Contextuality Analysis of the Double Slit Experiment (with a Glimpse into Three Slits)

The Contextuality-by-Default theory is illustrated on contextuality analysis of the idealized double-slit experiment. The experiment is described by a system of contextually labeled binary random variables each of which answers the question: Has the particle hit the detector, having passed through a given slit (left or right) in a given state (open or closed)? This system of random variables is a cyclic system of rank 4, formally the same as the system describing the Einsten-Podolsky-Rosen-Bell paradigm with signaling. Unlike the latter, however, the system describing the double-slit experiment is always noncontextual, i.e., the context-dependence in it is entirely explainable in terms of direct influences of contexts (closed-open arrangements of the slits) upon the marginal distributions of the random variables involved. The analysis presented is entirely within the framework of abstract classical probability theory (with contextually labeled random variables). The only physical constraint used in the analysis is that a particle cannot pass through a closed slit. The noncontextuality of the double-slit system does not generalize to systems describing experiments with more than two slits: in an abstract triple-slit system, almost any set of observable detection probabilities is compatible with both a contextual scenario and a noncontextual scenario of the particle passing though various combinations of open and closed slits (although the issue of physical realizability of these scenarios remains open).

[1]  Jan-AAke Larsson,et al.  Contextuality in Three Types of Quantum-Mechanical Systems , 2014, 1411.2244.

[2]  C. Budroni,et al.  Temporal Quantum Correlations and Hidden Variable Models , 2015 .

[3]  Jan-Åke Larsson,et al.  Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for an Extended Noncontextuality in a Broad Class of Quantum Mechanical Systems. , 2014, Physical review letters.

[4]  J. S. BELLt Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox , 2018 .

[5]  Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov,et al.  Replacing Nothing with Something Special: Contextuality-by-Default and Dummy Measurements , 2017, 1703.06752.

[6]  M. A. Can,et al.  Simple test for hidden variables in spin-1 systems. , 2007, Physical review letters.

[7]  Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov,et al.  Proof of a Conjecture on Contextuality in Cyclic Systems with Binary Variables , 2015, 1503.02181.

[8]  C. Emary,et al.  Temporal quantum correlations and Leggett-Garg inequalities in multilevel systems. , 2013, Physical review letters.

[9]  Foundations of quantum probability , 1993 .

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

[11]  Andrei Khrennikov,et al.  Bell's inequality: Physics meets Probability , 2007, 0709.3909.

[12]  Andrei Khrennikov,et al.  Contextual Approach to Quantum Formalism , 2009 .

[13]  Andrei Khrennikov,et al.  Single, Complete, Probability Spaces Consistent With EPR‐Bohm‐Bell Experimental Data , 2009 .

[14]  J. Bell On the Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics , 1966 .

[15]  A. Zeilinger,et al.  Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system , 2011, Nature.

[16]  Guido Bacciagaluppi,et al.  Leggett-Garg Inequalities, Pilot Waves and Contextuality , 2014, 1409.4104.

[17]  Leslie E Ballentine,et al.  Probability theory in quantum mechanics , 1986 .

[18]  Marco T'ulio Quintino,et al.  All noncontextuality inequalities for the n-cycle scenario , 2012, 1206.3212.

[19]  Dagomir Kaszlikowski,et al.  Fundamental monogamy relation between contextuality and nonlocality. , 2013, Physical review letters.

[20]  Richard Phillips Feynman,et al.  The Concept of Probability in Quantum Mechanics , 1951 .

[21]  Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov,et al.  Context-Content Systems of Random Variables: The Contextuality-by-Default Theory , 2015, 1511.03516.

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

[23]  Guido Bacciagaluppi,et al.  Quantum Contextuality in Quantum Mechanics and Beyond , 2017 .

[24]  Caslav Brukner,et al.  Condition for macroscopic realism beyond the Leggett-Garg inequalities , 2012, 1207.3666.

[25]  G. Bacciagaluppi Einstein, Bohm, and Leggett-Garg , 2015 .

[26]  R. Feynman,et al.  The Feynman Lectures on Physics Addison-Wesley Reading , 1963 .

[27]  D. Bacon,et al.  Bell inequalities with auxiliary communication. , 2002, Physical review letters.

[28]  T. Moroder,et al.  Bounding temporal quantum correlations. , 2013, Physical review letters.

[29]  A. Khrennikov Two-slit experiment: quantum and classical probabilities , 2015 .

[30]  Andrei Khrennikov,et al.  CHSH Inequality: Quantum Probabilities as Classical Conditional Probabilities , 2014, 1406.4886.

[31]  A statistical analysis of the two-slit experiment: Or some remarks on quantum probability , 1993 .

[32]  Guillaume Adenier,et al.  Is the fair sampling assumption supported by EPR experiments , 2007 .

[33]  Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov,et al.  Snow Queen Is Evil and Beautiful: Experimental Evidence for Probabilistic Contextuality in Human Choices , 2017, Decision.

[34]  Ru Zhang,et al.  Is there contextuality in behavioural and social systems? , 2015, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[35]  Matt Jones,et al.  On contextuality in behavioural data , 2016, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

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

[37]  Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov,et al.  Contextuality in canonical systems of random variables , 2017, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[38]  Janne Kujala,et al.  Probabilistic foundations of contextuality , 2016, 1604.08412.

[39]  Andrei Khrennikov,et al.  Nonlocality as well as rejection of realism are only sufficient (but non-necessary!) conditions for violation of Bell's inequality , 2009, Inf. Sci..

[40]  D. Bohm,et al.  Discussion of Experimental Proof for the Paradox of Einstein, Rosen, and Podolsky , 1957 .

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

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