On joint distributions, counterfactual values and hidden variables in understanding contextuality

Quantum Mechanics Is Compatible with Counterfactual Definiteness

Counterfactual definiteness (CFD) means that if some property is measured in some context, then the outcome of the measurement would have been the same had this property been measured in a different context. A context includes all other measurements made together with the one in question, and the spatiotemporal relations among them. The proviso for CFD is non-disturbance: any physical influence of the contexts on the property being measured is excluded by the laws of nature, so that no one measuring this property has a way of ascertaining its context. It is usually claimed that in quantum mechanics CFD does not hold, because if one assigns the same value to a property in all contexts it is measured in, one runs into a logical contradiction, or at least contravenes quantum theory and experimental evidence. We show that this claim is not substantiated if one takes into account that only one of the possible contexts can be a factual context, all other contexts being counterfactual. With this in mind, any system of random variables can be viewed as satisfying CFD. The concept of CFD is closely related to but distinct from that of noncontextuality, and it is the latter property that may or may not hold for a system, in particular being contravened by some quantum systems.

Contextuality with Disturbance and without: Neither Can Violate Substantive Requirements the Other Satisfies

Contextuality was originally defined only for consistently connected systems of random variables (those without disturbance/signaling). Contextuality-by-Default theory (CbD) offers an extension of the notion of contextuality to inconsistently connected systems (those with disturbance) by defining it in terms of the systems' couplings subject to certain constraints. Such extensions are sometimes met with skepticism. We pose the question of whether it is possible to develop a set of substantive requirements (i.e., those addressing a notion itself rather than its presentation form) such that (1) for any consistently connected system, these requirements are satisfied, but (2) they are violated for some inconsistently connected systems. We show that no such set of requirements is possible, not only for CbD but for all possible CbD-like extensions of contextuality. This follows from the fact that any extended contextuality theory T is contextually equivalent to a theory T' in which all systems are consistently connected. The contextual equivalence means the following: there is a bijective correspondence between the systems in T and T' such that the corresponding systems in T and T' are, in a well-defined sense, mere reformulations of each other, and they are contextual or noncontextual together.

Contextuality or Nonlocality: What Would John Bell Choose Today?

A violation of Bell-CHSH inequalities does not justify speculations about quantum non-locality, conspiracy and retro-causation. Such speculations are rooted in a belief that setting dependence of hidden variables in a probabilistic model (called a violation of measurement independence (MI)) would mean a violation of experimenters' freedom of choice. This belief is unfounded because it is based on a questionable use of Bayes Theorem and on incorrect causal interpretation of conditional probabilities. In Bell-local realistic model, hidden variables describe only photonic beams created by a source, thus they cannot depend on randomly chosen experimental settings. However, if hidden variables describing measuring instruments are correctly incorporated into a contextual probabilistic model a violation of inequalities and an apparent violation of no-signaling reported in Bell tests can be explained without evoking quantum non-locality. Therefore, for us, a violation of Bell-CHSH inequalities proves only that hidden variables have to depend on settings confirming contextual character of quantum observables and an active role played by measuring instruments. Bell thought that he had to choose between non-locality and the violation of experimenters' freedom of choice. From two bad choices he chose non-locality. Today he would probably choose the violation of MI understood as contextuality.

Assumption-Free Derivation of the Bell-Type Criteria of Contextuality/Nonlocality

Bell-type criteria of contextuality/nonlocality can be derived without any falsifiable assumptions, such as context-independent mapping (or local causality), free choice, or no-fine-tuning. This is achieved by deriving Bell-type criteria for inconsistently connected systems (i.e., those with disturbance/signaling), based on the generalized definition of contextuality in the contextuality-by-default approach, and then specializing these criteria to consistently connected systems.

Contextuality-by-Default Description of Bell Tests: Contextuality as the Rule and Not as an Exception

Contextuality and entanglement are valuable resources for quantum computing and quantum information. Bell inequalities are used to certify entanglement; thus, it is important to understand why and how they are violated. Quantum mechanics and behavioural sciences teach us that random variables 'measuring' the same content (the answer to the same Yes or No question) may vary, if 'measured' jointly with other random variables. Alice's and BoB's raw data confirm Einsteinian non-signaling, but setting dependent experimental protocols are used to create samples of coupled pairs of distant ±1 outcomes and to estimate correlations. Marginal expectations, estimated using these final samples, depend on distant settings. Therefore, a system of random variables 'measured' in Bell tests is inconsistently connected and it should be analyzed using a Contextuality-by-Default approach, what is done for the first time in this paper. The violation of Bell inequalities and inconsistent connectedness may be explained using a contextual locally causal probabilistic model in which setting dependent variables describing measuring instruments are correctly incorporated. We prove that this model does not restrict experimenters' freedom of choice which is a prerequisite of science. Contextuality seems to be the rule and not an exception; thus, it should be carefully tested.