Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userContextuality versus Incompatibility
88
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Andrei Khrennikov Yu
Publication date
2020
fields
Physics
and research's language is
English
Authors
Andrei Khrennikov
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Our aim is to compare the fundamental notions of quantum physics - contextuality vs. incompatibility. One has to distinguish two different notions of contextuality, {it Bohr-contextuality} and {it Bell-contextuality}. The latter is defined operationally via violation of noncontextuality (Bell type) inequalities. This sort of contextuality will be compared with incompatibility. It is easy to show that, for quantum observables, there is {it no contextuality without incompatibility.} The natural question arises: What is contextuality without incompatibility? (What is dry-residue?) Generally this is the very complex question. We concentrated on contextuality for four quantum observables. We shown that in the CHSH-scenarios (for natural quantum observables) {it contextuality is reduced to incompatibility.} However, generally contextuality without incompatibility may have some physical content. We found a mathematical constraint extracting the contextuality component from incompatibility. However, the physical meaning of this constraint is not clear. In appendix 1, we briefly discuss another sort of contextuality based on the Bohrs complementarity principle which is treated as the {it contextuality-incompatibility principle}. Bohr-contextuality plays the crucial role in quantum foundations. Incompatibility is, in fact, a consequence of Bohr-contextuality. Finally, we remark that outside of physics, e.g., in cognitive psychology and decision making Bell-contextuality cleaned of incompatibility can play the important role.
rate research
Read More
The existence of incompatible measurements is often believed to be a feature of quantum theory which signals its inconsistency with any classical worldview. To prove the failure of classicality in the sense of Kochen-Specker noncontextuality, one does indeed require sets of incompatible measurements. However, a more broadly applicable and more permissive notion of classicality is the existence of a generalized-noncontextual ontological model. In particular, this notion can imply constraints on the representation of outcomes even within a single nonprojective measurement. We leverage this fact to demonstrate that measurement incompatibility is neither necessary nor sufficient for proofs of the failure of generalized noncontextuality. Furthermore, we show that every proof of the failure of generalized noncontextuality in a prepare-measure scenario can be converted into a proof of the failure of generalized noncontextuality in a corresponding scenario with no incompatible measurements.
A central result in the foundations of quantum mechanics is the Kochen-Specker theorem. In short, it states that quantum mechanics is in conflict with classical models in which the result of a measurement does not depend on which other compatible measurements are jointly performed. Here, compatible measurements are those that can be performed simultaneously or in any order without disturbance. This conflict is generically called quantum contextuality. In this article, we present an introduction to this subject and its current status. We review several proofs of the Kochen-Specker theorem and different notions of contextuality. We explain how to experimentally test some of these notions and discuss connections between contextuality and nonlocality or graph theory. Finally, we review some applications of contextuality in quantum information processing.
We propose a new measure of relative incompatibility for a quantum system with respect to two non-commuting observables, and call it quantumness of relative incompatibility. In case of a classical state, order of observation is inconsequential, hence probability distribution of outcomes of any observable remains undisturbed. We define relative entropy of the two marginal probability distributions as a measure of quantumness in the state, which is revealed only in presence of two non-commuting observables. Like all other measures, we show that the proposed measure satisfies some basic axioms. Also, we find that this measure depicts complementarity with quantum coherence. The relation is more vivid when we choose one of the observables in such a way that its eigen basis matches with the basis in which the coherence is measured. Our result indicates that the quantumness in a single system is still an interesting question to explore and there can be an inherent feature of the state which manifests beyond the idea of quantum coherence.
One of the basic distinctions between classical and quantum mechanics is the existence of fundamentally incompatible quantities. Such quantities are present on all levels of quantum objects: states, measurements, quantum channels, and even higher order dynamics. In this manuscript, we show that two seemingly different aspects of quantum incompatibility: the quantum marginal problem of states and the incompatibility on the level of quantum channels are in many-to-one correspondence. Importantly, as incompatibility of measurements is a special case of the latter, it also forms an instance of the quantum marginal problem. The generality of the connection is harnessed by solving the marginal problem for Gaussian and Bell diagonal states, as well as for pure states under depolarizing noise. Furthermore, we derive entropic criteria for channel compatibility, and develop a converging hierarchy of semi-definite programs for quantifying the strength of quantum memories.
We study two operational approaches to quantifying incompatibility that depart significantly from the well known entropic uncertainty relation (EUR) formalism. Both approaches result in incompatibility measures that yield non-zero values even when the pair of incompatible observables commute over a subspace, unlike EURs which give a zero lower bound in such cases. Here, we explicitly show how these measures go beyond EURs in quantifying incompatibility: For any set of quantum observables, we show that both incompatibility measures are bounded from below by the corresponding EURs for the Tsallis ($T_{2}$) entropy. We explicitly evaluate the incompatibility of a pair of qubit observables in both operational scenarios. We also obtain an efficiently computable lower bound for the mutually incompatibility of a general set of observables.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
