4.6 Article

Various formulations of inequivalent Leggett-Garg inequalities

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1751-8121/abd077

关键词

macrorealism; Leggett– Garg inequality; no-signalling in time

资金

  1. Ramanujan Fellowship [SB/S2/RJ N-083/2014]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The article discusses the Bell's inequality in a two-party, two-input, and two-output measurement scenario, as well as the discussion on the incompatibility between macrorealism and quantum theory.
In two-party, two-input and two-output measurement scenario only relevant Bell's inequality is the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) form. They also provide the necessary and sufficient conditions (NSCs) for local realism. Any other form, such as, Clauser-Horne and Wigner forms reduce to the CHSH one. The standard Leggett-Garg inequalities, proposed for testing incompatibility between macrorealism and quantum theory, are often considered to be the temporal analog of CHSH inequalities. However, they do not provide the NSCs for macrorealism. There is thus scope of formulating new macrorealist inequalities inequivalent and stronger than the standard Leggett-Garg inequalities. In this paper, we propose two different classes of macrorealistic inequalities. A class of inequalities which are equivalent to the standard ones in macrorealist model but inequivalent and stronger in quantum theory, and the other class of inequalities are inequivalent to the all the other formulations of Leggett-Garg inequalities both in macrorealist model and in quantum theory. The latter class of macrorealist inequalities reveals the incompatibility between macrorealism and quantum theory for specific cases even when any other formulation of Leggett-Garg inequalities fails to do so. We extend the formulations of inequivalent Leggett-Garg inequalities to the four-time and two-time measurement scenarios. Further, we provide a brief discussion about the alternative formulation of macrorealism known as the no-signaling in time (NSIT) conditions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据