Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Demonstration of universal contextuality through communication games free of both operational inequivalence and compatibility loopholes

Published 14 Mar 2024 in quant-ph | (2403.09220v1)

Abstract: Universal contextuality is the leading notion of non-classicality even for single systems, showing its advantage as a more general quantum correlation than Bell non-locality, as well as preparation contextuality. However, a loophole-free experimental demonstration of universal contextuality at least requires that both operational inequivalence and compatibility loopholes are closed, which have never been simultaneously achieved to date. In our work, we experimentally test universal contextuality through (3,3) and (4,3) communication games, simultaneously restoring operational equivalence and circumventing the compatibility loophole. Our result exhibits the violation of universal non-contextuality bound by 97 standard deviations in (3,3) scenario, and 107 deviations in (4,3) scenario. Notably there are states which exhibit locality but reveal universal contextuality in both two scenarios. In addition, our result shows that universal contextuality is more general than preparation contextuality in (3,3) scenario, while equivalent to preparation contextuality in (4,3) scenario.

Authors (3)
Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (49)
  1. J. S. Bell, “On the einstein podolsky rosen paradox,” \JournalTitlePhysics 1, 195 (1964).
  2. D. Mayers and A. Yao, “Self testing quantum apparatus,” \JournalTitleQuantum Inf. Comput. 4, 273–286 (2004).
  3. A. Coladangelo, K. T. Goh, and V. Scarani, “All pure bipartite entangled states can be self-tested,” \JournalTitleNat. Commun. 8, 15485 (2017).
  4. S. Pironio, A. Acín, S. Massar, A. B. de la Giroday, D. N. Matsukevich, P. Maunz, S. Olmschenk, D. Hayes, L. Luo, T. A. Manning, and C. Monroe, “Random numbers certified by bell’s theorem,” \JournalTitleNature 464, 1021–1024 (2010).
  5. A. Acín, S. Massar, and S. Pironio, “Randomness versus nonlocality and entanglement,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 108, 100402 (2012).
  6. A. Acín, S. Pironio, T. Vértesi, and P. Wittek, “Optimal randomness certification from one entangled bit,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. A 93, 040102 (2016).
  7. A. K. Ekert, “Quantum cryptography based on bell’s theorem,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 67, 661 (1991).
  8. A. Acín, N. Brunner, N. Gisin, S. Massar, S. Pironio, and V. Scarani, “Device-independent security of quantum cryptography against collective attacks,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 98, 230501 (2007).
  9. J. Barrett, R. Colbeck, and A. Kent, “Memory attacks on device-independent quantum cryptography,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 110, 010503 (2013).
  10. J. S. Bell, “On the problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics,” \JournalTitleRev. Mod. Phys 38, 447 (1966).
  11. S. Kochen and E. Specker, “The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics,” \JournalTitleJ. Math. Mech 17, 59–87 (1967).
  12. R. Raussendorf, “Contextuality in measurement-based quantum computation,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. A 88, 022322 (2013).
  13. M. Howard, J. Wallman, V. Veitch, and J. Emerson, “Contextuality supplies the ‘magic’for quantum computation,” \JournalTitleNature 510, 351–355 (2014).
  14. N. Delfosse, P. A. Guerin, J. Bian, and R. Raussendorf, “Wigner function negativity and contextuality in quantum computation on rebits,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. X 5, 021003 (2015).
  15. N. Delfosse, C. Okay, J. Bermejo-Vega, D. E. Browne, and R. Raussendorf, “Equivalence between contextuality and negativity of the wigner function for qudits,” \JournalTitleNew J. Phys. 19, 123024 (2017).
  16. J. Bermejo-Vega, N. Delfosse, D. E. Browne, C. Okay, and R. Raussendorf, “Contextuality as a resource for models of quantum computation with qubits,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 119, 120505 (2017).
  17. S. Mansfield and E. Kashefi, “Quantum advantage from sequential-transformation contextuality,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 121, 230401 (2018).
  18. P. E. Emeriau, M. Howard, and S. Mansfield, “Quantum advantage in information retrieval,” \JournalTitlePRX Quantum 3, 020307 (2022).
  19. T. S. Cubitt, D. Leung, W. Matthews, and A. Winter, “Improving zero-error classical communication with entanglement,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 104, 230503 (2010).
  20. T. Cubitt, D. Leung, W. Matthews, and A. Winter, “Zero-error channel capacity and simulation assisted by non-local correlations,” \JournalTitleIEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 57, 5509–5523 (2011).
  21. R. W. Spekkens, D. H. Buzacott, A. J. Keehn, B. Toner, and G. J. Pryde, “Preparation contextuality powers parity-oblivious multiplexing,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 102, 010401 (2009).
  22. A. Chailloux1, I. Kerenidis, S. Kundu, and J. Sikora, “Optimal bounds for parity-oblivious random access codes,” \JournalTitleNew J. Phys. 18, 045003 (2016).
  23. A. Hameedi, A. Tavakoli, B. Marques, and M. Bourennane, “Communication games reveal preparation contextuality,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 119, 220402 (2017).
  24. A. Ambainis, M. Banik, A. Chaturvedi, D. Kravchenko, and A. Rai, “Parity oblivious d-level random access codes and class of noncontextuality inequalities,” \JournalTitleQuantum Inf. Process. 18, 1–20 (2019).
  25. D. Saha, P. Horodecki, and M. Pawłowski, “State independent contextuality advances one-way communication,” \JournalTitleNew J. Phys. 21, 093057 (2019).
  26. R. W. Spekkens, “Contextuality for preparations, transformations, and unsharp measurements,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. A 71, 052108 (2005).
  27. A. Cabello and G. García-Alcaine, “Proposed experimental tests of the bell-kochen-specker theorem,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1797 (1998).
  28. C. Simon, M. Żukowski, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, “Feasible “kochen-specker” experiment with single particles,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1783 (2000).
  29. A. Cabello, S. Filipp, H. Rauch, and Y. Hasegawa, “Proposed experiment for testing quantum contextuality with neutrons,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 100, 130404 (2008).
  30. A. A. Klyachko, M. A. Can, S. Binicioğlu, and A. S. Shumovsky, “Simple test for hidden variables in spin-1 systems,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 101, 020403 (2008).
  31. A. Cabello, “Experimentally testable state-independent quantum contextuality,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 101, 210401 (2008).
  32. P. Badziag, I. Bengtsson, A. Cabello, and I. Pitowsky, “Universality of state-independent violation of correlation inequalities for noncontextual theories,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 103, 050401 (2009).
  33. M. Michler, H. Weinfurter, and M. Żukowski, “Experiments towards falsification of noncontextual hidden variable theories,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5457 (2000).
  34. R. Lapkiewicz, P. Li, C. Schaeff, N. K. Langford, S. Ramelow, M. Wieśniak, and A. Zeilinger, “Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system,” \JournalTitleNature 474, 490–493 (2011).
  35. Y. Hasegawa, R. Loidl, G. Badurek, M. Baron, and H. Rauch, “Quantum contextuality in a single-neutron optical experiment,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 97, 230401 (2006).
  36. H. Bartosik, J. Klepp, C. Schmitzer, S. Sponar, A. Cabello, H. Rauch, and Y. Hasegawa, “Experimental test of quantum contextuality in neutron interferometry,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 103, 040403 (2009).
  37. E. Amselem, M. Rådmark, M. Bourennane, and A. Cabello, “State-independent quantum contextuality with single photons,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 103, 160405 (2009).
  38. M. D. Mazurek, M. F. Pusey, R. Kunjwal, K. J. Resch, and R. W. Spekkens, “An experimental test of noncontextuality without unphysical idealizations,” \JournalTitleNat. Commun. 7, 11780 (2016).
  39. G. Kirchmair, F. Zähringer, R. Gerritsma, M. Kleinmann, O. Gühne, A. Cabello, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, “State-independent experimental test of quantum contextuality,” \JournalTitleNature 460, 494–497 (2009).
  40. Y.-F. Huang, M. Li, D.-Y. Cao, Y.-S. Z. Chao Zhang, B.-H. Liu, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, “Experimental test of state-independent quantum contextuality of an indivisible quantum system,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. A 87, 052133 (2013).
  41. X. Zhang, M. Um, J. Zhang, S. An, Y. Wang, D. ling Deng, C. Shen, L.-M. Duan, and K. Kim, “State-independent experimental test of quantum contextuality with a single trapped ion,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 110, 070401 (2013).
  42. G. Borges, M. Carvalho, P.-L. de Assis, J. Ferraz, M. Araújo, A. Cabello, M. T. Cunha, and S. Pádua, “Quantum contextuality in a young-type interference experiment,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. A 89, 052106 (2014).
  43. Y. Xiao, Z.-P. Xu, Q. Li, J.-S. Xu, K. Sun, J.-M. Cui, Z.-Q. Zhou, H.-Y. Su, A. Cabello, J.-L. Chen, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, “Experimental observation of quantum state-independent contextuality under no-signaling conditions,” \JournalTitleOpt. Express 26, 32–50 (2018).
  44. X.-M. Hu, J.-S. Chen, B.-H. Liu, Y. Guo, Y.-F. Huang, Z.-Q. Zhou, Y.-J. Han, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, “Experimental test of compatibility-loophole-free contextuality with spatially separated entangled qutrits,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 117, 170403 (2016).
  45. A. K. Pan, “Revealing universal quantum contextuality through communication games,” \JournalTitleScientific Reports 9, 17631 (2019).
  46. M. F. Pusey, “Robust preparation noncontextuality inequalities in the simplest scenario,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. A 98, 022112 (2018).
  47. J. Barrett, “Information processing in generalized probabilistic theories,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. A 75, 032304 (2007).
  48. M. Krystek and M. Anton, “A weighted total least-squares algorithm for fitting a straight line,” \JournalTitleMeas. Sci. Technol. 18, 3438 (2007).
  49. R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and M. Horodecki, “Violating bell inequality by mixed spin-12 states: necessary and sufficient condition,” \JournalTitlePhys. Lett. A 200, 340–344 (1995).

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Sign Up to Summarize

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Sign Up to Generate All Videos Subscribe on YouTube

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Sign Up to Generate

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Generate Now

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Generate Now

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Sign Up

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 1 tweet with 0 likes about this paper.

Sign Up for Free