Many authors state that quantum nonlocality could not involve any controllable superluminal transmission of momentum-energy, signals, or information. We claim that most or all no-signalling proofs to date are question-begging, in that they depend upon assumptions about the locality of the measurement process that needed to be established in the first place. We analyse no-signalling arguments by Bohm and Hiley, and Shimony, which illustrate the problem in an especially striking way.
Many authors state that quantum nonlocality could not involve any controllable superluminal transmission of momentum-energy, signals, or information. We claim that most or all no-signalling proofs to date are question-begging, in that they depend upon assumptions about the locality of the measurement process that needed to be established in the first place. We analyse no-signalling arguments by Bohm and Hiley, and Shimony, which illustrate the problem in an especially striking way.
The quantum foundations literature contains dozens of "no-signaling" arguments that rely on the Born rule or, more generally, the positive operator-valued measure (POVM) framework to show that the resources of non-relativistic quantum mechanics (NRQM) cannot be used to send superluminal signals. What these arguments typically establish, however, is not a prohibition on superluminal signaling per se, but the seemingly stronger claim that signaling at any speed between mutually isolated systems is forbidden. This paper gives a precise formulation of this claim, the no-signaling hypothesis, and investigates the following converse question: under what additional assumptions does it imply that all experimental outcome probabilities are described by POVMs? Surprisingly few are needed: given the standard NRQM representation of composite experiments and two textbook claims about marginal probabilities, the no-signaling hypothesis is equivalent to the universality of the POVM framework. More broadly, by formalizing the relevant concepts and deriving the logical relationships between them, the paper shows that the no-signaling hypothesis can be used to derive most, though not all, of the probability-generating fragment of NRQM. The resulting map of implications clarifies which common postulates of NRQM are logically interrelated and which can be modified independently.
Does "epistemic non-signalling" ensure the peaceful coexistence of special relativity and quantum nonlocality? The possibility of an affirmative answer is of great importance to deterministic approaches to quantum mechanics given recent developments towards generalizations of Bell's theorem. By generalizations of Bell's theorem we here mean efforts that seek to demonstrate the impossibility of any deterministic theories to obey the predictions of Bell's theorem, including not only local hidden-variables theories (LHVTs) but, critically, of nonlocal hidden-variables theories (NHVTs) also, such as de Broglie-Bohm theory. Naturally, in light of the well-established experimental findings from quantum physics, whether or not a deterministic approach to quantum mechanics, including an emergent quantum mechanics, is logically possible, depends on compatibility with the predictions of Bell's theorem. With respect to deterministic NHVTs, recent attempts to generalize Bell's theorem have claimed the impossibility of any such approaches to quantum mechanics. The present work offers arguments showing why such efforts towards generalization may fall short of their stated goal. In particular, we challenge the validity of the use of the non-signalling theorem as a conclusive argument in favor of the existence of free randomness, and therefore reject the use of the non-signalling theorem as an argument against the logical possibility of deterministic approaches. We here offer two distinct counter-arguments in support of the possibility of deterministic NHVTs: one argument exposes the circularity of the reasoning which is employed in recent claims, and a second argument is based on the inconclusive metaphysical status of the non-signalling theorem itself. We proceed by presenting an entirely informal treatment of key physical and metaphysical assumptions, and of their interrelationship, in attempts seeking to generalize Bell's theorem on the basis of an ontic, foundational interpretation of the non-signalling theorem. We here argue that the non-signalling theorem must instead be viewed as an epistemic, operational theorem i.e. one that refers exclusively to what epistemic agents can, or rather cannot, do. That is, we emphasize that the non-signalling theorem is a theorem about the operational inability of epistemic agents to signal information. In other words, as a proper principle, the non-signalling theorem may only be employed as an epistemic, phenomenological, or operational principle. Critically, our argument emphasizes that the non-signalling principle must not be used as an ontic principle about physical reality as such, i.e. as a theorem about the nature of physical reality independently of epistemic agents e.g. human observers. One major reason in favor of our conclusion is that any definition of signalling or of non-signalling invariably requires a reference to epistemic agents, and what these agents can actually measure and report. Otherwise, the non-signalling theorem would equal a general "no-influence" theorem. In conclusion, under the assumption that the non-signalling theorem is epistemic (i.e. "epistemic non-signalling"), the search for deterministic approaches to quantum mechanics, including NHVTs and an emergent quantum mechanics, continues to be a viable research program towards disclosing the foundations of physical reality at its smallest dimensions.
We understand emergent quantum mechanics in the sense that quantum mechanics describes processes of physical emergence relating an assumed sub-quantum physics to macroscopic boundary conditions. The latter can be shown to entail top-down causation, in addition to usual bottom-up scenarios. With this example it is demonstrated that definitions of "realism" in the literature are simply too restrictive. A prevailing manner to define realism in quantum mechanics is in terms of pre-determination independent of the measurement. With our counter-example, which actually is ubiquitous in emergent, or self-organizing, systems, we argue for realism without pre-determination . We refer to earlier results of our group showing how the guiding equation of the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation can be derived from a theory with classical ingredients only. Essentially, this corresponds to a "quantum mechanics without wave functions" in ordinary 3-space, albeit with nonlocal correlations. This, then, leads to the central question of how to deal with the nonlocality problem in a relativistic setting. We here show that a basic argument discussing the allegedly paradox time ordering of events in EPR-type two-particle experiments falls short of taking into account the contextuality of the experimental setup. Consequently, we then discuss under which circumstances (i.e. physical premises) superluminal information transfer (but not signaling) may be compatible with a Lorentz-invariant theory. Finally, we argue that the impossibility of superluminal signaling - despite the presence of superluminal information transfer - is not the result of some sort of conspiracy (á la "Nature likes to hide"), but the consequence of the impossibility to exactly reproduce in repeated experimental runs a state's preparation, or of the no-cloning theorem, respectively.
It is a frequent assumption that—via superluminal information transfers—superluminal signals capable of enabling communication are necessarily exchanged in any quantum theory that posits hidden superluminal influences. However, does the presence of hidden superluminal influences automatically imply superluminal signalling and communication? The non-signalling theorem mediates the apparent conflict between quantum mechanics and the theory of special relativity. However, as a ‘no-go’ theorem there exist two opposing interpretations of the non-signalling constraint: foundational and operational. Concerning Bell’s theorem, we argue that Bell employed both interpretations, and that he finally adopted the operational position which is associated often with ontological quantum theory, e.g., de Broglie–Bohm theory. This position we refer to as “effective non-signalling”. By contrast, associated with orthodox quantum mechanics is the foundational position referred to here as “axiomatic non-signalling”. In search of a decisive communication-theoretic criterion for differentiating between “axiomatic” and “effective” non-signalling, we employ the operational framework offered by Shannon’s mathematical theory of communication, whereby we distinguish between Shannon signals and non-Shannon signals. We find that an effective non-signalling theorem represents two sub-theorems: (1) Non-transfer-control (NTC) theorem, and (2) Non-signification-control (NSC) theorem. Employing NTC and NSC theorems, we report that effective, instead of axiomatic, non-signalling is entirely sufficient for prohibiting nonlocal communication. Effective non-signalling prevents the instantaneous, i.e., superluminal, transfer of message-encoded information through the controlled use—by a sender-receiver pair —of informationally-correlated detection events, e.g., in EPR-type experiments. An effective non-signalling theorem allows for nonlocal quantum information transfer yet—at the same time—effectively denies superluminal signalling and communication.