No-communication theorem
In physics, the no-communication theorem or no-signaling principle is a no-go theorem from quantum information theory which states that, during measurement of an entangled quantum state, it is not possible for one observer, by making a measurement of a subsystem of the total state, to communicate information to another observer. The theorem is important because, in quantum mechanics, quantum entanglement is an effect by which certain widely separated events can be correlated in ways that suggest the possibility of communication faster-than-light. The no-communication theorem gives conditions under which such transfer of  information between two observers is impossible. These results can be applied to understand the so-called paradoxes in quantum mechanics, such as the EPR paradox, or violations of local realism obtained in tests of Bell's theorem. In these experiments, the no-communication theorem shows that failure of local realism does not lead to what could be referred to as "spooky communication at a distance" (in analogy with Einstein's labeling of quantum entanglement as requiring "spooky action at a distance" on the assumption of QM's completeness). Informal overview. The no-communication theorem states that, within the context of  quantum mechanics, it is not possible to transmit classical bits of information by means of carefully prepared mixed or pure states, whether entangled or not. The theorem is only a sufficient condition that states that if the Kraus matrices commute then there can be no communication through the quantum entangled states and this is applicable to all communication. From a relativity and quantum field perspective also faster than light or "instantaneous" communication is disallowed. Being only a sufficient condition there can be extra cases where communication is not allowed and there can be also cases where is still possible to  communicate through the quantum channel encoding more than the classical information. In regards to communication a quantum channel can always be used to transfer classical information by means of shared quantum states. In 2008 Matthew Hasting proved a counterexample where the minimum output entropy is not additive for all quantum channels and therefore by Peter shor equivalence the Holevo Capacity is not just additive, but super-additive like the entropy, and by consequence there may be some quantum channels where you can transfer more than the classical capacity. Typically overall communication happens at the same time via quantum and non  quantum channels, and in general time ordering and causality cannot be violated. The basic assumption entering into the theorem is that a quantum-mechanical system is prepared in an initial state with some entangled states, and that this initial state is describable as a mixed or pure state in a Hilbert space "H". After a certain amount of time the system is divided in two parts each of which contains some non entangled states and half of quantum entangled states and the two parts becomes spatially distinct, "A" and "B", sent to two distinct observers, Alice and Bob, who  are free to perform quantum mechanical measurements on their portion of the total system (viz, A and B). The question is: is there any action that Alice can perform on A that would be detectable by Bob making an observation of B? The theorem replies 'no'. An important assumption going into the theorem is that neither Alice nor Bob is allowed, in any way, to affect the preparation of the initial state. If Alice were allowed to take part in the preparation of the initial state, it would be trivially easy for her to encode a message into it; thus  neither Alice nor Bob participates in the preparation of the initial state. The theorem does not require that the initial state be somehow 'random' or 'balanced' or 'uniform': indeed, a third party preparing the initial state could easily encode messages in it, received by Alice and Bob. Simply, the theorem states that, given some initial state, prepared in some way, there is no action that Alice can take that would be detectable by Bob. The proof proceeds by defining how the total Hilbert space "H" can be split into two parts, "H" and "H", describing the subspaces accessible to Alice  and Bob. The total state of the system is assumed to be described by a density matrix σ. This appears to be a reasonable assumption, as a density matrix is sufficient to describe both pure and mixed states in quantum mechanics. Another important part of the theorem is that measurement is performed by applying a generalized projection operator "P" to the state σ. This again is reasonable, as projection operators give the appropriate mathematical description of quantum measurements. After a measurement by Alice, the state of the total system is said to have "collapsed" to a state "P"(σ). The goal  of the theorem is to prove that Bob cannot in any way distinguish the pre-measurement state σ from the post-measurement state "P"(σ). This is accomplished mathematically by comparing the trace of σ and the trace of "P"(σ), with the trace being taken over the subspace "H". Since the trace is only over a subspace, it is technically called a partial trace. Key to this step is the assumption that the (partial) trace adequately summarizes the system from Bob's point of view. That is, everything that Bob has access to, or could ever have access to, measure , or detect, is completely described by a partial trace over "H" of the system σ. Again, this is a reasonable assumption, as it is a part of standard quantum mechanics. The fact that this trace never changes as Alice performs her measurements is the conclusion of the proof of the no-communication theorem. Formulation. The proof of the theorem is commonly illustrated for the setup of Bell tests in which two observers Alice and Bob perform local observations on a common bipartite system, and uses the statistical machinery of quantum mechanics, namely density states and quantum operations. Alice and Bob  perform measurements on system S whose underlying Hilbert space is formula_1 It is also assumed that everything is finite-dimensional to avoid convergence issues. The state of the composite system is given by a density operator on "H". Any density operator σ on "H" is a sum of the form: formula_2 where "T" and "S" are operators on "H" and "H" respectively. For the following, it is not required to assume that "T" and "S" are state projection operators: "i.e." they need not necessarily be non-negative, nor have a trace of one. That is, σ can have a definition  somewhat broader than that of a density matrix; the theorem still holds. Note that the theorem holds trivially for separable states. If the shared state σ is separable, it is clear that any local operation by Alice will leave Bob's system intact. Thus the point of the theorem is no communication can be achieved via a shared entangled state. Alice performs a local measurement on her subsystem. In general, this is described by a quantum operation, on the system state, of the following kind formula_3 where "V" are called Kraus matrices which satisfy formula_4 The term formula_5 from the  expression formula_6 means that Alice's measurement apparatus does not interact with Bob's subsystem. Supposing the combined system is prepared in state σ and assuming, for purposes of argument, a non-relativistic situation, immediately (with no time delay) after Alice performs her measurement, the relative state of Bob's system is given by the partial trace of the overall state with respect to Alice's system. In symbols, the relative state of Bob's system after Alice's operation is formula_7 where formula_8 is the partial trace mapping with respect to Alice's system. One can directly calculate this  state: formula_9 From this it is argued that, statistically, Bob cannot tell the difference between what Alice did and a random measurement (or whether she did anything at all). Disputed section. The theorem disallows not only the communication of whole bits, but even fractions of a bit . This is important to take note of, as there are many classical radio communications encoding techniques that can send arbitrarily small fractions of a bit across arbitrarily narrow, noisy communications channels. In particular, one may imagine that there is some ensemble that can be prepared, with small portions of the ensemble communicating  a fraction of a bit; this, too, is not possible. The theorem is built on the basic presumption that the laws of quantum mechanics hold . Similar theorems may or may not hold for other related theories, such as hidden variable theories. The no-communication theorem is not meant to be applicable to constrain other, non-quantum-mechanical theories.