4.6 Article

Correlations constrained by composite measurements

期刊

QUANTUM
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

VEREIN FORDERUNG OPEN ACCESS PUBLIZIERENS QUANTENWISSENSCHAF

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding the permissible set of correlations in nature is a fundamental problem in quantum theory. This paper takes a complementary viewpoint and investigates the correlations that physical theories can exhibit under certain constraints on measurements. It is shown that demanding a theory to have a composite measurement imposes constraints on the structure of its sets of states and effects, leading to constraints on the allowed correlations. The existence of a correlated measurement that reads out the parity of local fiducial measurements is specifically studied, and it is found that this assumption has strong consequences for violations of Bell inequalities, including the recovery of Tsirelson's bound in certain situations.
How to understand the set of correlations admissible in nature is one outstanding open problem in the core of the foundations of quantum theory. Here we take a complementary viewpoint to the device-independent approach, and explore the correlations that physical theories may feature when restricted by some particular constraints on their measurements. We show that demanding that a theory exhibits a composite measurement imposes a hierarchy of constraints on the structure of its sets of states and effects, which translate to a hierarchy of constraints on the allowed correlations themselves. We moreover focus on the particular case where one demands the existence of a correlated measurement that reads out the parity of local fiducial measurements. By formulating a non-linear Optimisation Problem, and semidefinite relaxations of it, we explore the consequences of the existence of such a parity reading measurement for violations of Bell inequalities. In particular, we show that in certain situations this assumption has surprisingly strong consequences, namely, that Tsirelson's bound can be recovered.

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