Advertisement

Foundations of Physics

, Volume 44, Issue 3, pp 248–265 | Cite as

No-Forcing and No-Matching Theorems for Classical Probability Applied to Quantum Mechanics

  • Ehtibar N. DzhafarovEmail author
  • Janne V. Kujala
Article

Abstract

Correlations of spins in a system of entangled particles are inconsistent with Kolmogorov’s probability theory (KPT), provided the system is assumed to be non-contextual. In the Alice–Bob EPR paradigm, non-contextuality means that the identity of Alice’s spin (i.e., the probability space on which it is defined as a random variable) is determined only by the axis \(\alpha _{i}\) chosen by Alice, irrespective of Bob’s axis \(\beta _{j}\) (and vice versa). Here, we study contextual KPT models, with two properties: (1) Alice’s and Bob’s spins are identified as \(A_{ij}\) and \(B_{ij}\), even though their distributions are determined by, respectively, \(\alpha _{i}\) alone and \(\beta _{j}\) alone, in accordance with the no-signaling requirement; and (2) the joint distributions of the spins \(A_{ij},B_{ij}\) across all values of \(\alpha _{i},\beta _{j}\) are constrained by fixing distributions of some subsets thereof. Of special interest among these subsets is the set of probabilistic connections, defined as the pairs \(\left( A_{ij},A_{ij'}\right) \) and \(\left( B_{ij},B_{i'j}\right) \) with \(\alpha _{i}\not =\alpha _{i'}\) and \(\beta _{j}\not =\beta _{j'}\) (the non-contextuality assumption is obtained as a special case of connections, with zero probabilities of \(A_{ij}\not =A_{ij'}\) and \(B_{ij}\not =B_{i'j}\)). Thus, one can achieve a complete KPT characterization of the Bell-type inequalities, or Tsirelson’s inequalities, by specifying the distributions of probabilistic connections compatible with those and only those spin pairs \(\left( A_{ij},B_{ij}\right) \) that are subject to these inequalities. We show, however, that quantum-mechanical (QM) constraints are special. No-forcing theorem says that if a set of probabilistic connections is not compatible with correlations violating QM, then it is compatible only with the classical–mechanical correlations. No-matching theorem says that there are no subsets of the spin variables \(A_{ij},B_{ij}\) whose distributions can be fixed to be compatible with and only with QM-compliant correlations.

Keywords

CHSH inequalities Contextuality EPR/Bohm paradigm  Probabilistic couplings Random variables Tsirelson inequalities 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by NSF Grant SES-1155956.

References

  1. 1.
    Bell, J.: On the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox. Physics 1, 195–200 (1964)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clauser, J.F., Horne, M.A., Shimony, A., Holt, R.A.: Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories. Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880–884 (1969)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clauser, J.F., Horne, M.A.: Experimental consequences of objective local theories. Phys. Rev. D 10, 526–535 (1974)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fine, A.: Hidden variables, joint probability, and the Bell inequalities. Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 291–295 (1982)ADSCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kolmogorov, A.: Foundations of the Theory of Probability. Chelsea, New York (1956)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kochen, S., Specker, F.: The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. J. Math. Mech. 17, 59–87 (1967)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Laudisa, F.: Contextualism and nonlocality in the algebra of EPR observables. Philos. Sci. 64, 478–496 (1997)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Spekkens, R.W., Buzacott, D.H., Keehn, A.J., Toner, B., Pryde, G.J.: Universality of state-independent violation of correlation inequalities for noncontextual theories. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 010401 (2009)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kirchmair, G., Zhringer, F., Gerritsma, R., Kleinmann, M., Ghne, O., Cabello, A., Blatt, R., Roos, C.F.: State-independent experimental test of quantum contextuality. Nature 460, 494–497 (2009)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Badzia̧g, P., Bengtsson, I., Cabello, A., Pitowsky, I.: Universality of state-independent violation of correlation inequalities for noncontextual theories. Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 050401 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Khrennikov, A.Y.: Contextual approach to quantum formalism. In: Fundamental Theories of Physics, vol. 160. Springer, Dordrecht (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cabello, A.: Simple explanation of the quantum violation of a fundamental inequality. Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 060402 (2013)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dzhafarov, E.N., Kujala, J.V.: All-possible-couplings approach to measuring probabilistic context. PLoS ONE 8(5), e61712 (2013). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061712
  14. 14.
    Dzhafarov, E.N., Kujala, J.V.: A qualified Kolmogorovian account of probabilistic contextuality. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science (in press). arXiv:1304.4546
  15. 15.
    Dzhafarov, E.N., Kujala, J.V.: Random variables recorded under mutually exclusive conditions: contextuality-by-Default. Adv. Cogn. Neurodyn. IV (in press). arXiv:1309.0962
  16. 16.
    Bohm, D., Aharonov, Y.: Discussion of experimental proof for the paradox of Einstein. Rosen Podolski. Phys. Rev. 108, 1070–1076 (1957)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dzhafarov, E.N., Kujala, J.V.: On selective influences, marginal selectivity, and Bell/CHSH inequalities. Topics Cognit. Sci. 6, 121–128 (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Khrennikov, AY.: Bell–Boole inequality: nonlocality or probabilistic incompatibility of random variables? Entropy 10, 19–32 (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Khrennikov, A.Y.: EPR–Bohm experiment and Bell’s inequality: quantum physics meets probability theory. Theor. Math. Phys. 157, 1448–1460 (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gudder, S.: On hidden-variable theories. J. Math. Phys. 2, 431–436 (1970)ADSCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thorisson, H.: Coupling, Stationarity, and Regeneration. Springer, New York (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Landau, L.J.: Empirical two-point correlation functions. Found. Phys. 18, 449–460 (1988)ADSCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cabello, A.: How much larger quantum correlations are than classical ones. Phys. Rev. A 72, 12113 (2005)ADSCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kujala, J.V., Dzhafarov, E.N.: Testing for selectivity in the dependence of random variables on external factors. J. Math. Psychol. 52, 128–144 (2008)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tsirelson, B.S.: Quantum generalizations of Bell’s inequality. Lett. Math. Phys. 4, 93–100 (1980)ADSCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Landau, L.J.: On the violation of Bell’s inequality in quantum theory. Phys. Lett. A 120, 54–56 (1987)ADSCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dzhafarov, E.N., Kujala, J.V.: Selectivity in probabilistic causality: where psychology runs into quantum physics. J. Math. Psychol. 56, 54–63 (2012)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dzhafarov, E.N., Kujala, J.V.: Quantum entanglement and the issue of selective influences in psychology: an overview. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7620, pp. 184–195 (2012)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dzhafarov, E.N., Kujala, J.V.: Order-distance and other metric-like functions on jointly distributed random variables. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 141, 3291–3301 (2013)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Klyachko, A.A., Can, M.A., Binicioglu, S., Shumovsky, A.S.: Simple test for hidden variables in spin-1 systems. Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 020403 (2008)ADSCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Avis, D., Fischer, P., Hilbert, A., Khrennikov, A.: Single, complete, probability spaces consistent with EPR–Bohm–Bell experimental data. In: Khrennikov, A. (ed.) Foundations of Probability and Physics-5, AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 750, pp. 294–301. AIP, Melville, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dzhafarov, E.N., Kujala, J.V.: Embedding quantum into classical: contextualization vs conditionalization. arXiv:1312.0097 (2013)

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Purdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mathematical Information TechnologyUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations