Explaining observations in terms of cause-and-effect (causal) relations is central to empirical science. However, in his seminal 1964 work [1], John Bell showed that the correlations between entangled quantum systems cannot be explained in terms of, possibly hidden, cause and effect relations. After four decades of experimental effort, Bell's prediction has recently been confirmed in an unambiguous way by a series of loophole-free Bell-test experiments [2-4]. These experiments, however, cannot reveal where exactly quantum mechanics breaks with our classical notion of cause and effect. Specifically, Bell's theorem is based on the central assumptions of realism and local causality. Realism posits that physical systems have real, objective properties, independent of whether we observe them or not, and local causality assumes that causal influences cannot propagate faster than the speed of light.
Explaining observations in terms of cause-and-effect (causal) relations is central to empirical science. However, in his seminal 1964 work [1], John Bell showed that the correlations between entangled quantum systems cannot be explained in terms of, possibly hidden, cause and effect relations. After four decades of experimental effort, Bell's prediction has recently been confirmed in an unambiguous way by a series of loophole-free Bell-test experiments [2-4]. These experiments, however, cannot reveal where exactly quantum mechanics breaks with our classical notion of cause and effect. Specifically, Bell's theorem is based on the central assumptions of realism and local causality. Realism posits that physical systems have real, objective properties, independent of whether we observe them or not, and local causality assumes that causal influences cannot propagate faster than the speed of light.
Explaining observations in terms of causes and effects is central to empirical science. However, correlations between entangled quantum particles seem to defy such an explanation. This implies that some of the fundamental assumptions of causal explanations have to give way. We consider a relaxation of one of these assumptions, Bell's local causality, by allowing outcome dependence: a direct causal influence between the outcomes of measurements of remote parties. We use interventional data from a photonic experiment to bound the strength of this causal influence in a two-party Bell scenario, and observational data from a Bell-type inequality test for the considered models. Our results demonstrate the incompatibility of quantum mechanics with a broad class of nonlocal causal models, which includes Bell-local models as a special case. Recovering a classical causal picture of quantum correlations thus requires an even more radical modification of our classical notion of cause and effect.
"In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen questioned whether quantum mechanics can be complete, as it seemingly does not adhere to a natural view of reality: local realism, which is the notion that an event can only be influenced by events in the past lightcone, and can only influence events in the future lightcone. This question sparked a philosophical debate that lasted for three decades, until John Bell demonstrated that not only are quantum mechanics and local realism philosophically incompatible, but they predict different statistical results for an appropriate set of measurements on entangled particles, which changed the debate to a scientific discussion. Since then, Bell inequality violations have occurred in a plethora of systems, hinting that local realism is indeed wrong. However, every experiment had imperfections that complicated the interpretation --- the experiments had so-called ""loopholes"" which allowed local realism to persist. In this manuscript, we present our work in using optimized sources of entangled photons to perform the long-sought loophole-free Bell test. This landmark experiment invalidates local realism to the best that science will allow. Beyond answering questions on reality, these Bell tests have a important application in generating provably-secure private random numbers, which then can be used as a seed for cryptographic applications. Not only do we demonstrate that nonlocality must exist, but we begin an experimental exploration in an attempt to understand and quantify this nonlocality. We do so by considering all theories that obey no-signaling (or relativistic causality). In our experiments, we observe the counter-intuitive feature of measuring more nonlocality with less entangled states. We also place a bound on the predictive power of any theory that obeys relativistic causality. And finally, we are able to measure quantum correlations only attainable through complex qubits. This work merely begins to probe the quantum boundary, beginning a journey that may someday find evidence of a beyond-quantum theory."
Bell’s [Physics 1 (1964) 195–200] theorem is popularly supposed to establish the nonlocality of quantum physics. Violation of Bell’s inequality in experiments such as that of Aspect, Dalibard and Roger [Phys. Rev. Lett. 49 (1982) 1804–1807] provides empirical proof of nonlocality in the real world. This paper reviews recent work on Bell’s theorem, linking it to issues in causality as understood by statisticians. The paper starts with a proof of a strong, finite sample, version of Bell’s inequality and thereby also of Bell’s theorem, which states that quantum theory is incompatible with the conjunction of three formerly uncontroversial physical principles, here referred to as locality, realism and freedom. Locality is the principle that the direction of causality matches the direction of time, and that causal influences need time to propagate spatially. Realism and freedom are directly connected to statistical thinking on causality: they relate to counterfactual reasoning, and to randomisation, respectively. Experimental loopholes in state-of-the-art Bell type experiments are related to statistical issues of post-selection in observational studies, and the missing at random assumption. They can be avoided by properly matching the statistical analysis to the actual experimental design, instead of by making untestable assumptions of independence between observed and unobserved variables. Methodological and statistical issues in the design of quantum Randi challenges (QRC) are discussed. The paper argues that Bell’s theorem (and its experimental confirmation) should lead us to relinquish not locality, but realism.
Since Bell's theorem, it is known that local realism fails to explain quantum phenomena. Bell inequality violations manifestly show the incompatibility of quantum theory with classical notions of cause and effect. As recently found, however, the instrumental scenario-a pivotal tool in causal inference-allows for nonclassicality signatures going beyond this paradigm. If we are not limited to observational data and can intervene in our setup, then we can witness quantum violations of classical bounds on the causal influence among the involved variables even when no Bell-like violation is possible. That is, through interventions, the quantum behavior of a system that would seem classical can be demonstrated. Using a photonic setup-faithfully implementing the instrumental causal structure and switching between observation and intervention run by run-we experimentally witness such a nonclassicality. We also test quantum bounds for the causal influence, showing that they provide a reliable tool for quantum causal modeling.
Abstract. Bell inequalities are intended to show that local realist theories cannot describe the world. A local realist theory is one where physical properties are defined prior to and independent of measurement, and no physical influence can propagate faster than the speed of light. Quantum-mechanical predictions for certain experiments violate the Bell inequality while a local realist theory cannot, and this shows that a local realist theory cannot give those quantum-mechanical predictions. However, because of unexpected circumstances or “loopholes ” in available experiment tests, local realist theories can reproduce the data from these experiments. This paper reviews such loopholes, what effect they have on Bell inequality tests, and how to avoid them in experiment. Avoiding all these simultaneously in one experiment, usually called a “loophole-free ” or “definitive ” Bell test, remains an open task, but is very important for technological tasks such as device-independent security of quantum cryptography, and ultimately for our understanding of the world. ar X iv
Bell inequalities are intended to show that local realist theories cannot describe the world. A local realist theory is one where physical properties are defined prior to and independent of measurement, and no physical influence can propagate faster than the speed of light. Quantum-mechanical predictions for certain experiments violate the Bell inequality while a local realist theory cannot, and this shows that a local realist theory cannot give those quantum-mechanical predictions. However, because of unexpected circumstances or 'loopholes' in available experiment tests, local realist theories can reproduce the data from these experiments. This paper reviews such loopholes, what effect they have on Bell inequality tests, and how to avoid them in experiment. Avoiding all these simultaneously in one experiment, usually called a 'loophole-free' or 'definitive' Bell test, remains an open task, but is very important for technological tasks such as device-independent security of quantum cryptography, and ultimately for our understanding of the world. This article is part of a special issue of Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical devoted to '50 years of Bell's theorem'.