Two Faced Janus of Quantum Nonlocality

Bild Conception of Scientific Theory Structuring in Classical and Quantum Physics: From Hertz and Boltzmann to Schrödinger and De Broglie

We start with a methodological analysis of the notion of scientific theory and its interrelation with reality. This analysis is based on the works of Helmholtz, Hertz, Boltzmann, and Schrödinger (and reviews of D'Agostino). Following Helmholtz, Hertz established the "Bild conception" for scientific theories. Here, "Bild" ("picture") carries the meaning "model" (mathematical). The main aim of natural sciences is construction of the causal theoretical models (CTMs) of natural phenomena. Hertz claimed that a CTM cannot be designed solely on the basis of observational data; it typically contains hidden quantities. Experimental data can be described by an observational model (OM), often based on the price of acausality. CTM-OM interrelation can be tricky. Schrödinger used the Bild concept to create a CTM for quantum mechanics (QM), and QM was treated as OM. We follow him and suggest a special CTM for QM, so-called prequantum classical statistical field theory (PCSFT). QM can be considered as a PCSFT image, but not as straightforward as in Bell's model with hidden variables. The common interpretation of the violation of the Bell inequality is criticized from the perspective of the two-level structuring of scientific theories. Such critical analysis of von Neumann and Bell no-go theorems for hidden variables was performed already by De Broglie (and Lochak) in the 1970s. The Bild approach is applied to the two-level CTM-OM modeling of Brownian motion: the overdamped regime corresponds to OM. In classical mechanics, CTM=OM; on the one hand, this is very convenient; on the other hand, this exceptional coincidence blurred the general CTM-OM structuring of scientific theories. We briefly discuss ontic-epistemic structuring of scientific theories (Primas-Atmanspacher) and its relation to the Bild concept. Interestingly, Atmanspacher as well as Hertz claim that even classical physical theories should be presented on the basic of two-level structuring.

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.

On Applicability of Quantum Formalism to Model Decision Making: Can Cognitive Signaling Be Compatible with Quantum Theory?

This note is devoted to the problem of signaling (marginal inconsistency) in the Bell-type experiments with physical and cognitive systems. It seems that in quantum physics, this problem is still not taken seriously. Only recently have experimenters started to check the signaling hypothesis for their data. For cognitive systems, signaling was statistically significant in all experiments (typically for decision making) performed up to today. Here, one cannot simply ignore this problem. Since signaling contradicts the quantum theory of measurement for compatible observables, its statistical significance in experiments with humans can be considered as an objection for quantum-like modeling-applications of quantum theory to cognition, decision making, psychology, economics and finance, social and political science. In this paper, we point to two possible sources of signaling generation that are consistent with quantum measurement theory. Thus, the signaling objection for quantum-like modeling is not catastrophic. One of these sources is the direct physical signaling about selection of experimental settings, questions or tasks in quantum-like studies. Another possible source is a state modification dependent on experimental settings. The latter was a rather common source of signaling in quantum physics. Since the physical size of the brain is very small comparing with the light velocity, it seems to be impossible to prevent the direct physical signaling (with electromagnetic waves) between the brain's areas processing two questions a and b. However, if, for these questions, not the electromagnetic waves, but electrochemical communication plays the crucial role, the experimenter may hope to make signaling weaker by answering the questions faster. The problem of question-dependent mental state modification seems to be solvable via smarter experimental design. This paper can be useful both for physicists interested in quantum foundations and for researchers working in quantum-like studies, e.g., applying the quantum theory to model decision making or psychological effects. This paper is solely about quantum theory. Thus, we do not consider general contextual probabilistic models.

Contextuality, Complementarity, Signaling, and Bell Tests

This is a review devoted to the complementarity–contextuality interplay with connection to the Bell inequalities. Starting the discussion with complementarity, I point to contextuality as its seed. Bohr contextuality is the dependence of an observable’s outcome on the experimental context; on the system–apparatus interaction. Probabilistically, complementarity means that the joint probability distribution (JPD) does not exist. Instead of the JPD, one has to operate with contextual probabilities. The Bell inequalities are interpreted as the statistical tests of contextuality, and hence, incompatibility. For context-dependent probabilities, these inequalities may be violated. I stress that contextuality tested by the Bell inequalities is the so-called joint measurement contextuality (JMC), the special case of Bohr’s contextuality. Then, I examine the role of signaling (marginal inconsistency). In QM, signaling can be considered as an experimental artifact. However, often, experimental data have signaling patterns. I discuss possible sources of signaling—for example, dependence of the state preparation on measurement settings. In principle, one can extract the measure of “pure contextuality” from data shadowed by signaling. This theory is known as contextuality by default (CbD). It leads to inequalities with an additional term quantifying signaling: Bell–Dzhafarov–Kujala inequalities.

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.

The Violation of Bell-CHSH Inequalities Leads to Different Conclusions Depending on the Description Used

Since the experimental observation of the violation of the Bell-CHSH inequalities, much has been said about the non-local and contextual character of the underlying system. However, the hypothesis from which Bell's inequalities are derived differ according to the probability space used to write them. The violation of Bell's inequalities can, alternatively, be explained by assuming that the hidden variables do not exist at all, that they exist but their values cannot be simultaneously assigned, that the values can be assigned but joint probabilities cannot be properly defined, or that averages taken in different contexts cannot be combined. All of the above are valid options, selected by different communities to provide support to their particular research program.

Is the Devil in h?

This note is a part of my effort to rid quantum mechanics (QM) nonlocality. Quantum nonlocality is a two faced Janus: one face is a genuine quantum mechanical nonlocality (defined by the Lüders' projection postulate). Another face is the nonlocality of the hidden variables model that was invented by Bell. This paper is devoted the deconstruction of the latter. The main casualty of Bell's model is that it straightforwardly contradicts Heisenberg's uncertainty and Bohr's complementarity principles generally. Thus, we do not criticize the derivation or interpretation of the Bell inequality (as was done by numerous authors). Our critique is directed against the model as such. The original Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) argument assumed the Heisenberg's principle without questioning its validity. Hence, the arguments of EPR and Bell differ crucially, and it is necessary to establish the physical ground of the aforementioned principles. This is the quantum postulate: the existence of an indivisible quantum of action given by the Planck constant. Bell's approach with hidden variables implicitly implies rejection of the quantum postulate, since the latter is the basis of the reference principles.

Reality, Indeterminacy, Probability, and Information in Quantum Theory

Following the view of several leading quantum-information theorists, this paper argues that quantum phenomena, including those exhibiting quantum correlations (one of their most enigmatic features), and quantum mechanics may be best understood in quantum-informational terms. It also argues that this understanding is implicit already in the work of some among the founding figures of quantum mechanics, in particular W. Heisenberg and N. Bohr, half a century before quantum information theory emerged and confirmed, and gave a deeper meaning to, to their insights. These insights, I further argue, still help this understanding, which is the main reason for considering them here. My argument is grounded in a particular interpretation of quantum phenomena and quantum mechanics, in part arising from these insights as well. This interpretation is based on the concept of reality without realism, RWR (which places the reality considered beyond representation or even conception), introduced by this author previously, in turn, following Heisenberg and Bohr, and in response to quantum information theory.