Search

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.

Relativistic invariance is a physical law verified in several domains of physics. The impossibility of faster than light influences is not questioned by quantum theory. In quantum electrodynamics, in quantum field theory and in the standard model relativistic invariance is incorporated by construction. Quantum mechanics predicts strong long range correlations between outcomes of spin projection measurements performed in distant laboratories. In spite of these strong correlations marginal probability distributions should not depend on what was measured in the other laboratory what is called shortly: non-signalling. In several experiments, performed to test various Bell-type inequalities, some unexplained dependence of empirical marginal probability distributions on distant settings was observed . In this paper we demonstrate how a particular identification and selection procedure of paired distant outcomes is the most probable cause for this apparent violation of no-signalling principle. Thus this unexpected setting dependence does not prove the existence of superluminal influences and Einsteinian no-signalling principle has to be tested differently in dedicated experiments. We propose a detailed protocol telling how such experiments should be designed in order to be conclusive. We also explain how magical quantum correlations may be explained in a locally causal way., Comment: 26 pages,2 figures, 23 equations, 107 references. It is a revised version in which some misprints were corrected and 4 references added. The paper was accepted for publication and will be published soon

Ilya Schmelzer wrote recently: {\it Nieuwenhuizen argued that there exists some "contextuality loophole" in Bell's theorem. This claim in unjustified}. It is made clear that this arose from attaching a meaning to the title and the content of the paper different from the one intended by Nieuwenhuizen. "Contextual loophole" means only that if the supplementary parameters describing measuring instruments are correctly introduced, Bell and Bell-type inequalities may not be proven. It is also stressed that a hidden variable model suffers from a "contextuality loophole" if it tries to describe different sets of incompatible experiments using a unique probability space and a unique joint probability distribution.

Quantum mechanics led to spectacular technological developments, discovery of new constituents of matter and new materials. However there is still no consensus on its interpretation and limitations. Some scientists and scientific writers promote some exotic interpretations and evoke quantum magic. In this paper we point out that magical explanations mean the end of the science. Magical explanations are misleading and counterproductive. We explain how a simple probabilistic locally causal model is able to reproduce quantum correlations in Bell tests. We also discuss difficulties of mathematical modelling of the physical reality and dangers of incorrect mental images. We examine in detail when and how a probabilistic model may describe completely a random experiment. We give some arguments in favor of contextual statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics. We conclude that we still do not know whether the quantum theory provides a complete description of physical phenomena and we explain how it may be tested. We also point out that there remain several open questions and challenges which we discuss in some detail. In particular there is still no consensus about how to reconcile quantum theory with general relativity and cosmology., 13 pages,90 references. arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:quant-ph/0208061, in this a second version I added 3 references, corrected some misprints and make some minor style improvements

Many experiments can be interpreted in terms of random processes operating according to some internal protocols. When experiments are costly or cannot be repeated only one or a few finite samples are available. In this paper we study data generated by pseudo-random computer experiments operating according to particular internal protocols. We show that the standard statistical analysis performed on a sample, containing 100000 data points or more, may sometimes be highly misleading and statistical errors largely underestimated. Our results confirm in a dramatic way the dangers of standard asymptotic statistical inference if a sample is not homogenous. We demonstrate that analyzing various subdivisions of samples by multiple chi-square tests and chi-square frequency graphs is very effective in detecting sample inhomogeneity. Therefore to assure correctness of the statistical inference the above mentioned chi-square tests and other non-parametric sample homogeneity tests should be incorporated in any statistical analysis of experimental data. If such tests are not performed the reported conclusions and estimates of the errors cannot be trusted., Comment: Accepted for publication in Computer Physics Communications

Eighty years ago Einstein demonstrated that a particular interpretation of the reduction of wave function led to a paradox and that this paradox disappeared if statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics was adopted. According to the statistical interpretation a wave function describes only an ensemble of identically prepared physical systems. Searching for an intuitive explanation of long range correlations between outcomes of distant measurements, performed on pairs of physical systems prepared in a spin singlet state, John Bell analysed local realistic hidden variable models and proved that correlations consistent with these models satisfy Bell inequalities which are violated by some predictions of quantum mechanics. Several different local models were constructed, various inequalities proven and shown to be violated by experimental data. Some physicists concluded that Nature is definitely not local. We strongly disagree with this conclusion and we critically analyze some influential finite sample proofs of various inequalities and so called quantum Randi challenges. We also show how one can win so called Bell game.The violation of inequalities does not prove that local and causal explanation of correlations is impossible. The violation of inequalities gives only a strong argument against counterfactual definiteness and against a point of view according to which experimental outcomes are produced in irreducible random way. We also explain the meaning of sample homogeneity loophole and show how it can invalidate statistical significance tests. We point out that this loophole was not closed in several recent experiments testing local realism., Comment: 17 pages, 72 references

Recent experiments allowed concluding that Bell-type inequalities are indeed violated thus it is important to understand what it means and how can we explain the existence of strong correlations between outcomes of distant measurements. Do we have to announce that: Einstein was wrong, Nature is nonlocal and nonlocal correlations are produced due to the quantum magic and emerge, somehow, from outside space time? Fortunately such conclusions are unfounded because if supplementary parameters describing measuring instruments are correctly incorporated in a theoretical model then Bell-type inequalities may not be proven .We construct a simple probabilistic model explaining these correlations in a locally causal way. In our model measurement outcomes are neither predetermined nor produced in irreducibly random way. We explain in detail why, contrary to the general belief; an introduction of setting dependent parameters does not restrict experimenters' freedom of choice. Since the violation of Bell-type inequalities does not allow concluding that Nature is nonlocal and that quantum theory is complete thus the Bohr-Einstein quantum debate may not be closed. The continuation of this debate is not only important for a better understanding of Nature but also for various practical applications of quantum phenomena., Comment: 23 pages, 15 formulas, 94 references. This is a fourth version of the paper. Section 3 was extended.3 formulas and 2 references are added and remaining misprints were corrected. Paper is accepted for publication and will be published soon

The violation of Bell, CHSH and CH inequalities indicates only that the assumption of "conterfactual definiteness" and/or the probabilistic models used in proofs were incorrect. In this paper we discuss in detail an intimate relation between experimental protocols and probabilistic models. In particular we show that local realistic and stochastic hidden variable models are inconsistent with the experimental protocols used in spin polarization correlation experiments. In particular these models neglect a contextual character of quantum theory (QT) and do not describe properly quantum measurements. We argue that the violation of various inequalities gives arguments against the irreducible randomness of act of the measurement. Therefore quantum probabilities are reducible what means that QT is emergent. In this case one could expect to discover in time series of data some unpredicted fine structures proving that QT is not predictably complete what would be a major discovery., 19 pages,17eqs,75 references. Invited Talk given at QTPA conference in Vaxjo, Sweden, 2014, In last version small modification made in the first paragraph of the section 4.3, Found. Phys.,2014

The entanglement and the violation of Bell and CHSH inequalities in spin polarization correlation experiments (SPCE) is considered to be one of the biggest mysteries of Nature and is called quantum nonlocality. In this paper we show once again that this conclusion is based on imprecise terminology and on the lack of understanding of probabilistic models used in various proofs of Bell and CHSH theorems. These models are inconsistent with experimental protocols used in SPCE. This is the only reason why Bell and CHSH inequalities are violated. A probabilistic non-signalling description of SPCE, consistent with quantum predictions, is possible and it depends explicitly on the context of each experiment. It is also deterministic in the sense that the outcome is determined by supplementary local parameters describing both a physical signals and measuring instruments. The existence of such description gives additional arguments that quantum theory is emergent from some more detailed theory respecting causality and local determinism. If quantum theory is emergent then there exist perhaps some fine structures in time-series of experimental data which were not predicted by quantum theory. In this paper we explain how a systematic search for such fine structures can be done. If such reproducible fine structures were found it would show that quantum theory is not predictably complete what would be a major discovery., 14 pages, 11 equations, 46 references, to be published in the Proceedings of EmQM13 in IOP Conf. Proc

Entangled physical systems are an important resource in quantum information. Many papers were published trying to grasp the meaning of entanglement. It was noticed that a Hilbert space of possible state vectors of compound physical system can be partitioned by introducing various tensor product structures induced by the experimentally accessible observables (interactions and measurements). In this sense, the entanglement is relative to a particular set of experimental capabilities. Inspired by these results some authors claim that in fact all quantum states are entangled. In this paper, we show that this claim is incorrect and we discuss in operational way differences existing between separable and entangled states. A sufficient condition for entanglement is the violation of Bell–CHSH-CH inequalities and/or steering inequalities. Since there exist experiments outside the domain of quantum physics violating these inequalities therefore in the operational approach one cannot say that the entanglement is an exclusive quantum phenomenon. We also explain that an unambiguous experimental certification of the entanglement is a difficult task because classical statistical significance tests may not be trusted if sample homogeneity cannot be tested or is not tested carefully enough.

Quantum nonlocality is presented often as the most remarkable and inexplicable phenomenon known to modern science which was confirmed in the experiments proving the violation of Bell Inequalities (BI). It has been known already for a long time that the probabilistic models used to prove BI for spin polarization correlation experiments (SPCE) are incompatible with the experimental protocols of SPCE. In particular these models use a common probability space together with joint probability distributions for various incompatible coincidence experiments and/or conditional independence (Bell's locality). Strangely enough these results are not known or simply neglected. Therefore so called Bell's or quantum nonlocality has nothing to do with the common notion of the non-locality and it should be rather called quantum non-Kolmogorovness or quantum contextuality. We quickly explain the true meaning of various Bell's locality assumptions and show that if local variables describing the measuring instruments are correctly taken into consideration then BI can no longer be proven. Of course we do not question the usefulness of the long range correlations characterizing the entangled physical systems in the domain of Quantum Information. However one should not forget that the anti-correlations cannot be perfect, that the wave function should not be treated as an attribute of the individual quantum system which can be change instantaneously and that the unperformed experiments have no results., It is an important update of the published paper. We explain that the inequality (11), violated in collision experiments, is not Bell inequality, as it was claimed. We add Eq.12 and the reference to the recent paper [66] in which the detailed and correct discussion of these experiments is given. All other arguments remain unchanged

Most of physical experiments are usually described as repeated measurements of some random variables. The experimental data registered by on-line computers form time series of outcomes. The frequencies of different outcomes are compared with the probabilities provided by the algorithms of quantum theory (QT). In spite of statistical predictions of QT a claim was made that the theory provided the most complete description of the data and of the underlying physical phenomena. This claim could be easily rejected if some fine structures, averaged out in standard statistical descriptive analysis, were found in the time series of experimental data. To search for these structures one has to use more subtle statistical tools which were developed to study time series produced by various stochastic processes. In this talk we review some of these tools. As an example we show how the standard descriptive statistical analysis of the data is unable to reveal a fine structure in a simulated sample of AR(2) stochastic process. We emphasize once again that the violation of Bell inequalities gives no information on the completeness or the non locality of QT. The appropriate way to test the completeness of quantum theory is to search for fine structures in time series of experimental data by means of the purity tests or by studying the autocorrelation and partial autocorrelation functions., Comment: 7 pages, 3 figures, to be published in AQT Proceedings Vaxjo 2010, AIP Conference Series

In spite of the fact that statistical predictions of quantum theory (QT) can only be tested if large amount of data is available a claim has been made that QT provides the most complete description of an individual physical system. Einstein's opposition to this claim and the paradox he presented in the article written together with Podolsky and Rosen in 1935 inspired generations of physicists in their quest for better understanding of QT. Seventy years after EPR article it is clear that without deep understanding of the character and limitations of QT one may not hope to find a meaningful unified theory of all physical interactions, manipulate qubits or construct a quantum computer. In this paper we present shortly the EPR paper and the discussion which followed it. By emphasizing the difference between quantum phenomena and hypothetical invisible sub phenomena we show that paradoxes are only found if incorrect models of sub phenomena are used. The violation of Bell and CHSH inequalities demonstrate clearly that "an entangled pair of photons" resembles neither "a pair of Bertlmann's socks" nor "a pair of fair and random dices". Finally we rephrase the EPR question by asking whether QT provides the complete description of experimental data., Comment: 8 pages, 39 references, conference talk

The optical theorem allowing the determination of the total cross section for a hadron-hadron scattering from the imaginary part of the forward elastic scattering amplitude is believed to be an unavoidable consequence of the conservation of probability and of the unitary S matrix. This is a fundamental theorem which contains not directly measurable imaginary part of the forward elastic scattering amplitude. The impossibility of scattering phenomena without the elastic channel is considered to be a part of the quantum magic. However if one takes seriously the idea that the hadrons are extended particles one may define a unitary S matrix such that one cannot prove the optical theorem. Moreover data violating the optical theorem do exist but they are not conclusive due to the uncertainties related to the extrapolation of the differential elastic cross-section to the forward direction. These results were published several years ago but they were forgotten. In this paper we will recall these results in an understandable way and we will give the additional arguments why the optical theorem can be violated in high energy strong interaction scattering and why it should be tested and not simply used as a tool in LHC experiments., Comment: Shortened and improved, 10 pages, several typos corrected, invited talk at QTAP conference 2013 in Vaxjo Sweden to be published in Physica Scripta, not included sections of the first version, will be extended and published as a separate paper

Quantum theory (QT) provides statistical predictions for various physical phenomena. The outcomes of these measurements are in general some numerical time series registered by some macroscopic instruments. The various empirical probability distributions extracted from these time series were shown to be consistent with the probabilistic predictions of QT. However it was not proven that the time series of existing experimental data did not contain some stochastic fine structures, which could have been averaged out by describing them in terms of the empirical probability distributions. In this paper we advocate various statistical tests which could be used to search for such fine structures in the data and to answer the title question of this paper. In our opinion a proper understanding of the statistical character of QT and of its limitations is crucial in the domains such as: quantum optics and quantum information., 10 pages, talk at CEWQO-2008 Belgrade