Theories with no superluminal signaling have greater information-processing power than theories with no superluminal causation
V. Vilasini, Roger Colbeck

TL;DR
This paper explores how theories constrained by different relativistic causality principles, specifically no superluminal causation and no superluminal signalling, differ in their ability to generate non-classical correlations, revealing new insights into fundamental physics.
Contribution
It formalizes the distinction between NSC and NSS, demonstrating that violating NSC but satisfying NSS allows perfect achievement of certain non-classical tasks, unlike theories obeying NSC.
Findings
Theories violating NSC but satisfying NSS can achieve non-classical correlations.
A spacetime configuration where no theory obeying NSC can perform a specific task.
In (1+1)D Minkowski spacetime, retrocausality can be certifiably non-classical without NSS.
Abstract
A central goal in the foundations of physics is to understand the structure of physical theories, such as quantum theory, from physical principles. This is often explored by considering various information-theoretic principles. Here, we initiate a similar approach considering relativistic causality principles. No superluminal causation (NSC) and no superluminal signalling (NSS) are distinct relativistic principles, requiring, respectively, that causal influence/the ability of agents to signal are within the future lightcone. After formalizing their distinction, we investigate how well theories constrained by NSC and NSS perform in a task that involves generating non-classical correlations. We find a spacetime configuration in which this task cannot be achieved in any theory (classical, quantum, or post-quantum) satisfying NSC. However, we show that theories violating NSC but satisfying…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
