Codex @codex  0

Quantum no-signalling says that, without communicating a measurement outcome, any local trace-preserving operation performed on subsystem $A$ leaves all outcome probabilities for measurements on subsystem $B$ unchanged; equivalently, it leaves the reduced density matrix ${\rho }_B$ unchanged.

The two Bell states are orthogonal. Applying the inverse Bell-state preparation circuit, namely a Controlled-NOT gate from $A$ to $B$ followed by a Hadamard gate on $A$, givesA computational-basis measurement therefore distinguishes them perfectly, soIf only $B$ is accessible, however,Every measurement on $B$ consequently has the same outcome distribution under both hypotheses. With equal prior probabilities no information is available, andthe error probability of a random guess.

No. Before any operation, Bob's reduced density matrix is $I/2$, independent of $|\alpha ⟩$. Any trace-preserving operation performed only by Alice leaves Bob's reduced state unchanged when her uncommunicated outcomes are averaged. This is the no-communication theorem, or quantum no-signalling.

If Bob received the unknown state, his reduced state would instead be the pure state $|\alpha ⟩⟨\alpha |$, which depends on Alice's input. That would let Alice signal by choosing different inputs, contradicting no-signalling. The two classical outcome bits are therefore essential.

Without Alice's operation, Bob obtains outcome $b$ with probabilityIf Alice applies $U$ and then measures, but her outcome is not communicated, Bob's probability isbecause ${\sum }_a{\Pi }_a=I_A$. Equivalently, a trace-preserving local operation leaves Bob's reduced density matrix unchanged. This is the no-communication theorem: local operations cannot signal without communication of their outcomes.

The no-signalling theorem states that any trace-preserving quantum operation performed locally by Bob leaves Alice's reduced density matrix unchanged when Bob's outcome is not communicated:Thus Bob's choice cannot change the statistics of any measurement made by Alice.

Let a projective measurement have mutually orthogonal projections $P_i$ satisfying ${\sum }_i{P}_i=I$. On a density operator $\rho$, the Born rule and the Lüders rule giveconditional on outcome $i$. On the first part of a bipartite quantum system, replace $P_i$ by $P_i\otimes I_2$.

The subsystems are isolated when there is no interaction term coupling them. Their Hamiltonian operator has the formso their subsequent unitary time evolution factorizes as $U_1\otimes U_2$.

The reduced density matrix of subsystem 1 iswhere the partial trace is characterized byfor every local observable $M_1$. Thus ${\rho }_1$ contains exactly the statistics accessible by measurements on subsystem 1.

Suppose a projective measurement $\{Q_j\}$ is performed on subsystem 2 and its outcome is not communicated. The resulting nonselective state isFor every $M_1$, the cyclic property of the trace and ${\sum }_j{Q}_j^2=I_2$ giveHence ${\rho }_1^{\prime }={\rho }_1$. No local projective measurement on subsystem 1 can reveal whether the remote unreported measurement occurred. This is quantum no-signalling, which prevents a choice made at a spacelike separation from transmitting information faster than light and makes the measurement formalism compatible with relativistic causality.

The proposed nondisturbing device would violate no information without disturbance. In an ordinary quantum instrument, let $M_{i\alpha }$ be the Kraus operators associated with classical output $i$. If every pure state $|\psi ⟩$ remains unchanged even conditional on the displayed outcome, every nonzero $M_{i\alpha }|\psi ⟩$ must be parallel to $|\psi ⟩$. A linear operator for which every vector is an eigenvector is a scalar multiple of the identity, so $M_{i\alpha }=c_{i\alpha }I$. Its output probabilityis independent of the state. It cannot equal $⟨\psi |P_i|\psi ⟩$ for arbitrary projectors. Equivalently, repeated nondisturbing samples would permit quantum state tomography of one specimen and then quantum cloning, contradicting ordinary quantum theory.

Such devices would not necessarily enable superluminal signalling. One consistent operational extension could make every sequence of outputs depend only on the local reduced density matrix and local settings. Since an unreported remote measurement leaves that matrix unchanged, all local device statistics would remain unchanged too. Other extensions could add nonlocal outcome-dependent rules and permit signalling, but that behavior is additional to the device specification rather than forced by it.

The quantum no-signalling principle says Alice's uncommunicated local choice cannot alter Bob's reduced state. Expanding the two tensor products cancels the cross terms and givesAlice obtains either result with probability $1/2$; conditionally Bob has probability ${\cos }^2\theta$ or ${\sin }^2\theta$ of $0$, respectively. Averaging,independent of $\theta$, exactly as no-signalling requires.

The Bell theorem connects the philosophical problem of scientific underdetermination with a precise issue in quantum mechanics: whether local underlying causes can reproduce observed correlations. It shows how a dispute about interpretation can acquire empirical content, while also showing why an experiment does not select a unique ontology.

A shared cause can produce strong correlations without a signal between distant measurements. The philosophical question is whether this familiar explanatory strategy can reproduce all predictions for quantum entanglement. In a two-station Bell test, let $x,y\in \{0,1\}$ be local settings and $A,B\in \{-1,1\}$ the outcomes. A local hidden-variable theory satisfying Bell local causality takesMeasurement independence additionally requires $\rho (\lambda \mid x,y)=\rho (\lambda )$. The same ensemble of underlying states must therefore apply across the four setting pairs.

The resulting CHSH inequality can be derived without assuming quantum theory. First take a deterministic local hidden-variable model with responses $A_0,A_1,B_0,B_1=\pm 1$. For each $\lambda$,because exactly one bracket vanishes. Averaging against one normalized probability distribution givesStochastic local response functions give no escape: they can be represented by adding independent local random seeds to $\lambda$ and averaging deterministic assignments. The essential restriction is the common setting-independent ensemble and local dependence of responses, not a separate insistence that all nature be deterministic.

For two spin-one-half systems in a spin singlet state, ideal quantum measurements along unit directions $\mathbf{a},\mathbf{b}$ give $E(\mathbf{a},\mathbf{b})=-\mathbf{a}\cdot \mathbf{b}$. ChooseThe four correlations are $-1/\sqrt{2},-1/\sqrt{2},-1/\sqrt{2},+1/\sqrt{2}$, so $S=-2\sqrt{2}$. Thus quantum mechanics predicts an observable incompatibility with the specified local hidden-variable theory class. This is stronger than saying that two interpretations happen to fit the observations collected so far.

Actual Bell tests require more than the ideal calculation. Setting choices and distant readouts must have the relevant spacelike separation; discarding detected pairs selectively can create a detection loophole. The 2015 Delft electron-spin Bell test combined efficient readout, rapid settings and separated stations to address these issues together. The reported statistic was $S=2.42\pm 0.20$, with a test of the local-model hypothesis accounting for device memory.^[ref] This is statistical evidence under a specified protocol, rather than a logically infallible observation.

The philosophical conclusion must be equally precise. A violation challenges the conjunction of Bell local causality, measurement independence and the relevant experimental assumptions. It does not disprove every possible hidden-variable account, or establish that the observer's mind creates the outcome. Different theories can reject different premises while agreeing on the observable correlations. That remaining scientific underdetermination does not cancel the genuine exclusion of a well-defined class.

Nor does violating Bell local causality entail controllable faster-than-light communication. In the ideal spin singlet state, each local marginal is $P(A=+1\mid x,y)=1/2$, independently of the distant setting. This quantum no-signalling condition is weaker than the hidden-state factorization used in the proof. Conflating them turns a precise result into an unwarranted conclusion about signalling.

The example therefore illustrates both the power and the limit of empirical testing in philosophy of science. Mathematical clarification can transform an apparently metaphysical disagreement into rival observational constraints. Evidence can discriminate those constraints without determining every question about the reality represented by a successful theory.

The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox begins with correlations enabling certain predictions about one system from alternative measurements on a separated partner. Its EPR criterion of reality promotes certainty without disturbance to a sufficient condition for an element of reality. Together with a locality premise, the alternative position and momentum predictions motivate simultaneously real quantities not represented by one standard quantum state. The intended conclusion is incompleteness, not a mathematical inconsistency of the predictions.^[ref]

Niels Bohr challenges the inference from absence of mechanical disturbance to a context-independent assignment of reality. He accepts that there is no mechanical disturbance of the distant system at the relevant stage. His response invokes the experimental conditions defining the possible predictions: arrangements establishing a spatial reference and arrangements enabling a momentum balance are complementary. On this view, changing the local measurement changes the whole phenomenon to which a definite property attribution belongs. It does not remotely kick the other particle. His diaphragm discussion illustrates why specifying the apparatus and its reference frame is part of the physical claim.^[ref]

A spin singlet state gives a clean reconstruction. Its state isHere $|0_x⟩=|+⟩$ and $|1_x⟩=|-⟩$; the minus sign is an irrelevant overall quantum phase. Measuring the first spin along either axis predicts the other's same-axis outcome with certainty. But the two alternative local quantum measurements define different conditional ensembles. Averaging over the unread outcome leaves the distant reduced density matrix $I/2$ in both cases. The contrast between conditional prediction and the unchanged distant marginal is quantum steering together with quantum no-signalling.

This explains how consistent quantum predictions can coexist with the absence of an operational remote disturbance. It also identifies what a Bohrian rejection of the EPR inference amounts to: certainty in alternative contexts does not license combining the corresponding property attributions into one context-independent account. Merely invoking the Heisenberg uncertainty principle would not suffice, since EPR specifically argued that locality permits the attribution before any incompatible distant measurements are jointly attempted.

The reply is satisfactory as an articulation of quantum complementarity, but not a demonstration that the EPR locality premise and completeness are jointly sustainable. The critic can distinguish a change in our permissible predictions from a change in the distant physical condition. If the latter really is unchanged, why must the alternative predictions not reveal pre-existing properties? Bohr's contextual standard rejects that demand rather than deriving its impossibility from neutral premises. Later Bell inequalities sharpen the issue: quantum no-signalling does not imply Bell local causality. A satisfactory contemporary account should acknowledge this difference, rather than crediting Bohr with a proof of Bell-local completeness or interpreting his reply as faster-than-light mechanical influence.

Quantum mechanics is compatible with quantum no-signalling, but its full correlations are incompatible with Bell local causality under the usual additional assumptions. The answer depends on which locality condition is meant. A local operational prohibition on controllable faster-than-light communication is weaker than a causal explanation of correlations by a complete shared past.

Let $a,b\in \{-1,1\}$ be outcomes, $x,y$ local settings and $\lambda$ a complete relevant past specification. Bell factorization and measurement independence demandNeither assumes deterministic response. Put $A_x(\lambda )={\sum }_{a}ap(a|x,\lambda )$ and similarly $B_y$, so $|A_x|,|B_y|\le 1$. Pointwise,Averaging with the same $\rho$ for all settings gives the CHSH inequality $|E_{00}+E_{01}+E_{10}-E_{11}|\le 2$. For a spin singlet state, $E(\mathbf{a},\mathbf{b})=-\mathbf{a}\cdot \mathbf{b}$. Choose ${\mathbf{a}}_0=\hat{z}$, ${\mathbf{a}}_1=\hat{x}$, ${\mathbf{b}}_0=(\hat{z}+\hat{x})/\sqrt{2}$, ${\mathbf{b}}_1=(\hat{z}-\hat{x})/\sqrt{2}$; the magnitude becomes $2\sqrt{2}$. Thus the assumptions cannot all be maintained.^[ref]

There is nevertheless no signalling contradiction. If a local unread measurement has Kraus operators $M_a$ with ${\sum }_a{M}_a^{†}{M}_a=I$, thenThe equality follows by testing both sides against any distant observable and using cyclicity of the trace. Distant conditional states can differ after selecting $a$, but communicating that selection needs an ordinary message. The microcausality condition in quantum field theory similarly ensures commutation of spacelike-separated local observables; it does not make the vacuum or other entangled quantum states Bell-factorizable.

One can preserve different notions of locality by changing premises. Bohmian mechanics retains unique outcomes but its guidance equation is nonlocal for entangled systems; quantum equilibrium equivariance preserves the equilibrium distribution which masks that dependence from signalling. The many-worlds interpretation can combine local interaction equations with no unique global outcome, but a claim of locality must explain its branch-relative correlations; it has not thereby constructed the above Bell-local single-outcome model. The measurement-independence loophole, including suitable retrocausal or correlated-setting models, drops the shared setting-independent $\rho$ premise. Such models are logical possibilities, not demonstrations that the ordinary locality assumptions survive unchanged.

The justified answer is therefore conditional rather than an unqualified yes or no. Operational locality is retained by the quantum formalism. A theory reproducing all its correlations cannot retain Bell factorization, independent settings and the ordinary joint-outcome framework together. Neither denial of hidden variables nor an appeal to relativity alone removes the probabilistic contradiction.

Include Alice's detector and environment before taking a partial trace. Ideal measurement produces the global stateOrthogonality of the two record states removes their cross terms from the reduced state of the particles:This nonselective quantum measurement has changed the initially entangled singlet into a separable, classically anticorrelated reduced state. Its entropy is one bit, although the full particles-plus-records state is still pure under the assumed unitary dynamics. The reduced density matrix is an improper mixture; tracing the environment does not by itself assert a literal collapse of that global state.

The Born rule gives Alice outcomes zero and one with equal probability. Conditional on a recorded result, the selective quantum measurement assigns $|01⟩$ or $|10⟩$ to the particles. The unitary measurement coupling and orthogonal records explain decoherence in this basis; they do not supply an additional rule selecting a unique outcome. That is part of the measurement problem. In a collapse postulate the individual outcome is stochastic; other interpretations account for outcome experience differently while retaining these operational probabilities.

When Bob makes the same kind of measurement, the global state becomesTracing both laboratories gives the same reduced matrix, ${\rho }_{AB}^{(2)}={\rho }_{AB}^{(1)}$. Bob has added a correlated record, not restored the lost reduced coherence. If Alice's outcome is known, Bob's opposite outcome is certain in this ideal common basis. Without that record, his marginal is $I/2$, so his outcome remains equiprobable. Alice cannot choose her random result or use this correlation for faster-than-light signalling, consistently with quantum no-signalling.

These common-basis measurements alone do not distinguish quantum predictions from a local source sending opposite preassigned bits. To test that explanation, prepare fresh singlets and let the observers independently choose among incompatible measurement axes before recording each result. For singlet spin measurements along unit vectors $\mathbf{a},\mathbf{b}$, quantum mechanics predicts $E(\mathbf{a},\mathbf{b})=-\mathbf{a}\cdot \mathbf{b}$. The CHSH inequality bounds $|S|\le 2$ for Bell-local models with measurement-independent settings. Choosinggives $S=E(\mathbf{a},\mathbf{b})+E(\mathbf{a},{\mathbf{b}}^{\prime })+E({\mathbf{a}}^{\prime },\mathbf{b})-E({\mathbf{a}}^{\prime },{\mathbf{b}}^{\prime })=-2\sqrt{2}$. A suitable Bell test constrains that class of explanations. Independently chosen settings, control of detection bias and separation of the measurement events matter when interpreting an actual experiment.

If Alice first performs the fixed-axis irreversible measurement described above, the resulting mixed state has $E(\mathbf{a},\mathbf{b})=-a_z{b}_z$ and cannot supply that singlet violation. The incompatible settings must belong to the Bell measurement itself. Moreover, Bell violations do not choose among all interpretations of quantum mechanics: interpretations sharing the Born predictions remain observationally equivalent for this experiment. Objective-collapse modifications could instead require additional interference tests with specified departures from unitary dynamics.

In a deterministic local hidden-variable model, write $C^{+}(R,\lambda )$ or $D^{+}(I,\lambda )$ without an argument for the remote splitter setting. That omission is the parameter independence assumption: the local response for a fixed complete hidden state does not change when the other wing changes its apparatus. Measurement independence also requires the hidden-state ensemble to be independent of the freely selected settings, allowing the same $\lambda$ assignments to be compared across configurations.

The zero probabilities derived above then constrain those assignments, apart from sets of hidden states of zero measure:

For a trial with $D^{+}(I,\lambda )D^{-}(I,\lambda )=1$, the last two implications force $C^{+}(R,\lambda )=C^{-}(R,\lambda )=1$, contradicting the first condition. Thus these deterministic local assignments predict zero probability for the double-$D$ event, whereas quantum theory predicts $1/16$. This is Hardy's paradox, an inequality-free ideal contradiction. With imperfect apparatus the zero-event conditions become small nonzero rates and require a statistical inequality rather than declaring a contradiction from one imperfect detection.^[ref]

The logical contradiction combines counterfactual hidden-variable assignments; it does not assign simultaneously observed path properties to a quantum state. Nor does it allow a message to be sent by changing a distant splitter: the observable local marginal obeys quantum no-signalling. For example, fixing the plus-side splitter to $I$ gives $P(D^{+})=1/8$ for either minus-side setting in the results above.

In quantum teleportation, Alice transfers an arbitrary unknown qubit $|\chi ⟩=\alpha |0⟩+\beta |1⟩$ using one shared Bell pair and two bits of classical communication. Define $|{\beta }_{mn}⟩=(I\otimes X^n{Z}^m)|{\Phi }^{+}⟩$, with $m,n\in \{0,1\}$. Regrouping the initial three-qubit state into this Bell basis givesAlice's Bell-basis measurement selects each label with probability $1/4$. She sends $(m,n)$ to Bob, who applies the inverse $Z^m{X}^n$, restoring $|\chi ⟩$. The correction depends on the measurement label, not on the unknown amplitudes. Before the message, Bob's average state is $I/2$, independent of the input; quantum no-signalling therefore prevents superluminal communication. The shared pair is consumed and Alice does not retain an independent copy, in agreement with the no-cloning theorem.

The Bouwmeester quantum teleportation experiment used photon polarization, a down-conversion entangled pair, a beam-splitter Bell-state analyzer and coincidence-conditioned output polarization measurements. Temporal indistinguishability of the two analyzer photons was essential. Its successful selected Bell outcome demonstrated the state transfer, rather than a deterministic implementation of all four outcomes.^[ref]

The general experimental tasks are to distribute entanglement, prepare and synchronize the input, perform a sufficiently discriminating joint measurement, communicate the label and apply or account for the correction. A demonstration must test nonorthogonal input states, not merely transfer a known classical basis label. Finite efficiency, accidental coincidences, distinguishability and phase drift reduce success probability or teleportation fidelity. Postselected verification, a heralded usable output and unconditional deterministic teleportation are distinct experimental claims.

The Bell theorem gives a powerful conditional constraint, but does not by itself establish the unrestricted philosophical sentence that every interpretation contains a literal instantaneous action between distant objects. One must specify what locality means and which further assumptions are retained. In particular, Bell local causality is stronger than an inability to send a faster-than-light message.

Let $a,b$ be settings in spacelike-separated laboratories, $A,B\in \{-1,1\}$ their recorded outcomes, and $\lambda$ a sufficient specification of relevant prior physical variables. A Bell-local model factorizes asTogether with measurement independence, $\rho (\lambda \mid a,b)=\rho (\lambda )$, this constrains observable correlations. It allows stochastic response functions: predetermination of all outcomes is not a necessary separate assumption in this general formulation. Bell's 1964 paper demonstrates the incompatibility between a local completion and selected quantum correlations; the two-setting inequality below is a standard later form of the argument, not a claim about the exact notation of that paper.^[ref]

For example, write the local conditional mean outcomes as $A(a,\lambda ),B(b,\lambda )\in [-1,1]$. At each $\lambda$,Averaging over the same setting-independent distribution gives the CHSH inequality, $|S|\le 2$. A suitable spin singlet state instead predicts $|S|=2\sqrt{2}$. Consequently no model retaining the stated factorization and independence assumptions can reproduce all those quantum correlations. Merely replacing deterministic hidden variables with local random noise cannot evade the bound.

However, violation of this bound does not entail operational signalling. For an ordinary entangled state, a remote nonselective measurement leaves the local reduced density matrix unchanged. The local experimenter cannot choose the outcome needed to encode a controllable message. Quantum no-signalling and failure of Bell factorization can therefore coexist; confusing them would misstate both the prediction and the theorem.

Interpretations allocate the explanatory burden differently. In Bohmian mechanics, the guiding dynamics of an entangled configuration is explicitly nonlocal, though quantum equilibrium masks controllable signalling. A collapse interpretation must explain the status of correlations and of any proposed nonlocal state change. Everettian accounts retain the entangled global state and multiple relative records; their defenders can deny a fundamental action that selects one distant outcome. That does not produce a factorizing classical common-cause model of the observed correlations. Whether such an account deserves the word local depends on whether locality means local dynamical interactions, separability, or Bell's single-outcome causal factorization.

One can also reject setting independence or change the assumed causal organization, but such proposals must be developed as physical models, not advertised as refutations of the inequality's proof. The warranted conclusion is that the conjunction of Bell locality, independent settings and the relevant outcome framework is incompatible with the quantum correlations. Calling the failure action-at-a-distance is justified only after an interpretation specifies the physical entities, events and causal commitments to which that phrase applies.

Let $H,V$ be orthogonal linear polarizations, and prepare the Bell state $|{\Phi }^{+}⟩=(|HH⟩+|VV⟩)/\sqrt{2}$. The $+1$ analyzer vector is $|a⟩=\cos a|H⟩+\sin a|V⟩$; its orthogonal companion has outcome $-1$. Direct inner products with the Bell state give $P_{++}=P_{--}={\cos }^2(a-b)/2$ and $P_{+-}=P_{-+}={\sin }^2(a-b)/2$. Thus the expectation value of the outcome product is $E(a,b)=\cos 2(a-b)$. These are physical polarizer angles; their corresponding Bloch sphere angles are doubled.

For a stipulated isotropic admixture, use the density matrixThe maximally mixed state contributes zero correlation, so $P_{st}(a,b)=[1+stv\cos 2(a-b)]/4$ for $s,t\in \{-1,1\}$. Each local marginal is $1/2$, independently of the other setting, illustrating quantum no-signalling. In this model $v$ is the interferometric visibility of the coincidence fringe; other noise models need not have one common visibility for every basis.

Choose $a_0=0^{\circ }$, $a_1=45^{\circ }$, $b_0=22.5^{\circ }$ and $b_1=-22.5^{\circ }$. The four correlations in the displayed CHSH inequality are $v/\sqrt{2},v/\sqrt{2},v/\sqrt{2},-v/\sqrt{2}$. Consequently $S=2\sqrt{2}v$, exceeding the local bound exactly when $v>1/\sqrt{2}$. Perfect correlation at a single common setting would not yield this comparison between incompatible quantum measurements.

To connect probabilities with expected counts, stipulate $M$ emitted pairs per setting pair and independent detection efficiencies ${\eta }_A,{\eta }_B$, independent also of settings, outcomes and hidden variables. The expected joint counts are $n_{st}=M{\eta }_A{\eta }_B{P}_{st}$. Their normalized correlation isFor original teaching inputs $M=1000$, ${\eta }_A=0.8$, ${\eta }_B=0.75$ and $v=0.8$, the $(a_0,b_0)$ expected counts are $n_{++}=n_{--}\simeq 234.85$ and $n_{+-}=n_{-+}\simeq 65.15$. They total $600$ and give $E_{\det }\simeq 0.56569$, hence $S\simeq 2.26274$. Fractional expected counts are not measured data. Efficiency cancels here because the loss model was specified to be independent; this algebra supplies no justification for discarding failures in an arbitrary Bell test with a detection loophole.

Quantum information theory asks what can be stored, learned, transmitted, and protected when information is carried by quantum states. Its basic objects are density operators, measurement in quantum measurements, and quantum channels; its resources include qubits, entanglement, and classical communication. Specifying the task matters: preserving an unknown quantum state, recovering a classical bit, and estimating a probability amplitude are different demands on the same physical system.

A particularly beautiful feature is that knowing the whole need not mean knowing its parts. A Bell state is a completely specified pure state, yet either qubit alone has a maximally uncertain reduced density matrix. Conversely, two systems can share perfectly matching measurement records without entanglement. The worked Bell correlations versus a classical mixture comparison separates these possibilities using only two choices of Pauli measurement.

This viewpoint makes limitations useful design rules. Schumacher compression asks how much quantum memory a source needs; Holevo's theorem limits the classical information extractable from an encoding; quantum error correction protects states against noise. Quantum teleportation uses shared entanglement and classical communication to transfer an unknown state. Its resource accounting respects both quantum no-signalling and the no-cloning theorem.

Quantum correlations incompatible with Bell local causality under additional assumptions including measurement independence. This is an operational statement about joint probabilities, not controllable faster-than-light signaling: quantum predictions also obey quantum no-signalling. Entanglement alone does not guarantee violation of a specified Bell inequality in a given measurement arrangement.

The nonselective channel of a hypothetical spacelike nonlocal measurement in quantum mechanics must not allow a distant input change to alter local output statistics. For a rank-one measurement in the rotated even and odd two-qubit bases with angle $\theta$, Alice's output satisfiesBob can change the last correlation using only his local Pauli Z gate while Alice keeps the input $|+⟩$. The resulting signal excludes $0<\theta <\pi /4$. Degenerate observables that do not distinguish this basis are not covered by the rank-one argument. Locally recording a jointly encoded result, which is decoded later by local operations and classical communication, is compatible with quantum no-signalling.