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

Separate common causes and EPR correlations---a no-go result

Tomasz Placek, Leszek Wroński

Published May 21, 2011• 2 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

One diagnosis of Bell's theorem is that its premise of Outcome Independence is unreasonably strong, as it postulates one common screener system that purports to explain all the correlations involved. This poses a challenge of constructing a model for quantum correlations that is local, non-conspiratorial, and has many separate screener systems rather than one common screener system. In particular, the assumptions of such models should not entail Bell's inequalities. We prove that the models described do not exist, and hence, the diagnosis above is incorrect.

Related papers

EPR CORRELATIONS, BELL INEQUALITIES AND COMMON CAUSE SYSTEMS

Gábor Hofer‐Szabó

Standard common causal explanations of the EPR situation assume a so-called joint common cause system that is a common cause for all correlations. However, the assumption of a joint common cause system together with some other physically motivated assumptions concerning locality and no-conspiracy results in various Bell inequalities. Since Bell inequalities are violated for appropriate measurement settings, a local, non-conspiratorial joint common causal explanation of the EPR situation is ruled out. But why do we assume that a common causal explanation of a set of correlation consists in finding a joint common cause system for all correlations and not just in finding separate common cause systems for the different correlations? What are the \nperspectives of a local, non-conspiratorial separate common causal explanation for the EPR scenario? And finally, how do Bell inequalities relate to the weaker assumption of separate common cause systems? \n

•Mar 5, 2014•1 citation

A no-go result on common cause approaches via Hardy's paradox

Katsuaki Higashi

According to a conventional view, there exists no common-cause model of quantum correlations satisfying locality requirements. In fact, Bell's inequality is derived from some locality conditions and the assumption that the common cause exists, and the violation of the inequality has been experimentally verified. On the other hand, some researchers argue that in the derivation of the inequality the existence of a common common-cause for multiple correlations is implicitly assumed and that the assumption is unreasonably strong. According to their idea, what is necessary for explaining the quantum correlation is a common cause for each correlation. However, in this paper, we will show that in almost all entangled states we can not construct a local model that is consistent with quantum mechanical prediction even when we require only the existence of a common cause of each correlation.

•Jan 27, 2018•0 citations

Measurement Dependence is not Conspiracy: A Common Cause Model of EPR Correlations

Iñaki San Pedro

In this paper I assess the adequacy of no-conspiracy conditions present in the usual derivations of the Bell inequality in the context of EPR correlations. First, I look at the EPR correlations from a purely phenomenological point of view and claim that common cause explanations of these can not be ruled out. I argue that an appropriate common cause explanation requires that no-conspiracy conditions are re-interpreted as mere common cause-measurement independence conditions. Violations of measurement independence thus need not entail any kind of conspiracy (nor backwards in time causation). This new reading of measurement dependence provides the grounds for an explicitly non-factorizable (in the sense of Bell’s factorizability) common cause model for EPR. 1

•May 26, 2009•0 citations

Reichenbach's Common Cause Principle and EPR correlations

Gábor Hofer‐Szabó, Miklós Rédei, László E. Szabó

Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) correlations Explaining the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics in the case of joint quantum systems of the EPR type has proved to be a major challenge for the Common Cause Principle. The EPR correlations have been confirmed by a large number of sophisticated experiments carried out since the early 1980s, and, since quantum theory does not give us any hints as to where to look for possible common causes that could explain the correlations in question, the suspicion arose that common causes of EPR correlations might not exist at all. If this were indeed the case, then the EPR correlations would constitute strong empirical evidence against Reichenbach's Common Cause Principle. But how could this be possible in view of the results presented in the previous chapters? As we have seen (Chapter 3), every common cause incomplete probability space is common cause extendible (even strongly common cause extendible with respect to any finite set of correlations; Proposition 3.9); therefore every correlation can, in principle, be explained by a (possibly hidden) common cause, including the (finite number of) EPR correlations. Could the EPR correlations (not) be explained by referring to such hidden common causes? To answer this question, one has to realize first that it is not quite obvious how to link the Common Cause Principle to quantum mechanics because Reichenbach's notion of common cause was defined in terms of classical probability theory (Chapter 2), not in terms of quantum probability theory.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•May 16, 2013•0 citations

Quantum non-locality—it ainʼt necessarily so...

Marek Żukowski, Časlav Brukner

Bell's theorem is 50 years old. Still there is a controversy about its implications. Much of it has its roots in confusion regarding the premises from which the theorem can be derived. Some claim that a derivation of Bell's inequalities requires just locality assumption, and nothing more. Violations of the inequalities are then interpreted as ``nonlocality'' or ``quantum nonlocality''. We show that such claims are unfounded and that every derivation of Bell's inequalities requires a premise -- in addition to locality and freedom of choice -- which is either assumed tacitly, or unconsciously, or is embedded in a single compound condition (like Bell's ``local causality''). The premise is equivalent to the assumption of existence of additional variables which do not appear in the quantum formalism (in form of determinism, or joint probability for outcomes of all conceivable measurements, or ``additional causes`'', or ``hidden variables'', ``complete description of the state'' or counterfactual definiteness, etc.). A certain irony is that perhaps the main message of violation of Bell's inequalities is that our notion of locality should be based on an operationally well-defined no-signalling condition, rather than on local causality.

arXiv:1501.04618•Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical•Oct 9, 2014•100 citations

Bell theorem

Franck Laloë

The Bell theorem [103] can be seen in several different ways, as the EPR argument. Initially, Bell invented it as a direct logical continuation of the EPR theorem: the idea is to take the existence of the EPR elements of reality seriously, and to push it further by introducing them explicitly into the mathematics with the notation λ; one then proceeds to study all possible kinds of correlations that can be obtained from the fluctuations of one or several variables λ, making the condition of locality explicit in the mathematics (locality was already useful in the EPR theorem, but not used in equations). The reasoning develops within determinism (considered as proved by the EPR reasoning) and classical probabilities; it studies in a completely general way all kinds of correlations that can be predicted from the fluctuations of some classical common cause in the past – if one prefers, from some random choice concerning the initial state of the system. This leads to the famous inequalities. But subsequent studies have shown that the scope of the Bell theorem is not limited to determinism; for instance, the λ variables may determine the probabilities of the results of future experiments, instead of the results themselves (see Appendix B), without canceling the theorem. We postpone the discussion of the various possible generalizations to §4.2.3. For the moment, we just emphasize that the essential condition for the validity of the Bell theorem is locality: all kinds of fluctuations can be assumed, but their effect must affect physics only locally.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Aug 30, 2012•0 citations
One diagnosis of Bell's theorem is that its premise of Outcome Independence is unreasonably strong, as it postulates one common screener system that purports to explain all the correlations involved. This poses a challenge of constructing a model for quantum correlations that is local, non-conspiratorial, and has many separate screener systems rather than one common screener system. In particular, the assumptions of such models should not entail Bell's inequalities. We prove that the models described do not exist, and hence, the diagnosis above is incorrect.
Standard common causal explanations of the EPR situation assume a so-called joint common cause system that is a common cause for all correlations. However, the assumption of a joint common cause system together with some other physically motivated assumptions concerning locality and no-conspiracy results in various Bell inequalities. Since Bell inequalities are violated for appropriate measurement settings, a local, non-conspiratorial joint common causal explanation of the EPR situation is ruled out. But why do we assume that a common causal explanation of a set of correlation consists in finding a joint common cause system for all correlations and not just in finding separate common cause systems for the different correlations? What are the \nperspectives of a local, non-conspiratorial separate common causal explanation for the EPR scenario? And finally, how do Bell inequalities relate to the weaker assumption of separate common cause systems? \n
According to a conventional view, there exists no common-cause model of quantum correlations satisfying locality requirements. In fact, Bell's inequality is derived from some locality conditions and the assumption that the common cause exists, and the violation of the inequality has been experimentally verified. On the other hand, some researchers argue that in the derivation of the inequality the existence of a common common-cause for multiple correlations is implicitly assumed and that the assumption is unreasonably strong. According to their idea, what is necessary for explaining the quantum correlation is a common cause for each correlation. However, in this paper, we will show that in almost all entangled states we can not construct a local model that is consistent with quantum mechanical prediction even when we require only the existence of a common cause of each correlation.
In this paper I assess the adequacy of no-conspiracy conditions present in the usual derivations of the Bell inequality in the context of EPR correlations. First, I look at the EPR correlations from a purely phenomenological point of view and claim that common cause explanations of these can not be ruled out. I argue that an appropriate common cause explanation requires that no-conspiracy conditions are re-interpreted as mere common cause-measurement independence conditions. Violations of measurement independence thus need not entail any kind of conspiracy (nor backwards in time causation). This new reading of measurement dependence provides the grounds for an explicitly non-factorizable (in the sense of Bell’s factorizability) common cause model for EPR. 1
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) correlations Explaining the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics in the case of joint quantum systems of the EPR type has proved to be a major challenge for the Common Cause Principle. The EPR correlations have been confirmed by a large number of sophisticated experiments carried out since the early 1980s, and, since quantum theory does not give us any hints as to where to look for possible common causes that could explain the correlations in question, the suspicion arose that common causes of EPR correlations might not exist at all. If this were indeed the case, then the EPR correlations would constitute strong empirical evidence against Reichenbach's Common Cause Principle. But how could this be possible in view of the results presented in the previous chapters? As we have seen (Chapter 3), every common cause incomplete probability space is common cause extendible (even strongly common cause extendible with respect to any finite set of correlations; Proposition 3.9); therefore every correlation can, in principle, be explained by a (possibly hidden) common cause, including the (finite number of) EPR correlations. Could the EPR correlations (not) be explained by referring to such hidden common causes? To answer this question, one has to realize first that it is not quite obvious how to link the Common Cause Principle to quantum mechanics because Reichenbach's notion of common cause was defined in terms of classical probability theory (Chapter 2), not in terms of quantum probability theory.
Bell's theorem is 50 years old. Still there is a controversy about its implications. Much of it has its roots in confusion regarding the premises from which the theorem can be derived. Some claim that a derivation of Bell's inequalities requires just locality assumption, and nothing more. Violations of the inequalities are then interpreted as ``nonlocality'' or ``quantum nonlocality''. We show that such claims are unfounded and that every derivation of Bell's inequalities requires a premise -- in addition to locality and freedom of choice -- which is either assumed tacitly, or unconsciously, or is embedded in a single compound condition (like Bell's ``local causality''). The premise is equivalent to the assumption of existence of additional variables which do not appear in the quantum formalism (in form of determinism, or joint probability for outcomes of all conceivable measurements, or ``additional causes`'', or ``hidden variables'', ``complete description of the state'' or counterfactual definiteness, etc.). A certain irony is that perhaps the main message of violation of Bell's inequalities is that our notion of locality should be based on an operationally well-defined no-signalling condition, rather than on local causality.
The Bell theorem [103] can be seen in several different ways, as the EPR argument. Initially, Bell invented it as a direct logical continuation of the EPR theorem: the idea is to take the existence of the EPR elements of reality seriously, and to push it further by introducing them explicitly into the mathematics with the notation λ; one then proceeds to study all possible kinds of correlations that can be obtained from the fluctuations of one or several variables λ, making the condition of locality explicit in the mathematics (locality was already useful in the EPR theorem, but not used in equations). The reasoning develops within determinism (considered as proved by the EPR reasoning) and classical probabilities; it studies in a completely general way all kinds of correlations that can be predicted from the fluctuations of some classical common cause in the past – if one prefers, from some random choice concerning the initial state of the system. This leads to the famous inequalities. But subsequent studies have shown that the scope of the Bell theorem is not limited to determinism; for instance, the λ variables may determine the probabilities of the results of future experiments, instead of the results themselves (see Appendix B), without canceling the theorem. We postpone the discussion of the various possible generalizations to §4.2.3. For the moment, we just emphasize that the essential condition for the validity of the Bell theorem is locality: all kinds of fluctuations can be assumed, but their effect must affect physics only locally.