Is the quantum state real? Does the reduction of the state of a quantum system by a measurement on another system, entangled with it and distant, constitute a real disturbance? As is well acknowledged, there is a lack of consensus among physicists over such ontological questions concerning quantum mechanics (QM). Here we argue that it is possible, surprisingly, to address such questions on the basis of only operational considerations. More generally, we show that the operational perspective itself provides an intrinsic interpretation of QM. The theory's syntax supplies its semantics, as it were. This interpretational framework, which we call ``signaling ontology'', builds on the simple insight that unconditional quantum state reduction, namely the state change of a measured quantum system due to a nonselective measurement, can be used for signaling locally, and that this signal provides a natural, operational criterion for the reality of the state reduction. This argument is formalized in the framework of generalized probability theories and extended to multipartite systems. Among other consequences of this approach, the two questions posed above at the beginning are testably answered in the affirmative. In particular, a steering inequality is proposed whose violation, together with a local signaling condition, provides an experimental test for the reality of the remote disturbance referenced in the second question. Accordingly, quantum correlations that meet this criterion are nonlocal in an operationally real sense. A further ramification of our work is an elucidation of the contrast between quantum no-signaling and relativistic signal locality.
Is the quantum state real? Does the reduction of the state of a quantum system by a measurement on another system, entangled with it and distant, constitute a real disturbance? As is well acknowledged, there is a lack of consensus among physicists over such ontological questions concerning quantum mechanics (QM). Here we argue that it is possible, surprisingly, to address such questions on the basis of only operational considerations. More generally, we show that the operational perspective itself provides an intrinsic interpretation of QM. The theory's syntax supplies its semantics, as it were. This interpretational framework, which we call ``signaling ontology'', builds on the simple insight that unconditional quantum state reduction, namely the state change of a measured quantum system due to a nonselective measurement, can be used for signaling locally, and that this signal provides a natural, operational criterion for the reality of the state reduction. This argument is formalized in the framework of generalized probability theories and extended to multipartite systems. Among other consequences of this approach, the two questions posed above at the beginning are testably answered in the affirmative. In particular, a steering inequality is proposed whose violation, together with a local signaling condition, provides an experimental test for the reality of the remote disturbance referenced in the second question. Accordingly, quantum correlations that meet this criterion are nonlocal in an operationally real sense. A further ramification of our work is an elucidation of the contrast between quantum no-signaling and relativistic signal locality.
Does the remote measurement disturbance of the quantum state of a system B by a measurement on system A entangled with B constitute a real disturbance, i.e., an objective alteration, of B in an operational sense? Employing information-theoretic criteria motivated by operational considerations alone, we argue that the disturbance in question is real for a subset of steerable correlations. This result highlights the distinction between quantum no-signaling and the relativistic signal locality. It furthermore suggests a natural reason why a convex operational theory should be nonsignaling, namely, to ensure consistency between the properties of reduced systems and those of single systems.
An operational concept of locality whose quantum violation is indicated independently of any other assumption(s) seems to be lacking in the quantum foundations literature so far. Bell's theorem only shows that quantum correlations violate the conjunction of the ontological assumptions of localism and determinism. Taking a cue from computational complexity theory, here we define such a concept of locality in terms of a class of operational decision problems, and propose that Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) steering in its basic asymmetric formulation gives a specific realization of this class. Various nonclassical (convex) operational theories, including quantum mechanics, are shown to be nonlocal according to this operational criterion. We discuss several ramifications arising from this result. It indicates a basic difference between quantum no-signaling and relativistic no-signaling, and suggests an information theoretic derivation of the former from other basic principles in the convex framework. It elucidates the connection between two different bounds on nonlocality, due to Oppenheim and Wehner (2010) and Banik et al. (2015), thereby highlighting the interplay and contrast between uncertainty and measurement incompatibility. Our result provides an argument supporting the realist interpretation of the quantum state, and helps clarify why Spekkens' toy model (2007) features steering but not Bell nonlocality.
Quantum entanglement produces correlations that violate classical locality constraints while remaining fully consistent with relativistic no-signaling. Although standard quantum mechanics predicts these correlations with extraordinary empirical success, the ontological meaning of entangled states and the physical status of wave-function collapse remain deeply debated. This paper develops a speculative but structured informational interpretation in which entangled subsystems are modeled as multiple local realizations of a single shared informational identity within an underlying finite-capacity substrate. The framework is articulated through explicit postulates, density-matrix analysis, entanglement entropy, a toy realization scheme, and an informational identity operator acting on composite states. Within this view, nonlocal correlations arise not from superluminal causal influence but from ontological non-separability at the informational level. Measurement is interpreted as informational resolution: a reduction of degeneracy in the local realization of a shared informational structure. The irreversible stabilization of outcomes is then linked to thermodynamic cost through Landauer-type reasoning. The proposal is not advanced as a replacement for quantum mechanics, nor as a fully worked-out hidden-variable theory, but as an ontological scaffold intended to unify entanglement, collapse, and thermodynamic irreversibility within an informational perspective. Compatibility with Bell inequalities, decoherence, basis selection, and no-signaling is discussed in detail, together with limitations and possible routes toward future formalization and empirical relevance.
Quantum nonlocality has been a long-standing and fascinating problem in the foundations of quantum theory since its proof by the Bell inequality. It seems to contradict our intuitive picture of space-time and thus urges us to reconsider its foundation. With the advent of quantum information science, it has attracted renewed interest from a fundamental point of view as well as from a quantum information-theoretic one. Another fundamental question on the nature of quantum theory is how we understand what quantum states represent. (Quantum states hereafter refer to pure states.) This is also a long-standing problem since the early days of quantum theory. Roughly speaking, there are two conflicting views on this matter: one is ontology and the other is epistemology. Ontological models of quantum theory are models in which we assume some underlying reality for physical systems and require that all the predictions of quantum theory should be reproduced. The ontological models are divided into two categories, depending on which views the models are based on, ontology or epistemology. In the models based on ontology, quantum states represent the underlying reality in some sense, and different quantum states correspond to different realities. In the models based on epistemology, quantum states do not necessarily correspond to the underlying realities, and even different quantum states can be consistent with a common underlying reality. The former type of ontological models of quantum theory is called 1⁄4-ontic. The latter is called 1⁄4-epistemic. Thus, it might be rather confusing that ontological models are classified further into 1⁄4-ontic models and 1⁄4-epistemic ones. We use these terms here in accordance with the recent literature on quantum foundations. (For details of these notions in the ontological models of quantum theory, see the paper by Harrigan and Spekkens.) Quite recently, the question just mentioned has been answered by Pusey et al., and one of the above models has been refuted. It was shown that 1⁄4-epistemic models are inconsistent with the predictions of quantum theory. In other words, epistemological views on quantum states turned out to be false as long as we assume some underlying reality for physical systems. Therefore, only 1⁄4-ontic models of quantum theory are valid for describing quantum systems. This significantly advances our understanding on the nature of quantum states. It is expected that various conclusions will be drawn from this fact. In this paper, we will discuss a connection with nonlocality. The above two fundamental questions, nonlocality and the nature of quantum states, are intimately connected, and the connection was first implicitly recognised by Einstein in the early days of quantum theory. In a private correspondence with Schrodinger, Einstein constructed a fascinating argument that relates the above two. (That argument is distinctly different from the well-known EPR argument.) Recently, it was revisited and reconstructed in accordance with more rigorous notions in quantum foundations. Nonlocality is usually shown by violations of Bell inequalities. (Bell inequalities hereafter include all the subsequent developments such as the CHSH inequality.) Even if it is not clear whether the models of quantum theory are 1⁄4-ontic or 1⁄4-epistemic, we can prove nonlocality just by showing the violation of Bell inequalities. However, the above argument originated by Einstein implies that if we know the models are 1⁄4-ontic in advance (as we do now), we can prove nonlocality in a simpler way without Bell inequalities. (This argument had been known in quantum foundations before the refutation of 1⁄4-epistemic models.) Nonlocality is rigorously defined as a violation of the notion of local causality defined by Bell. Showing the violation of Bell inequalities is one way of demonstrating the violation of local causality. Since the simpler proof initiated by Einstein directly demonstrates the violation of local causality, it is a more straightforward proof of nonlocality from a conceptual point of view. In the following, we will see that this simple argument of nonlocality without Bell inequalities can be used to show multipartite nonlocality as well. Before moving onto multipartite cases, first let us define the necessary notions for presenting our result. First of all, we assume that there exists a complete specification of the properties of a physical system, which we refer to as the ontic state of that system. The ontic states represent the underlying realities and are not necessarily equal to ordinary quantum states. (In other words, the ontic states correspond to hidden variables.) Ontological models of quantum theory are models that assume ontic states and reproduce all the predictions of quantum theory. An important question is how ontic states correspond to quantum states in quantum theory. In order to frame the question accurately, we need the notion of an epistemic state, which represents the relation between them. Suppose we prepare a physical system in a quantum state 1⁄4. Although the system is uniquely specified as 1⁄4 in quantum theory, there still remains a possibility that it allows a more detailed specification in the ontic state space, in which case many different ontic states turn out to be consistent with 1⁄4. The relation between ontic states and the preparation procedure, P1⁄4, is described by a conditional probability distribution over the ontic state space, pð jP1⁄4Þ, which we refer to as an epistemic state. In general, the preparation P can be a preparation of a physical system in a mixed sate. Unless there exists a one-to-one correspondence between ontic states and quantum states, the probability distribution spreads over . (See Fig. 1.) The question of whether an ontological model is 1⁄4-ontic or 1⁄4-epistemic is concerned with the behaviour of the epistemic states for two distinct preparations of quantum states. Consider two distinct preparations of quantum states, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 82 (2013) 055003
A local measurement on one member of an entangled composite system is said to change the distant member's state instantaneously. Taken without qualification, this is misleading. A selective measurement changes the conditional state assigned to the remote subsystem once a local outcome is specified; a non-selective measurement, where that outcome is ignored, leaves the remote reduced density operator unchanged. This distinction reconciles quantum state update with operational no-signalling and provides the setting for Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen steering. This review develops measurement using density operators, completely positive instruments, Kraus representations, partial traces, conditional states, and steering assemblages. It derives the invariance of remote marginal statistics under local trace-preserving operations and contrasts this with Bell-local factorization. It examines the hierarchy among entanglement, steering, and Bell nonlocality, joint measurability, remote state preparation, and one-sided device-independent protocols. The article considers spacelike-separated measurements, microcausality in relativistic quantum theory, and ontological readings of selective state update offered by Everettian, Bohmian, collapse, and relational approaches. Decoherence is treated as the process through which local outcomes become records, while quantum Darwinism accounts for their redundant local accessibility. It highlights gaps in literature, and concludes that entanglement permits nonclassical conditional correlations, but local measurement supplies no controllable superluminal signal.
The standard interpretation of quantum measurement on entangled systems holds that measuring one particle nonlocally collapses the wavefunction of its spacelike-separated partner. We argue that this conclusion rests on a false presupposition: that subsystems of entangled systems possess independent ontic states. If the global wavefunction is the sole ontic object (ψ-ontic holism), then for entangled systems there is no “state of B” to be affected by measurement at A. The reduced density matrix of a subsystem, while operationally useful, is not ontologically real for non-factorizable states. Measurement is a local dynamical process — concretely modeled by continuous spontaneous localization (CSL) — that destroys one local wavefunction component at the measurement site. The global state factorizes as a consequence, and subsystem ontology emerges for the first time. The transition of the distant particle’s reduced density matrix from mixed to pure reflects this emergence of separability, not a physical change at the distant location. We show that this framework is consistent with no-signaling, with the contextuality required by the Kochen–Specker and GHZ theorems, and with the local measurement axiom (Postulate M) proposed in a companion paper. Bell’s theorem does not force nonlocality upon our framework because it presupposes outcome determinism — the assignment of definite values to observables prior to measurement — which several quantum mechanical theorems and our ψ-ontic ontology explicitly deny. Decoherence, which is ubiquitous in nature, provides the mechanism by which the global wavefunction factorizes and classical separability emerges. The apparent nonlocality of quantum mechanics is thus reinterpreted as nonseparability: the fundamental ontology is holistic, but the dynamics are local.