# Quantum nonlocality

In theoretical physics, quantum nonlocality is the phenomenon by which measurements made at a microscopic level contradict a collection of notions known as local realism that are regarded as intuitively true in classical mechanics. Rigorously, quantum nonlocality refers to quantum mechanical predictions of many-system measurement correlations that cannot be simulated by any local hidden variable theory. Many entangled quantum states produce such correlations when measured, as demonstrated by Bell's theorem.

Experiments have generally favoured quantum mechanics as a description of nature, over local hidden variable theories.[1][2] Any physical theory that supersedes or replaces quantum theory must make similar experimental predictions and must therefore also be nonlocal in this sense; quantum nonlocality is a property of the universe that is independent of our description of nature.

Whilst quantum nonlocality improves the efficiency of various computational tasks,[3] it does not allow for faster-than-light communication,[4] and hence is compatible with special relativity. However, it prompts many of the foundational discussions concerning quantum theory.

## Example

Imagine two experimentalists, Alice and Bob, situated in separate laboratories. They conduct a simple experiment in which Alice chooses and pushes one of two buttons, A0 and A1, on her apparatus, and Bob observes on his apparatus one of two indicating lamps, b0 and b1, lighting. In this case there are four possible events that could occur in the experiment: (A0,b0), (A0,b1), (A1,b0) and (A1,b1). Suppose that after many runs of the experiment, only the events (A0,b0) and (A1,b1) occur; this is good evidence that A has an influence on b. Indeed, Alice could easily send messages to Bob by encoding those messages into sequences of 0's and 1's, and causing the b0 or b1 lamp to light up respectively.

More realistically, suppose that the four events occur with (conditional) probabilities P(b0|A0), P(b1|A0) = 1 - P(b0|A0), P(b0|A1) and P(b1|A1) = 1 - P(b0|A1). Here P(b0|A0) is the probability that Bob's b0 lamp lit up, given that Alice pushed the button A0. We can still rigorize the notion that A has an influence on B in this setting: if P(b0|A0) differs from P(b0|A1) then Alice's choice of button still affects the probabilistic outcome on Bob's side, and it is still possible for Alice to send Bob messages with low probability of error. For example, if P(b0|A0) = $\scriptstyle \frac{1}{2}$ and P(b0|A1) = $\scriptstyle \frac{2}{3}$, then after 100 runs of the experiment in which Alice pushed the same button, Bob can tell with high probability which button it was by looking at how often b0 occurred.

Here is a more complicated scenario: Alice pushes one of two buttons, A0 and A1, and Bob also pushes one of two buttons, B0 and B1. Alice observes one of two outcomes, a0 and a1, and Bob also observes one of two outcomes, b0 and b1. There are 24 = 16 possible combinations of these 4 events:

$\textstyle (AX, BY, ax, by)$

where each of X,Y,x,y is 0 or 1. Suppose that of these 16, only 8 combinations actually occur, with the following (conditional) probabilities:

$P( {ax,by}{|}{AX,BY} ) = \begin{cases} \frac{1}{2}, & \mbox{if } x \oplus y = XY \\ 0, & \mbox{otherwise} \end{cases}$

where $\scriptstyle \oplus$ denotes addition modulo 2 (XOR) and the juxtaposition "XY" denotes multiplication modulo 2 (AND).

Then if A1 and B1 are both pressed (XY = 1) the outcomes with nonzero probability (note that xy = 1 ⇒ xy) are perfectly anticorrelated, either (a0,b1) or (a1,b0), with an equal probability for both occurrences. In all other cases (XY = 0) the two outcomes with nonzero probability (note that xy = 0 ⇒ x = y) are perfectly correlated (either (a0,b0) or (a1,b1), again, equiprobably.

Do these outcomes imply that some influence exists (A on B, or B on A), or not? The question is important, since the answer depends on our fundamental assumptions about how mathematical theories describe physical reality.

On the one hand, Alice cannot send a message to Bob, using her buttons A0, A1 and his indicators b0, b1 (nor Bob to Alice), since it is easily checked that P(bx|A0) = P(bx|A1) for both x = 0 and x = 1 in the above example. That is to say, this particular set of probabilities is non-signalling. In this sense, there is no influence of A on b, or of b on A.

On the other hand, it is provably impossible for two separated parties to simulate this outcome without any kind of interaction or communication between them.[5] Thorough logical analysis reveals that the above outcome can only occur if there is some direct influence between A and B, if we assume local realism and, arguably, counterfactual definiteness. These fundamental assumptions, deeply rooted in our physical intuition, are incompatible with quantum theory. Different interpretations of quantum mechanics reject different parts of local realism and/or counterfactual definiteness (for detail, see Principle of locality). A classical definition of nonlocality, i.e. direct influence of one object on another, distant object, normally takes local realism and counterfactual definiteness for granted.

## History

### Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen

In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen published a thought experiment[6] with which they hoped to expose the incompleteness of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics in relation to the violation of realism and local causality at the microscopic scale that it described. David Bohm later modified the original EPR thought experiment,[7] simplifying the mathematics and highlighting assumptions like locality (which Einstein et al had tacitly assumed). In Bohm's version of the experiment, a spin-zero particle decays into two spin-half particles such that there is no interaction between the two particles after decay. The quantum state of the two particles prior to measurement can be written as[8]

$\left|\psi_{AB}\right\rang =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \bigg(\left|\uparrow\right\rang_A \left|\downarrow\right\rang_B - \left|\downarrow\right\rang_A \left|\uparrow\right\rang_B \bigg)$

Here, subscripts A and B distinguish the two particles, though it is more convenient and usual to refer to these particles as being in the possession of two experimentalists called Alice and Bob. The rules of quantum theory give predictions for the outcomes of measurements performed by the experimentalists. Alice, for example, will measure her particle to be spin-up in an average of fifty percent of measurements. However, according to the Copenhagen interpretation, Alice's measurement causes the state of the two particles to collapse, so that if Alice measures spin-up in some direction n, the quantum state after measurement is the corresponding eigenstate

$\left|\psi_{AB}\right\rang = \left|\uparrow_{\mathbf{n}}\right\rang_A \left|\downarrow_{\mathbf{n}}\right\rang_B$

If Bob also measures spin in direction n, he must get a spin-down result. Hence, spin measurements in the same direction are always anti-correlated, although the particles are assumed at this stage to be non-interacting. Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen saw this as evidence of the incompleteness of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory: if there is no particle interaction then the only explanation for this anti-correlation between measurement outcomes is that each particle carries a pre-existing determinate value (appropriately anti-correlated with the value carried by the other particle) for that measurement. Such a property is unaccounted for by the quantum mechanical state description, and their paper concludes:[6]

While we have thus shown that the wave function does not provide a complete description of the physical reality, we left open the question of whether or not such a description exists. We believe, however, that such a theory is possible.

Although various authors (most notably Niels Bohr) criticised the ambiguous terminology of the EPR paper,[9][10] the thought-experiment nevertheless generated a great deal of interest. Their notion of a "complete description" was later formalised by the suggestion of hidden variables that determine the statistics of measurement results, but to which an observer does not have access.[11] Bohmian mechanics provides such a completion of quantum mechanics, in which the hidden variables are explicitly nonlocal,[12] however Bell's Theorem refers to local hidden variables in keeping with Einstein's "Principle of Local Action".[13]

### Demonstration

In 1964 John Bell showed that such local hidden variables could never reproduce the statistical outcomes of individual measurements, as predicted by quantum theory.[14] Bell showed that a local hidden variable hypothesis leads to restrictions on the strength of correlations of measurement results. If the Bell inequalities are violated experimentally as predicted by quantum mechanics, then reality cannot be described by such local hidden variables and the mystery of quantum nonlocal causation remains. According to Bell:[14]

This [grossly nonlocal structure] is characteristic... of any such theory which reproduces exactly the quantum mechanical predictions.

Clauser, Horne, Shimony and Holt (CHSH) reformulated these inequalities in a manner that was more conducive to experimental testing[15] (see CHSH inequality). They proposed a scheme whereby two experimentalists, Alice and Bob, make separate measurements of photon polarization in two carefully chosen directions, and derived a simple inequality that is obeyed by all local hidden variable theories, but violated by certain measurements on quantum states.

Bell formalized the idea of a hidden variable by introducing the parameter λ to locally characterize measurement results on each system:[14] "It is a matter of indifference... whether λ denotes a single variable or a set... and whether the variables are discrete or continuous". However, it is equivalent (and more intuitive) to think of λ as a local "strategy" or "message" that occurs with some probability ρ($\lambda$) when an entangled pair of states is created. EPR's criteria of local separability then stipulates that each local strategy defines independent distributions for the outcome probabilities if Alice measures in direction A and Bob measures in direction B:

$P \left ( {a, b}{|}{A, B, \lambda } \right ) = P \left ( {a}{|}{A, \lambda } \right ) P \left ( {b}{|}{B, \lambda } \right )$

where, for instance, $\scriptstyle P \left ( {a}{|}{A, \lambda } \right )$ denotes the probability of Alice getting the outcome a given λ, and that she measured A.

Suppose that λ can take values from some set $\lambda_i$, where 1 ≤ i ≤ k. If each $\lambda_i$ has an associated probability ρ($\lambda_i$) of being selected (such that the probabilities sum to unity) we can average over this distribution to obtain a formula for the joint probability of each measurement result:

$P \left ( {a, b}{|}{A, B} \right ) = \sum_{i=1}^k P \left ( {a, b} {|} {A, B, \lambda_i } \right ) \rho \left (\lambda_i \right )$

In the CHSH scheme, the measurement result for the polarization of a photon can take one of two values (informally, whether or not the photon is polarized in that direction). We encode this by allowing a and b to take on values ±1. For each measurement A and B, the correlator E(A, B) is then defined as:

$E \left ( {A, B} \right ) = \sum_{a,b} ab P\left ( {a, b}{|}{A, B} \right )$

Note that the product ab is equal to 1 if Alice and Bob get the same outcome, and -1 if they get different outcomes. E(A,B) can therefore be seen as the expectation that Alice's and Bob's outcomes are correlated. In the case that Alice chooses from one of two measurements $A_0$ or $A_1$, and Bob chooses from $B_0$ or $B_1$, the CHSH value for this joint probability distribution is defined as:

$S_{CHSH} = E \left ( {A_0, B_0} \right ) + E \left ( {A_0, B_1} \right ) + E \left ( {A_1, B_0} \right ) - E \left ( {A_1, B_1} \right )$

Compare this with the expression $\scriptstyle x \oplus y = XY$ and the discussion in the above example. The CHSH value $S_{CHSH}$ includes a negative contribution of the correlator whenever $A_1$ and $B_1$ are chosen ($x=y$ when $XY=1$), and a positive contribution in all other cases ($x$$y$ when $XY=0$). If the joint probability distribution can be described with local strategies as above, it can be shown that the correlation function always obeys the following CHSH inequality:[8]

$-2 \le S_{CHSH} \le 2$

However, if instead of local hidden variables we adopt the rules of quantum theory, it is possible to construct an entangled pair of particles (one each for Alice and Bob) and a set of measurements $\scriptstyle A_0, A_1, B_0, B_1$ such that $\scriptstyle S_{CHSH} \;=\; 2\sqrt{2}$. Experimentalists such as Aspect have verified the quantum violation of the CHSH inequality,[1] as well as other formulations of Bell's inequality, to invalidate the local hidden variables hypothesis and confirm that reality is indeed nonlocal in the EPR sense.

## Superquantum nonlocality

Whilst the CHSH inequality gives restrictions on the CHSH value attainable by local hidden variable theories, the rules of quantum theory do not allow us to violate Tsirelson's bound of $\scriptstyle 2 \sqrt{2}$, even if we exploit measurements of entangled particles.[16] The question remained whether this was the maximum CHSH value that can be attained without explicitly allowing instantaneous signaling. In 1994 two physicists, Sandu Popescu and Daniel Rohrlich, formulated an explicit set of correlated measurements that respect the "non-signalling" principle, yet give $S_{CHSH} = 4$: the algebraic maximum.[5] This demonstrated that there exist formulatable theories that are "non-signalling", yet drastically violate the joint probability constraints of quantum theory. The attempt to understand what distinguishes quantum theory from such general theories motivated an abstraction from physical measurements of nonlocality, to the study of nonlocal boxes.[17]

Nonlocal boxes generalize the concept of experimentalists making joint measurements from separate locations. As in the discussion above, the choice of measurement is encoded by the input to the box. A two-party nonlocal box takes an input A from Alice and an input B from Bob, and outputs two values a and b for Alice and Bob respectively and separately, where a, b, A and B take values from some finite alphabet (normally $\scriptstyle \{0,1\}$). The box is characterized by the probability of outputting pair a, b, given the inputs A, B. This probability is denoted $\scriptstyle P \left ( { {a, b}{|}{A, B} } \right )$ and obeys the normal probabilistic conditions of positivity and normalisation:[17]

$P \left ( { {a, b}{|}{A, B} } \right ) \ge 0 \quad \forall {a,b,A,B}$

and

$\sum_{a,b} P \left ( { {a, b}{|}{A, B} } \right ) = 1 \quad \forall {A,B}$

A box is local, or admits a local hidden variable model, if its output probabilities can be characterized in the following way:[18]

$P \left ( { {a,b}{|}{A,B} } \right ) = \sum_{\lambda} p(\lambda) \; P \left ( { {a}{|}{A,\lambda} } \right ) \; P \left ( { {b}{|}{B,\lambda} } \right )$

where $\scriptstyle P \left ( { {a}{|}{A,\lambda} } \right )$ and $\scriptstyle P \left ( { {b}{|}{B,\lambda} } \right )$ describe single input/output probabilities at Alice's or Bob's system alone, and the value of $\lambda$ is chosen at random according to some fixed probability distribution given by $p(\lambda)$. Intuitively, $\lambda$ corresponds to a hidden variable, or to a shared randomness between Alice and Bob. If a box violates this condition, it is explicitly called nonlocal. However, the study of nonlocal boxes often encompasses both local and nonlocal boxes.

The set of nonlocal boxes most commonly studied are the so-called non-signalling boxes,[17] for which neither Alice nor Bob can signal their choice of input to the other. Physically, this is a reasonable restriction: setting the input is physically analogous to making a measurement, which should effectively provide a result immediately. Since there may be a large spatial separation between the parties, signalling to Bob would potentially require considerable time to elapse between measurement and result, which is a physically unrealistic scenario.

The non-signalling requirement imposes further conditions on the joint probability, in that the probability of a particular output a or b should depend only on its associated input. This allows for the notion of a reduced or marginal probability on both Alice and Bob's measurements, and is formalised by the conditions:

$\sum_{b} P \left ( {a,b}{|}{A,B} \right ) = \sum_{b} P \left ( {a,b}{|}{A,B'} \right ) \equiv P \left ( {a}{|}{A} \right ) \quad \forall {a,A,B,B'}$

and

$\sum_{a} P \left ( {a,b}{|}{A,B} \right ) = \sum_{a} P \left ( {a,b}{|}{A',B} \right ) \equiv P \left ( {b}{|}{B} \right ) \quad \forall {b,B,A,A'}$

The constraints above are all linear, and so define a polytope representing the set of all non-signalling boxes with a given number of inputs and outputs. Moreover, the polytope is convex because any two boxes that exist in the polytope can be mixed (as above, according to some variable $\lambda$ with probabilities $p(\lambda)$) to produce another box that also exists within the polytope.

Local boxes are clearly non-signalling, however nonlocal boxes may or may not be non-signalling. Since this polytope contains all possible non-signalling boxes of a given number of inputs and outputs, it has as subsets both local boxes and those boxes which can achieve Tsirelson's bound in accord with quantum mechanical correlations. Indeed, the set of local boxes form a convex sub-polytope of the non-signalling polytope.

Popescu and Rohrlich's maximum algebraic violation of the CHSH inequality can be reached by a non-signalling box, referred to as a standard PR box after these authors, with joint probability given by:

$P \left ( {a,b}{|}{A,B} \right ) = \begin{cases} \frac{1}{2}, & \mbox{if } a \oplus b = AB \\ 0, & \mbox{otherwise} \end{cases}$

where $\oplus$ denotes addition modulo two.[19]

Various attempts have been made to argue why Nature does not (or should not) allow for stronger nonlocality than quantum theory is already known to permit. For example, in recent publications it was found that quantum mechanics cannot be more nonlocal without violating the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.[20][21] Strikingly, it has been discovered that if PR boxes did exist, any distributed computation could be performed with only one bit of communication.[22] An even stronger result is that for any nonlocal box theory which violates Tsirelson's bound, there cannot be a sensible measure of mutual information between pairs of systems.[23] This suggests a deep link between nonlocality and the information-theoretic properties of quantum mechanics. Nevertheless the PR-box is ruled out by a plausible postulate of information theory.[24]

Non-signaling adversaries have recently been considered in quantum cryptography.[25][citation needed] Such an adversary is constrained only by the non-signaling principle, thus may potentially be more powerful than a quantum adversary.

## Nonlocality vs entanglement

In the media and popular science, quantum nonlocality is often portrayed as being equivalent to entanglement. While it is true that a bipartite quantum state must be entangled in order for it to produce nonlocal correlations, there exist entangled states which do not produce such correlations. A well-known example of this is constituted by a subset of Werner states that are entangled but whose correlations can always be described using local hidden variables.[18] On the other hand, reasonably simple examples of Bell inequalities have been found for which the quantum state giving the largest violation is never a maximally entangled state, showing that entanglement is, in some sense, not even proportional to nonlocality.[26][27][28]

In short, entanglement of a two-party state is necessary but not sufficient for that state to be nonlocal. It is important to recognise that entanglement is more commonly viewed as an algebraic concept, noted for being a precedent to nonlocality as well as quantum teleportation and superdense coding, whereas nonlocality is interpreted according to experimental statistics and is much more involved with the foundations and interpretations of quantum mechanics.

## References

1. ^ a b Aspect, Alain; Dalibard, Jean and Roger, Gérard (December 1982). "Experimental Test of Bell's Inequalities Using Time- Varying Analyzers". Physical Review Letters 49 (25): 1804–1807. Bibcode:1982PhRvL..49.1804A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.1804.
2. ^ Rowe MA et al. (February 2001). "Experimental violation of a Bell's Inequality with efficient detection". Nature 409 (6822): 791–794. Bibcode:2001Natur.409..791K. doi:10.1038/35057215.
3. ^ Gilles Brassard, Richard Cleve, Alain Tapp, "The cost of exactly simulating quantum entanglement with classical communication".
4. ^ Ghirardi, G.C.; Rimini, A. and Weber, T. (March 1980). "A general argument against superluminal transmission through the quantum mechanical measurement process". Lettere Al Nuovo Cimento 27 (10): 293–298. doi:10.1007/BF02817189.
5. ^ a b Popescu, Sandu; Rohrlich, Daniel (1994). "Nonlocality as an axiom". Foundations of Physics 24 (3): 379–385. Bibcode:1994FoPh...24..379P. doi:10.1007/BF02058098.
6. ^ a b Einstein, Albert; Podolsky, Boris and Rosen, Nathan (May 1935). "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?". Physical Review 47 (10): 777–780. Bibcode:1935PhRv...47..777E. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.47.777.
7. ^ Bohm, D. (1951). Quantum Theory, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, page 29, and Chapter 5 section 3, and Chapter 22 Section 19.
8. ^ a b Nielsen, Michael A.; Chuang, Isaac L. (2000). Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press. pp. 112–113. ISBN 0-521-63503-9.
9. ^ Bohr, N (July 1935). "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?". Physical Review 48 (8): 696. Bibcode:1935PhRv...48..696B. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.48.696.
10. ^ Furry, W.H. (March 1936). "Remarks on Measurements in Quantum Theory". Physical Review 49 (6): 476. Bibcode:1936PhRv...49..476F. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.49.476.
11. ^ von Neumann, J. (1932/1955). In Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik, Springer, Berlin, translated into English by Beyer, R.T., Princeton University Press, Princeton, cited by Baggott, J. (2004) Beyond Measure: Modern physics, philosophy, and the meaning of quantum theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford, ISBN 0-19-852927-9, pages 144-145.
12. ^ Maudlin, T., 1994, Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity: Metaphysical Intimations of Modern Physics, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell.
13. ^ "Quantum Mechanics and Reality" ("Quanten-Mechanik und Wirklichkeit", Dialectica 2:320-324, 1948)
14. ^ a b c Bell, John (1964). "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox". Physics 1: 195.
15. ^ Clauser, John F.; Horne, Michael A.; Shimony, Abner and Holt, Richard A. (October 1969). "Proposed Experiment to Test Local Hidden-Variable Theories". Physical Review Letters 23 (15): 880–884. Bibcode:1969PhRvL..23..880C. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.880.
16. ^ Cirel'son, B. S. (1980). "Quantum generalizations of Bell's inequality". Letters in Mathematical Physics 4 (2): 93–100. Bibcode:1980LMaPh...4...93C. doi:10.1007/BF00417500.
17. ^ a b c Barrett, J.; Linden, N.; Massar, S.; Pironio, S.; Popescu, S. and Roberts, D. (2005). "Non-local correlations as an information theoretic resource". Physical Review A 71 (2): 022101. arXiv:quant-ph/0404097. Bibcode:2005PhRvA..71b2101B. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.71.022101.
18. ^ a b Werner, R.F. (1989). "Quantum States with Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations admitting a hidden-variable model". Physical Review A 40 (8): 4277–4281. Bibcode:1989PhRvA..40.4277W. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.40.4277. PMID 9902666.
19. ^ Barrett, Jonathan; Pironio, Stefano (September 2005). "Popescu-Rohrlich Correlations as a Unit of Nonlocality". Physical Review Letters 95 (14): 140401. arXiv:quant-ph/0506180. Bibcode:2005PhRvL..95n0401B. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.140401. PMID 16241631.
20. ^ Michael M. Wolf; David Perez-Garcia; Carlos Fernandez (2009). "Measurements Incompatible in Quantum Theory Cannot Be Measured Jointly in Any Other No-Signaling Theory". Science 330 (23): 230402. arXiv:0905.2998. Bibcode:2009PhRvL.103w0402W. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.230402.
21. ^ Jonathan Oppenheim; Stephanie Wehner (2010). "The uncertainty principle determines the non-locality of quantum mechanics". Physical Review Letters 103 (6007): 1072–1074. arXiv:1004.2507. Bibcode:2010Sci...330.1072O. doi:10.1126/science.1192065. PMID 21097930.
22. ^ van Dam, Wim (2005). "Implausible Consequences of Superstrong Nonlocality". arXiv:quant-ph/0501159 [quant-ph].
23. ^ Pawlowski, M.; Paterek, Kaszlikowski, Scarani, Winter, Zukowski (October 2009). "Information Causality as a Physical Principle". Nature 461 (7267): 1101–1104. arXiv:0905.2292. Bibcode:2009Natur.461.1101P. doi:10.1038/nature08400.
24. ^ http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.0194.pdf - If no information gain implies no disturbance, then any discrete physical theory is classical
25. ^ Barrett, Jonathan; Hardy, Lucien; Kent, Adrian (2005). "No Signalling and Quantum Key Distribution". Physical Review Letters 95: 010503. arXiv:quant-ph/0405101. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.010503.
26. ^ Marius Junge; Carlos Palazuelos (2010). "Large violation of Bell inequalities with low entanglement". arXiv:1007.3043v2 [quant-ph].
27. ^ Thomas Vidick; Stephanie Wehner (2010). "More Non-locality with less Entanglement". arXiv:1011.5206v2 [quant-ph].
28. ^ Yeong-Cherng Liang; Tamas Vertesi; Nicolas Brunner (2010). "Semi-device-independent bounds on entanglement". arXiv:1012.1513v2 [quant-ph].