Generalizing Bell-type and Leggett-Garg-type Inequalities to Systems with Signaling

Contextuality means non-existence of a joint distribution for random variables recorded under mutually incompatible conditions, subject to certain constraints imposed on how the identity of these variables may change across these conditions. In simple quantum systems contextuality is indicated by violations of Bell-type or Leggett-Garg-type inequalities. These inequalities, however, are predicated on the assumption of no-signaling, defined as invariance of the distributions of measurement results with respect to other (e.g., earlier in time) measurements' settings. Signaling makes the inequalities inapplicable: a non-signaling system with any degree of contextuality, however high, loses any relation to this concept as soon as it exhibits any degree of signaling, however small. This is unsatisfactory. We describe a principled way of defining and measuring contextuality in arbitrary systems with random outputs, whether signaling is absent or present.

[1]  N. Gisin,et al.  General properties of nonsignaling theories , 2005, quant-ph/0508016.

[2]  M. Horne,et al.  Experimental Consequences of Objective Local Theories , 1974 .

[3]  Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov,et al.  Embedding Quantum into Classical: Contextualization vs Conditionalization , 2013, PloS one.

[4]  Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov,et al.  Order-distance and other metric-like functions on jointly distributed random variables , 2011, ArXiv.

[5]  Ingemar Bengtsson,et al.  A Kochen–Specker inequality from a SIC , 2011, 1109.6514.

[6]  Patrick Suppes,et al.  When are Probabilistic Explanations Possible , 1981 .

[7]  Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov,et al.  A Qualified Kolmogorovian Account of Probabilistic Contextuality , 2013, QI.

[8]  F. Gonseth,et al.  DIE LOGIK NICHT GLEICHZEITIG ENTSCHEIDBARER AUSSAGEN , 1990 .

[9]  A. Fine Hidden Variables, Joint Probability, and the Bell Inequalities , 1982 .

[10]  George B. Dantzig,et al.  Fourier-Motzkin Elimination and Its Dual , 1973, J. Comb. Theory, Ser. A.

[11]  Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov,et al.  All-Possible-Couplings Approach to Measuring Probabilistic Context , 2012, PloS one.

[12]  A. Khrennikov,et al.  Epr-bohm experiment and Bell’s inequality: Quantum physics meets probability theory , 2008 .

[13]  Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov,et al.  On Selective Influences, Marginal Selectivity, and Bell/CHSH Inequalities , 2012, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[14]  Jose L. Cereceda QUANTUM MECHANICAL PROBABILITIES AND GENERAL PROBABILISTIC CONSTRAINTS FOR EINSTEIN–PODOLSKY–ROSEN–BOHM EXPERIMENTS , 2000 .

[15]  Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov,et al.  No-Forcing and No-Matching Theorems for Classical Probability Applied to Quantum Mechanics , 2014 .

[16]  S. Popescu,et al.  Quantum nonlocality as an axiom , 1994 .

[17]  Janne Kujala,et al.  Probability, Random Variables, and Selectivity , 2013, 1312.2239.

[18]  A. Cabello Simple explanation of the quantum violation of a fundamental inequality. , 2012, Physical review letters.

[19]  Garg,et al.  Quantum mechanics versus macroscopic realism: Is the flux there when nobody looks? , 1985, Physical review letters.

[20]  A. Shimony,et al.  Proposed Experiment to Test Local Hidden Variable Theories. , 1969 .