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

Correlations in nature are not merely quantum dichotomic

Matthias Kleinmann, Adán Cabello

Published May 15, 2015• 1 citation
OpenAlex

Abstract

We show that, for any n, there are m-outcome quantum correlations, with m>n, which are stronger than any nonsignaling correlation produced from selecting among n-outcome measurements. As a consequence, for any n, there are m-outcome quantum measurements that cannot be constructed by selecting locally from the set of n-outcome measurements. This is a property of the set of measurements in quantum theory that is not mandatory for general probabilistic theories. We also show that this prediction can be tested through high-precision Bell-type experiments and identify past experiments providing evidence that some of these strong correlations exist in nature. Finally, we provide a modified version of quantum theory restricted to having at most n-outcome quantum measurements.

Related papers

Quantum Correlations Are Stronger Than All Nonsignaling Correlations Produced by n -Outcome Measurements

Matthias Kleinmann, Adán Cabello

We show that, for any n, there are m-outcome quantum correlations, with m>n, which are stronger than any nonsignaling correlation produced from selecting among n-outcome measurements. As a consequence, for any n, there are m-outcome quantum measurements that cannot be constructed by selecting locally from the set of n-outcome measurements. This is a property of the set of measurements in quantum theory that is not mandatory for general probabilistic theories. We also show that this prediction can be tested through high-precision Bell-type experiments and identify past experiments providing evidence that some of these strong correlations exist in nature. Finally, we provide a modified version of quantum theory restricted to having at most n-outcome quantum measurements.

arXiv:1505.04179•Physical Review Letters•Oct 7, 2016•27 citations

Can we close the Bohr-Einstein quantum debate

Marian Kupczyński

Recent experiments allowed concluding that Bell-type inequalities are indeed violated thus it is important to understand what it means and how can we explain the existence of strong correlations between outcomes of distant measurements. Do we have to announce that: Einstein was wrong, Nature is nonlocal and nonlocal correlations are produced due to the quantum magic and emerge, somehow, from outside space-time? Fortunately such conclusions are unfounded because if supplementary parameters describing measuring instruments are correctly incorporated in a theoretical model then Bell-type inequalities may not be proven .We construct a simple probabilistic model explaining these correlations in a locally causal way. In our model measurement outcomes are neither predetermined nor produced in irreducibly random way. We explain in detail why, contrary to the general belief; an introduction of setting dependent parameters does not restrict experimenters’ freedom of choice. Since the violation of Bell-type inequalities does not allow concluding that Nature is nonlocal and that quantum theory is complete thus the Bohr-Einstein quantum debate may not be closed. The continuation of this debate is not only important for a better understanding of Nature but also for various practical applications of quantum phenomena

•Jan 1, 2017•38 citations

Can we close the Bohr–Einstein quantum debate?

Marian Kupczyński

Recent experiments allow one to conclude that Bell-type inequalities are indeed violated; thus, it is important to understand what this means and how we can explain the existence of strong correlations between outcomes of distant measurements. Do we have to announce that Einstein was wrong, Nature is non-local and non-local correlations are produced due to quantum magic and emerge, somehow, from outside space-time? Fortunately, such conclusions are unfounded because, if supplementary parameters describing measuring instruments are correctly incorporated in a theoretical model, then Bell-type inequalities may not be proved. We construct a simple probabilistic model allowing these correlations to be explained in a locally causal way. In our model, measurement outcomes are neither predetermined nor produced in an irreducibly random way. We explain why, contrary to the general belief, the introduction of setting-dependent parameters does not restrict experimenters' freedom of choice. Since the violation of Bell-type inequalities does not allow the conclusion that Nature is non-local and that quantum theory is complete, the Bohr-Einstein quantum debate may not be closed. The continuation of this debate is important not only for a better understanding of Nature but also for various practical applications of quantum phenomena.This article is part of the themed issue 'Second quantum revolution: foundational questions'.

arXiv:1603.00266•Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences•Oct 2, 2017•29 citations

Almost-Quantum Correlations Violate the No-Restriction Hypothesis

Ana Belén Sainz, Yelena Guryanova, Antonio Acín +1 more

To identify which principles characterize quantum correlations, it is essential to understand in which sense this set of correlations differs from that of almost-quantum correlations. We solve this problem by invoking the so-called no-restriction hypothesis, an explicit and natural axiom in many reconstructions of quantum theory stating that the set of possible measurements is the dual of the set of states. We prove that, contrary to quantum correlations, no generalized probabilistic theory satisfying the no-restriction hypothesis is able to reproduce the set of almost-quantum correlations. Therefore, any theory whose correlations are exactly, or very close to, the almost-quantum correlations necessarily requires a rule limiting the possible measurements. Our results suggest that the no-restriction hypothesis may play a fundamental role in singling out the set of quantum correlations among other nonsignaling ones.

arXiv:1707.02620•Physical Review Letters•May 18, 2018•28 citations

A Stronger Bell Argument for Quantum Non-Locality

Paul M. Näger

It is widely accepted that the violation of Bell inequalities excludes local theories of the quantum realm. This paper presents a stronger Bell argument which even forbids certain non-local theories. Among these excluded non-local theories are those whose only non-local connection is a probabilistic (or functional) dependence between the space-like separated measurement outcomes of EPR/B experiments (a subset of outcome dependent theories). In this way, the new argument shows that the result of the received Bell argument, which requires just any kind of non-locality, is inappropriately weak. Positively, the remaining non-local theories, which can violate Bell inequalities (among them quantum theory), are characterized by the fact that at least one of the measurement outcomes in some sense probabilistically depends both on its local as well as on its distant measurement setting (probabilistic Bell contextuality). Whether an additional dependence between the outcomes holds, is irrelevant for the question whether a certain theory can violate Bell inequalities. This new concept of quantum non-locality is considerably tighter and more informative than the one following from the usual Bell argument. We prove that (given usual background assumptions) the result of the stronger Bell argument presented here is the strongest possible consequence from the violation of Bell inequalities on a qualitative probabilistic level.

•Aug 15, 2013•7 citations

Quantum nonlocality: How does nature do it?

Adán Cabello

In a recent note, Hance and Hossenfelder (arXiv:2211.01331) recall that "locally causal completions of quantum mechanics are possible, if they violate the assumption [called statistical independence or measurement independence] that the hidden variables do not in any way depend on measurement settings" and that, consequently, the experimental violations of Bell inequalities "show that maintaining local causality requires violating statistical independence". However, Hance and Hossenfelder also argue that "we should (...) look for independent experimental evidence that can distinguish the two different options: non-locality and statistical independence, or locality and violations of statistical independence" and that "the unwillingness to consider theories without statistical independence may be the reason we do not yet have a locally causal theory for the foundations of physics that is consistent with general relativity". Here, we recall that there is a third option, namely, rejecting that measurement outcomes are governed in any way by hidden variables. Moreover, we argue that some recent results in the search for principles singling out the sets of quantum correlations for Bell and Kochen-Specker contextuality scenarios point out that this third option is scientifically more plausible and answers the question of why and how nature produces quantum nonlocality.

arXiv:2211.06476•Nov 11, 2022•2 citations
We show that, for any n, there are m-outcome quantum correlations, with m>n, which are stronger than any nonsignaling correlation produced from selecting among n-outcome measurements. As a consequence, for any n, there are m-outcome quantum measurements that cannot be constructed by selecting locally from the set of n-outcome measurements. This is a property of the set of measurements in quantum theory that is not mandatory for general probabilistic theories. We also show that this prediction can be tested through high-precision Bell-type experiments and identify past experiments providing evidence that some of these strong correlations exist in nature. Finally, we provide a modified version of quantum theory restricted to having at most n-outcome quantum measurements.
We show that, for any n, there are m-outcome quantum correlations, with m>n, which are stronger than any nonsignaling correlation produced from selecting among n-outcome measurements. As a consequence, for any n, there are m-outcome quantum measurements that cannot be constructed by selecting locally from the set of n-outcome measurements. This is a property of the set of measurements in quantum theory that is not mandatory for general probabilistic theories. We also show that this prediction can be tested through high-precision Bell-type experiments and identify past experiments providing evidence that some of these strong correlations exist in nature. Finally, we provide a modified version of quantum theory restricted to having at most n-outcome quantum measurements.
Recent experiments allowed concluding that Bell-type inequalities are indeed violated thus it is important to understand what it means and how can we explain the existence of strong correlations between outcomes of distant measurements. Do we have to announce that: Einstein was wrong, Nature is nonlocal and nonlocal correlations are produced due to the quantum magic and emerge, somehow, from outside space-time? Fortunately such conclusions are unfounded because if supplementary parameters describing measuring instruments are correctly incorporated in a theoretical model then Bell-type inequalities may not be proven .We construct a simple probabilistic model explaining these correlations in a locally causal way. In our model measurement outcomes are neither predetermined nor produced in irreducibly random way. We explain in detail why, contrary to the general belief; an introduction of setting dependent parameters does not restrict experimenters’ freedom of choice. Since the violation of Bell-type inequalities does not allow concluding that Nature is nonlocal and that quantum theory is complete thus the Bohr-Einstein quantum debate may not be closed. The continuation of this debate is not only important for a better understanding of Nature but also for various practical applications of quantum phenomena
Recent experiments allow one to conclude that Bell-type inequalities are indeed violated; thus, it is important to understand what this means and how we can explain the existence of strong correlations between outcomes of distant measurements. Do we have to announce that Einstein was wrong, Nature is non-local and non-local correlations are produced due to quantum magic and emerge, somehow, from outside space-time? Fortunately, such conclusions are unfounded because, if supplementary parameters describing measuring instruments are correctly incorporated in a theoretical model, then Bell-type inequalities may not be proved. We construct a simple probabilistic model allowing these correlations to be explained in a locally causal way. In our model, measurement outcomes are neither predetermined nor produced in an irreducibly random way. We explain why, contrary to the general belief, the introduction of setting-dependent parameters does not restrict experimenters' freedom of choice. Since the violation of Bell-type inequalities does not allow the conclusion that Nature is non-local and that quantum theory is complete, the Bohr-Einstein quantum debate may not be closed. The continuation of this debate is important not only for a better understanding of Nature but also for various practical applications of quantum phenomena.This article is part of the themed issue 'Second quantum revolution: foundational questions'.
To identify which principles characterize quantum correlations, it is essential to understand in which sense this set of correlations differs from that of almost-quantum correlations. We solve this problem by invoking the so-called no-restriction hypothesis, an explicit and natural axiom in many reconstructions of quantum theory stating that the set of possible measurements is the dual of the set of states. We prove that, contrary to quantum correlations, no generalized probabilistic theory satisfying the no-restriction hypothesis is able to reproduce the set of almost-quantum correlations. Therefore, any theory whose correlations are exactly, or very close to, the almost-quantum correlations necessarily requires a rule limiting the possible measurements. Our results suggest that the no-restriction hypothesis may play a fundamental role in singling out the set of quantum correlations among other nonsignaling ones.
It is widely accepted that the violation of Bell inequalities excludes local theories of the quantum realm. This paper presents a stronger Bell argument which even forbids certain non-local theories. Among these excluded non-local theories are those whose only non-local connection is a probabilistic (or functional) dependence between the space-like separated measurement outcomes of EPR/B experiments (a subset of outcome dependent theories). In this way, the new argument shows that the result of the received Bell argument, which requires just any kind of non-locality, is inappropriately weak. Positively, the remaining non-local theories, which can violate Bell inequalities (among them quantum theory), are characterized by the fact that at least one of the measurement outcomes in some sense probabilistically depends both on its local as well as on its distant measurement setting (probabilistic Bell contextuality). Whether an additional dependence between the outcomes holds, is irrelevant for the question whether a certain theory can violate Bell inequalities. This new concept of quantum non-locality is considerably tighter and more informative than the one following from the usual Bell argument. We prove that (given usual background assumptions) the result of the stronger Bell argument presented here is the strongest possible consequence from the violation of Bell inequalities on a qualitative probabilistic level.
In a recent note, Hance and Hossenfelder (arXiv:2211.01331) recall that "locally causal completions of quantum mechanics are possible, if they violate the assumption [called statistical independence or measurement independence] that the hidden variables do not in any way depend on measurement settings" and that, consequently, the experimental violations of Bell inequalities "show that maintaining local causality requires violating statistical independence". However, Hance and Hossenfelder also argue that "we should (...) look for independent experimental evidence that can distinguish the two different options: non-locality and statistical independence, or locality and violations of statistical independence" and that "the unwillingness to consider theories without statistical independence may be the reason we do not yet have a locally causal theory for the foundations of physics that is consistent with general relativity". Here, we recall that there is a third option, namely, rejecting that measurement outcomes are governed in any way by hidden variables. Moreover, we argue that some recent results in the search for principles singling out the sets of quantum correlations for Bell and Kochen-Specker contextuality scenarios point out that this third option is scientifically more plausible and answers the question of why and how nature produces quantum nonlocality.