Costa and Shrapnel ([2016]) have recently proposed an interventionist theory of quantum causation. The formalism generalizes the classical methods of Pearl ([2000]) and allows for the discovery of quantum causal structure via localized interventions. Classical causal structure is presented as a special case of this more general framework. I introduce the account and consider whether this formalism provides a causal explanation for the Bell correlations. 1 Introduction2 Classical Causal Models3 What’s the (Quantum) Problem?4 Quantum Causal Models: Why Bother?5 Markov Quantum Causal Models6 The Bell Experiment7 Bell’s Objections
Costa and Shrapnel ([2016]) have recently proposed an interventionist theory of quantum causation. The formalism generalizes the classical methods of Pearl ([2000]) and allows for the discovery of quantum causal structure via localized interventions. Classical causal structure is presented as a special case of this more general framework. I introduce the account and consider whether this formalism provides a causal explanation for the Bell correlations. 1 Introduction2 Classical Causal Models3 What’s the (Quantum) Problem?4 Quantum Causal Models: Why Bother?5 Markov Quantum Causal Models6 The Bell Experiment7 Bell’s Objections
Identifying causal relations plays an indispensable role in science, economics, medicine and everyday life. Interventionist causation associates the discovery of such relations with the possibility of manipulation or intervention. A causes B, if manipulating A in the right way can bring about changes in B. The main technical tool, the causal model, can be seen as a device for telling us how and why certain actions are more effective than others. Such models have found application in almost every scientific discipline. However, despite several decades of sophisticated analysis and a wealth of technical results, interventionist causal methods are known to fail in the quantum case. The quantum domain, with its peculiar, counterintuitive features, is widely considered an inhospitable environment in which to apply our usual causal discovery tools. This causal skepticism presents us with a puzzle. Physicists are now able to manipulate and control quantum systems, and the design and construction of quantum technology relies on an ability to identify when one strategy will work and another will fail. From the perspective of interventionist causation, it seems that a formal account of quantum causal modelling ought to be possible. The main contribution of this thesis is to provide an extension of interventionist methodology to the quantum case. In Chapter 1, I introduce interventionist causation from the perspective of two giants of the field: Judea Pearl and James Woodward. The Causal Markov Condition (CMC) and Faithfulness assumptions are presented, and I draw particular attention to the discovery of casual structure. I touch on some of the well-known problems with interventionist causation per se. In Chapter 2, I put this methodology to work in a quantum mechanical context. Following tradition, we examine one of the Bell experiments in order to determine how the classical interventionist framework fails. Noting that the usual response is to demand that one drops either the CMC or Faithfulness, I suggest that neither approach is particularly satisfactory and argue for an alternative. I discuss some reasons why the interventionist is forced to pursue this different path. In Chapter 3, I motivate the possibility of an interventionist account of quantum causation. I first look at how physicists represent quantum technology in order to make interventionist and counterfactual inferences: via the use of quantum circuit diagrams. Using three examples I demonstrate the manner in which these diagrams can be used to facilitate causal inference. In Chapter 4, I examine some recent attempts at characterising quantum causal models due to work from the quantum foundations community. I present three such accounts and explain why I endorse a fourth, the focus of the next chapter. In Chapter 5, I present a new framework that allows for the discovery of interventionist quantum causal structure. I finish the thesis with a summary and some suggestions for further work.
The framework of causal models is ideally suited to formalizing certain conceptual problems in quantum the-ory, and conversely, a variety of tools developed by physicists studying the foundations of quantum theory have applications for causal inference. This talk reviews some of the connections between the two fields. In partic-ular, it is shown that certain correlations predicted by quantum theory and observed experimentally cannot be explained by any causal model while respecting the core principles of causal discovery algorithms. Nonetheless, it is argued that by understanding quantum theory as an innovation to the theory of Bayesian inference, one can introduce a quantum generalization of the notion of a causal model and salvage a causal explanation of these cor-relations without fine-tuning. Furthermore, experiments exhibiting certain quantum features, namely, coherence and entanglement, enable solutions to causal inference problems that are intractable classically. In particular, while passive observation of a pair of variables cannot determine the causal relation that holds between them according to classical physics, this is not the case in quantum physics. In other words, according to quantum theory, certain kinds of correlation do imply causation. The results of a quantum-optical experiment confirming these predictions will be presented. This talk is based on the work described in Refs. [1] and [2].
It is known that the classical framework of causal models is not general enough to allow for causal reasoning about quantum systems. While the framework has been generalized in a variety of different ways to the quantum case, much of this work leaves open whether causal concepts are fundamental to quantum theory, or only find application at an emergent level of classical devices and measurement outcomes. Here, we present a framework of quantum causal models, with causal relations defined in terms intrinsic to quantum theory, and the central object of study being the quantum process itself. Following Allen et al., Phys. Rev. X 7, 031021 (2017), the approach defines quantum causal relations in terms of unitary evolution, in a way analogous to an approach to classical causal models that assumes underlying determinism and situates causal relations in functional dependences between variables. We show that any unitary quantum circuit has a causal structure corresponding to a directed acyclic graph, and that when marginalising over local noise sources, the resulting quantum process satisfies a Markov condition with respect to the graph. We also prove a converse to this statement. We introduce an intrinsically quantum notion that plays a role analogous to the conditional independence of classical variables, and (generalizing a central theorem of the classical framework) show that d-separation is sound and complete for it in the quantum case. We present generalizations of the three rules of the classical do-calculus, in each case relating a property of the causal structure to a formal property of the quantum process, and to an operational statement concerning the outcomes of interventions. In addition, we introduce and derive similar results for classical split-node causal models, which are more closely analogous to quantum causal models than the classical causal models that are usually studied.
In his seminal paper, Bell [Physics Physique Fizika 1, 195 (1964)] considers the correlations that result from space-like separated measurements on a pair of entangled particles. He uses relativity theory to motivate the Bell causal structure, then shows the existence of quantum correlations that cannot be explained classically within this causal structure. Classical explanations of such quantum correlations are possible in alternative causal structures, for instance, those that allow superluminal causal influences, but, as shown in [New Journal of Physics 17 033002 (2015)], all such alternative explanations require fine tuning (causation without correlation). Here we discuss the existence of spurious quantum correlations --- correlations that look quantum in one causal structure, but have a natural classical explanation in another. More precisely, there are causal structures that admit non-classical quantum correlations, but for which the same correlations have a classical explanation in another causal structure without fine tuning. The realisation in the other causal structure can also be achieved without breaking any natural constraints on the causal structure that follow from relativity theory. However, similarly to non-classical quantum correlations in the Bell causal structure, we find other causal structures with non-classical quantum correlations that do not have a classical causal explanation in any alternative causal structure without fine tuning.
Characterising causal structure is an activity that is ubiquitous across the sciences. Causal models are representational devices that can be used as oracles for future interventions, to predict how values of some variables will change in response to interventions on others. Recent work has generalised concepts from this field to situations involving quantum systems, resulting in a new notion of quantum causal structure. A key concept in both the classical and quantum context is that of an intervention. Interventions are the controlled operations required to identify causal structure and ultimately the feature that endows causal models with empirical meaning. Although interventions are a crucial feature of both the classical and quantum causal modelling frameworks, to date there has been no discussion of their physical basis. In this paper, we consider interventions from a physical perspective and show that, in both the classical and quantum case, they are constrained by the thermodynamics of measurement and feedback in open systems. We demonstrate that the perfect “atomic” or “surgical” interventions characterised by Pearl’s famous do-calculus are physically impossible, and this is the case for both classical and quantum systems.