Philosophy of Science

On the Empirical Foundations of the Quantum No-Signalling Proofs

J. B. Kennedy

Published Dec 1, 1995• 29 citations

Abstract

I analyze a number of the quantum no-signalling proofs (Ghirardi et al. 1980, Bussey 1982, Jordan 1983, Shimony 1985, Redhead 1987, Eberhard and Ross 1989, Sherer and Busch 1993). These purport to show that the EPR correlations cannot be exploited for transmitting signals, i.e., are not causal. First, I show that these proofs can be mathematically unified; they are disguised versions of a single theorem. Second, I argue that these proofs are circular. The essential theorem relies upon the tensor product representation for combined systems, which has no physical basis in the von Neumann axioms. Historically, the construction of this representation scheme by von Neumann and Weyl built no-signalling assumptions into the quantum theory. Signalling between the wings of the EPR-Bell experiments is unlikely but is not ruled out empirically by the class of proofs considered.

DOI: 10.1086/289885

Related papers

A Structural Proof of the No-Signaling Theorem

prometheus engineering university

The no-signaling principle in quantum mechanics—that local operations on onesubsystem of an entangled pair cannot transmit information to a distant subsystem—has never been structurally proven from independent physical principles. Everyexisting derivation is circular: von Neumann constructed the tensor product for-malism specifically to enforce no-signaling [1], and all subsequent “proofs” deriveno-signaling from a structure that was designed to contain it [2, 3]. We present anon-circular structural proof. Starting from two premises independent of quantumformalism—the relativistic propagation limit c and the experimental record of Belltests, quantum erasers, and which-path experiments—we derive the no-signaling re-sult as a mathematical consequence of the tensor contraction structure. The proofproceeds in four steps: (i) the inscription tensor formalism, which encodes correla-tions in a rank-r tensor whose contraction rules are fixed by the mathematics, notby postulate; (ii) an exhaustive enumeration of all nine measurement configurationsfor an entangled pair, showing that partial contraction yields 12 in every case, in-dependent of the distant party’s choice; (iii) the cross-term kill theorem, provingthat one environmental inscription produces an exact, immediate, and idempotenttransition from quantum to classical probability structure; and (iv) the proof bycontrapositive via which-path and quantum eraser experiments, confirming bothdirections of the theorem against the complete experimental record. Four inde-pendent confirmations—information-theoretic, conservation-law, operational, andsymmetry-based—close every remaining escape route. The proof requires no newphysics, no new axioms, and no ontological commitment beyond what the existingformalism and experimental record already contain. We note that the Entropic Lat-tice Ontology’s fourth spatial degree provides a geometric explanation for why theproof works—the correlation occupies a spatial degree with no three-dimensionaladdress—but this theoretical framework is not required for the proof’s validity

Jun 6, 20260 citations

The No-Signaling Theorem under a Minimalist Event-Based Theory of Information

Sagar Kapadia

The no-signaling theorem asserts that quantum entanglement cannot be used to transmitcontrollable information between spacelike-separated parties, preserving relativistic causality Peres [1995]. This paper introduces the Minimalist Event-Based Theory of Information(MEBTI), which defines information as the reliable detection of a binary event deliberately triggered or not triggered at will by an agent. Under MEBTI, we re-evaluate theno-signaling theorem’s universality, arguing that its reliance on classical definitions of information (e.g., Shannon’s ensemble statistics or von Neumann’s state uncertainty Nielsenand Chuang [2000]) renders it ontologically limited. MEBTI bypasses these constraints byfocusing on single, agent-triggered events, challenging the theorem’s applicability to all conceivable definitions of information. While the theorem remains a valid physical constraintwithin standard quantum mechanics, we propose new experiments designed under MEBTIto empirically test whether instantaneous information transmission via entanglement is possible, potentially reshaping our understanding of quantum non-locality

Sep 27, 20260 citations

The subtleties of entanglement and its role in quantum information theory

Rob Clifton

Abstract For years, since the EPR ‘paradox’ (1935) and Schrodinger’s (1935, 1936) work on entanglement in the 1930s, philosophers of science have struggled to understand quantum correlations. By the end of the 1960s, Bell’s theorem (1964) became widely recognized as establishing that these correlations cannot be explained through the operation of local common causes. Yet it was also clear that, by themselves, quantum correlations cannot be exploited to transmit information between the locations of entangled systems. Many metaphors were developed by philosophers in the 1970s and 1980s to characterize these apparently nonlocal yet curiously benign correlations. They were variously taken to involve ‘passionata distance’, ‘nonrobustness’, ‘relational holism’, and ‘randomness in harmony’ (see, respectively, the contributions of Shimony, Redhead, Teller and Fine to Cushing and McMullin (1989)).

Sep 23, 20090 citations

'A Causal Model for EPR'

Mauricio Suárez, Nancy Delaney Cartwright

We present a causal model for the EPR correlations. In this model, or better framework for a model, causality is preserved by the direct propagation of causal influences between the wings of the experiment. We show that our model generates the same statistical results for EPR as orthodox quantum mechanics. We conclude that causality in quantum mechanics can not be ruled out on the basis of the EPR-Bell-Aspect correlations alone.

Jan 1, 20000 citations

A Causal Model for EPR

Nancy Delaney Cartwright, Mauricio Suárez

Dec 1, 20002 citations

Quantum nonlocality: an analysis of the implications of Bell's Theorem and quantum correlations for nonlocality.

Joseph Berkovitz

Bell's Theorem demonstrates that factorizable theories for the EPR experiment (EPR) cannot reproduce the quantum correlations. Factorizability is motivated by various locality conditions. So to understand the nature of nonlocality in EPR, we first need to understand the conceptual relations between factorizability, these various locality conditions and the nature of the quantum correlations. That is the main focus of my thesis. My main conclusion is that these conceptual relations are more subtle than the literature has usually suggested. Chapter 1 is a general introduction. In Chapter 2, I review the general framework of factorizable stochastic theories for EPR. I argue that factorizability can be motivated by various locality conditions, even in theories that admit time-dependent states and take the measurement interactions to be neither instantaneous, nor simultaneous. In Chapter 3, I focus on Cartwright' s (1989) and Humphreys' (1989) theories of probabilistic causation for singular events, which are based on modifications of traditional causal linear modelling. I argue (against Cartwright) that local models for EPR in the framework of these theories are committed to factorizability; and so they cannot reproduce the EPR correlations. In Chapter 4, I turn to Stochastic-Einstein Locality (SEL). Hellman (1982) proposed that SEL with some provisos characterizes the No-Superluminal-Action (NSA) of the Special Theory of Relativity (STR), and he argued that SEL is not violated in EPR. Butterfield (1994) proposed that SEL (without Hellman's provisos) characterizes the lack of superluminal Lewisian causation, and he argued that SEL is violated in EPR. I argue that SEL (without Hellman's provisos) is motivated by NSA and spatiotemporal separability. Thus, the violation of SEL might arise from the failure of spatiotemporal separability. And this failure is compatible with NSA and superluminal Lewisian causation. Accordingly, Hellman's and Butterfield's views need not be in tension. In Chapter 5, I focus on the implications for nonlocality of Jarrett's (1984) analysis of factorizability into "locality" and "completeness". I argue that although this analysis cannot distinguish between failures of factorizability which are compatible with STR and those which are not, it is significant for clarifying the implications of Bell's theorem for nonlocality. In Chapter 6, I qmsider three arguments that are intended to deny superluminal causal propagation in EPR, and a fourth argument that is intended to establish the opposite conclusion. I argue that in various ways these arguments have gone wrong. Three of these argument rely on implicit assumptions that have been overlooked. Accordingly, two of them reached a reasonable conclusion, i.e. the failure of separability, for the wrong reasons; whereas the third reached a wrong conclusion, i.e. that the failure of the contiguity of causal processes explains the failure of factorizability in EPR. The fourth relies on a wrong assumption, and thus it reaches a too strong conclusion, that the EPR correlations require superluminal action. My main conclusion is that the quantum correlations require nonseparability . In Chapter 7, I focus on decision theory in the context of EPR. In both EPR and the famous Newcomb's problem (NewProb), there are unscreenable-off correlations. I argue that NewProb can be related to EPR, in the sense that a NewProb can be realized by that experiment.

Jan 30, 19963 citations