Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
194 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

The standard no-signalling constraints in Bell scenarios are neither sufficient nor necessary for preventing superluminal signalling with general interventions (2311.18465v2)

Published 30 Nov 2023 in quant-ph

Abstract: Non-classical correlations resulting from entangled quantum systems have sparked debates about the compatibility of quantum theory and relativity, and about the right way to think about causation. Key to a causal theory is that superluminal signalling is forbidden, which holds in quantum theory. In Bell scenarios, relativistic causality principles like no superluminal signalling are often assumed to follow from the standard no-signalling constraints on correlations. We explore the connections between a range of relativistic principles, including no superluminal signalling and no causal loops, and constraints on correlations that can arise with arbitrary interventions, within multi-party Bell scenarios. This includes standard no-signalling conditions and proposed relaxations allowing phenomena like jamming, where it was suggested that superluminal signalling and causal loops remain impossible. Using our recent framework combining relativistic principles with causal modelling, we show that any theory (classical or non-classical) allowing jamming must rely on causal fine-tuning and superluminal causal influences. Additionally, we show that jamming theories can lead to superluminal signalling in certain situations, highlighting limitations for their physicality. However, we identify cases where jamming correlations avoid superluminal signalling under general interventions, demonstrating that standard no-signalling constraints are not necessary for this purpose. We also show that these constraints are insufficient to rule out superluminal signalling and are neither necessary nor sufficient for ensuring no causal loops under general interventions. Finally, we derive necessary and sufficient conditions for ruling out superluminal signalling and operationally detectable causal loops, solidifying our understanding of relativistic causality principles in information processing tasks in space-time.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (40)
  1. Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review 47, 777–780 (1935). link.
  2. Bohr, N. Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review 48, 696–702 (1935). link.
  3. Discussion of experimental proof for the paradox of Einstein, Rosen, and Podolsky. Physical Review 108, 1070–1076 (1957). link.
  4. Bell, J. S. On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox. Physics Physique Fizika 1, 195–200 (1964). link.
  5. Bell, J. S. Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics. Cambridge University Press (1987).
  6. Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories. Physical Review Letters 23, 880–884 (1969). link.
  7. Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge University Press (2010). link.
  8. Quantum nonlocality as an axiom. Foundations of Physics 24, 379–385 (1994). link.
  9. Barrett, J. Information processing in generalized probabilistic theories. Physical Review A 75, 032304 (2007). link.
  10. Jamming nonlocal quantum correlations. Physical Review A 53, 3781–3784 (1996). link.
  11. The relativistic causality versus no-signaling paradigm for multi-party correlations. Nature Communications 10, 1701 (2019). link.
  12. General framework for cyclic and fine-tuned causal models and their compatibility with space-time. Physical Review A 106, 032204 (2022). link.
  13. Impossibility of superluminal signaling in Minkowski spacetime does not rule out causal loops. Physical Review Letters 129, 110401 (2022). link.
  14. Pearl, J. Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. Second edition, Cambridge University Press (2009). link.
  15. Causation, prediction, and search. The MIT Press, 2nd ed. (2001). link.
  16. The lesson of causal discovery algorithms for quantum correlations: causal explanations of Bell-inequality violations require fine-tuning. New Journal of Physics 17, 033002 (2015). link.
  17. Towards a formulation of quantum theory as a causally neutral theory of Bayesian inference. Physical Review A 88, 052130 (2013). link.
  18. Theory-independent limits on correlations from generalized Bayesian networks. New Journal of Physics 16, 113043 (2014). link.
  19. Quantum causal modelling. New Journal of Physics 18, 063032 (2016). link.
  20. Quantum common causes and quantum causal models. Physical Review X 7, 031021 (2017). link.
  21. Cyclic quantum causal models. Nature Communications 12, 885 (2021). link.
  22. Cavalcanti, E. G. Classical causal models for Bell and Kochen-Specker inequality violations require fine-tuning. Physical Review X 8 (2018). link.
  23. Relating Wigner’s friend scenarios to nonclassical causal compatibility, monogamy relations, and fine tuning. arXiv:2309.12987 (2023). link.
  24. Quantum causal models. arXiv:1906.10726 (2020). link.
  25. Embedding cyclic causal structures in acyclic spacetimes: no-go results for indefinite causality. arXiv:2203.11245 (2022). link.
  26. Quantum correlations with no causal order. Nature Communications 3, 1092 (2012). link.
  27. Quantum computations without definite causal structure. Physical Review A 88, 022318 (2013). link.
  28. No extension of quantum theory can have improved predictive power. Nature Communications 2, 411 (2011). link.
  29. A short note on the concept of free choice. arXiv:1302.4446 (2013). link.
  30. Weilenmann, M. Monogamy relations for relativistically causal correlations. arXiv:2311.07696 (2023). link.
  31. Kent, A. Secure classical bit commitment over finite channels. Journal of Cryptology 18, 313–335 (2005). link.
  32. Variable bias coin tossing. Physical Review A 73, 032320 (2006). link.
  33. Colbeck, R. Impossibility of secure two-party classical computation. Physical Review A 76, 062308 (2007). link.
  34. Composable security in relativistic quantum cryptography. New Journal of Physics 21, 043057 (2019). link.
  35. Security of differential phase shift QKD from relativistic principles. arXiv:2301.11340 (2023). link.
  36. Information-processing in theories constrained by no superluminal causation vs no superluminal signalling. In-preparation. Based on results contained in VV’s PhD thesis.
  37. Markov properties for graphical models with cycles and latent variables. arXiv:1710.08775 (2017). link.
  38. A causal modelling framework for classical and quantum cyclic causal structures. In-preparation. Presented as poster at Quantum Physics and Logic, Solstice of Foundations and talk at Foundations 2023, Bristol.
  39. Lloyd, S. et al. Closed timelike curves via postselection: Theory and experimental test of consistency. Physical Review Letters 106, 040403 (2011). link.
  40. Quantum mechanics of time travel through post-selected teleportation. Physical Review D 84, 025007 (2011). link.
Citations (2)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now