Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userSelf Replication and Signalling
140
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Indranil Chakrabarty ic
Publication date
2007
fields
Physics
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
It is known that if one could clone an arbitrary quantum state one could send signal faster than the speed of light. However it remains interesting to see that if one can perfectly self replicate an arbitrary quantum state, does it violate the no signalling principle? Here we see that perfect self replication would also lead to superluminal signalling.
rate research
Read More
It is known that if we can clone an arbitrary state we can send signal faster than light. Here, we show that deletion of unknown quantum state against a copy can lead to superluminal signalling. But erasure of unknown quantum state does not imply faster than light signalling.
We show that non-local resources cannot be used for probabilistic signalling even if one can produce exact clones with the help of a probabilistic quantum cloning machine (PQCM). We show that PQCM cannot help to distinguish two statistical mixtures at a remote location. Thus quantum theory rules out the possibility of sending superluminal signals not only deterministically but also probabilistically. We give a bound on the success probability of producing multiple clones in an entangled system.
Steering is a physical phenomenon which is not restricted to quantum theory, it is also present in more general, no-signalling theories. Here, we study steering from the point of view of no-signalling theories. First, we show that quantum steering involves a collection of different aspects, which need to be separated when considering steering in no-signalling theories. By deconstructing quantum steering, we learn more about the nature of the steering phenomenon itself. Second, we introduce a new concept, that we call blind steering, which can be seen as the most basic form of steering, present both in quantum mechanics and no-signalling theories.
Ambiguous measurements do not reveal complete information about the system under test. Their quantum-mechanical counterparts are semi-weak (or in the limit, weak-) measurements and here we discuss their role in tests of the Leggett-Garg inequalities. We show that, whilst ambiguous measurements allow one to forgo the usual non-invasive measureability assumption, to derive an LGI that may be violated, we are forced to introduce another assumption that equates the invasive influence of ambiguous and unambiguous detectors. Based on this assumption, we derive signalling conditions that should be fulfilled for the plausibility of the Leggett-Garg test. We then propose an experiment on a three-level system with a direct quantum-optics realisation that satisfies all signalling constraints and violates a Leggett-Garg inequality.
We derive one-shot upper bounds for quantum noisy channel codes. We do so by regarding a channel code as a bipartite operation with an encoder belonging to the sender and a decoder belonging to the receiver, and imposing constraints on the bipartite operation. We investigate the power of codes whose bipartite operation is non-signalling from Alice to Bob, positive-partial transpose (PPT) preserving, or both, and derive a simple semidefinite program for the achievable entanglement fidelity. Using the semidefinite program, we show that the non-signalling assisted quantum capacity for memoryless channels is equal to the entanglement-assisted capacity. We also relate our PPT-preserving codes and the PPT-preserving entanglement distillation protocols studied by Rains. Applying these results to a concrete example, the 3-dimensional Werner-Holevo channel, we find that codes that are non-signalling and PPT-preserving can be strictly less powerful than codes satisfying either one of the constraints, and therefore provide a tighter bound for unassisted codes. Furthermore, PPT-preserving non-signalling codes can send one qubit perfectly over two uses of the channel, which has no quantum capacity. We discuss whether this can be interpreted as a form of superactivation of quantum capacity.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
