experimental statistics. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Quantum contextuality, causality and freedom of choice’.
The causal modelling of Bell experiments relies on three fundamental assumptions: locality, freedom of choice and arrow-of-time. It turns out that nature violates Bell inequalities, which implies the failure of at least one of those assumptions. Since rejecting any of them, even partially, is sufficient to explain the observed correlations, it is natural to inquire about the cost in each case. This paper builds upon the findings in Blasiak et al. 2021 Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118 , e2020569118 ( doi:10.1073/pnas.2020569118 ) showing the equivalence between the locality and free choice assumptions. Here, we include retrocausal models to complete the picture of causal explanations of the observed correlations. Furthermore, we refine the discussion by considering more challenging causal scenarios which allow only single-arrow type violations of a given assumption. The figure of merit chosen for the comparison of the causal cost is defined as the minimal frequency of violation of the respective assumption required for a simulation of the observed experimental statistics. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Quantum contextuality, causality and freedom of choice’.
Bell inequalities rest on three fundamental assumptions: realism, locality, and free choice, which lead to nontrivial constraints on correlations in very simple experiments. If we retain realism, then violation of the inequalities implies that at least one of the remaining two assumptions must fail, which can have profound consequences for the causal explanation of the experiment. We investigate the extent to which a given assumption needs to be relaxed for the other to hold at all costs, based on the observation that a violation need not occur on every experimental trial, even when describing correlations violating Bell inequalities. How often this needs to be the case determines the degree of, respectively, locality or free choice in the observed experimental behavior. Despite their disparate character, we show that both assumptions are equally costly. Namely, the resources required to explain the experimental statistics (measured by the frequency of causal interventions of either sort) are exactly the same. Furthermore, we compute such defined measures of locality and free choice for any nonsignaling statistics in a Bell experiment with binary settings, showing that it is directly related to the amount of violation of the so-called Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt inequalities. This result is theory independent as it refers directly to the experimental statistics. Additionally, we show how the local fraction results for quantum-mechanical frameworks with infinite number of settings translate into analogous statements for the measure of free choice we introduce. Thus, concerning statistics, causal explanations resorting to either locality or free choice violations are fully interchangeable.
In a recent paper published in PNAS authors prove that locality and free choice are equivalent resources which need to be relaxed in order to fully reproduce some statistics in Bell experiments (while always maintaining realism). We explain that their assumption of free choice is simply counterfactual definiteness or noncontextuality. Therefore the resource in Bell experiments is contextuality and not the violations of locality and/or of free choice. It is definitely less mind boggling conclusion because experimenters` freedom of choice is a prerequisite of science,
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.
One of the basic assumptions underlying Bell's theorem is the causal arrow of time, having to do with temporal order rather than spatial separation. Nonetheless, the physical assumptions regarding causality are seldom studied in this context, and often even go unmentioned, in stark contrast with the many different possible locality conditions which have been studied and elaborated upon. In the present work, some retrocausal toy-models which reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics for Bell-type correlations are reviewed. It is pointed out that a certain toy-model which is ostensibly superdeterministic-based on denying the free-variable status of some of quantum mechanics' input parameters-actually contains within it a complete retrocausal toy-model. Occam's razor thus indicates that the superdeterministic point of view is superfluous. A challenge is to generalize the retrocausal toy-models to a full theory-a reformulation of quantum mechanics-in which the standard causal arrow of time would be replaced by a more lenient one: an arrow of time applicable only to macroscopically-available information. In discussing such a reformulation, one finds that many of the perplexing features of quantum mechanics could arise naturally, especially in the context of stochastic theories.
Bell’s [Physics 1 (1964) 195–200] theorem is popularly supposed to establish the nonlocality of quantum physics. Violation of Bell’s inequality in experiments such as that of Aspect, Dalibard and Roger [Phys. Rev. Lett. 49 (1982) 1804–1807] provides empirical proof of nonlocality in the real world. This paper reviews recent work on Bell’s theorem, linking it to issues in causality as understood by statisticians. The paper starts with a proof of a strong, finite sample, version of Bell’s inequality and thereby also of Bell’s theorem, which states that quantum theory is incompatible with the conjunction of three formerly uncontroversial physical principles, here referred to as locality, realism and freedom. Locality is the principle that the direction of causality matches the direction of time, and that causal influences need time to propagate spatially. Realism and freedom are directly connected to statistical thinking on causality: they relate to counterfactual reasoning, and to randomisation, respectively. Experimental loopholes in state-of-the-art Bell type experiments are related to statistical issues of post-selection in observational studies, and the missing at random assumption. They can be avoided by properly matching the statistical analysis to the actual experimental design, instead of by making untestable assumptions of independence between observed and unobserved variables. Methodological and statistical issues in the design of quantum Randi challenges (QRC) are discussed. The paper argues that Bell’s theorem (and its experimental confirmation) should lead us to relinquish not locality, but realism.
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.