Contextuality-by-Default description of Bell tests: Contextuality as the rule not as an exception

Abstract

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 behavioral 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 and Bob raw data confirm Einsteinian non-signaling, but setting dependent experimental protocols are used to create samples of coupled pairs of distant 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.

Extended and modified published version of the initial article, two sections and several equations were added. 136 references

References in corpus (20)

• A simple test for hidden variables in spin-1 system
• Experimentally testable state-independent quantum contextuality
• Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system
• Loopholes in Bell Inequality Tests of Local Realism
• Simple explanation of the quantum violation of a fundamental inequality
• The contextual fraction as a measure of contextuality
• Is the Fair Sampling Assumption supported by EPR Experiments?
• Experimental Evidence of Quantum Randomness Incomputability
• Quantum non-locality - It ain't necessarily so...
• Making Sense of Bell's Theorem and Quantum Nonlocality
• Contextuality is About Identity of Random Variables
• Event-based computer simulation model of Aspect-type experiments strictly satisfying Einstein's locality conditions
• What does an experimental test of quantum contextuality prove or disprove?
• Event-by-event simulation of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm experiments
• Violations of locality and free choice are equivalent resources in Bell experiments
• Bell-type Polarization Experiment With Pairs Of Uncorrelated Optical Photons
• Is Einsteinian no-signalling violated in Bell Tests?
• Seventy Years of the EPR Paradox
• Significance tests and sample homogeneity loophole
• A comment on: the violations of locality and free choice are equivalent resources in Bell experiments

Cited by in corpus (11)

• Contextuality or nonlocality; what would John Bell choose today?
• Quantum Nonlocality: how does Nature do it?
• Assumption-free derivation of the Bell-type criteria of contextuality/nonlocality
• My discussions of quantum foundations with John Stewart Bell
• Violating the KCBS inequality with a toy mechanism
• Commentary: Is the moon there if nobody looks -- Bell inequalities and physical reality
• Response: Commentary: Is the moon there if nobody looks? Bell inequalities and physical reality
• Contextuality with disturbance and without: Neither can violate substantive requirements the other satisfies
• Statistical Contextual Explanation of Quantum Paradoxes
• Observations of Bell Inequality Violations with causal isolation between source and detectors
• Hidden variables, free choice, context-independence, and all that