Multiple-measurement Leggett-Garg inequalities

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 80, Issue 3, 2009, Pages

  Barbieri, Marco ^a  

^a INSTITUT D'OPTIQUE GRADUATE SCHOOL   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARBITRARY NUMBER; BELL'S INEQUALITY; NON-DESTRUCTIVE MEASUREMENT; NONLOCALITIES; QUANTITATIVE TESTS; QUANTUM PHENOMENA; QUANTUM TO CLASSICAL TRANSITION;

QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT;

MEASUREMENTS;

EID: 70349316518     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: 10941622     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.80.034102     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. E. Schrödinger, Naturwiss. 23, 807 (1935). 10.1007/BF01491891
2. D. Leibfried, Nature (London) 438, 639 (2005). 10.1038/nature04251
3. H. Häffner, Nature (London) 438, 643 (2005). 10.1038/nature04279
4. S. Deléglise, I. Dotsenko, C. Sayrin, J. Bernu, M. Brune, J. M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, Nature (London) 455, 510 (2008). 10.1038/nature07288
5. A. Ourjoumtsev, H. Jeong, R. Tualle-Brouri, and P. Grangier, Nature (London) 448, 784 (2007). 10.1038/nature06054
6. H. J. Plantenberg, P. C. de Groot, C. J. P. M. Harmans, and J. E. Mooij, Nature (London) 447, 836 (2007). 10.1038/nature05896
7. W. H. Zurek, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 715 (2003). 10.1103/RevModPhys.75.715
8. G. C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini, and T. Weber, Phys. Rev. D 34, 470 (1986). 10.1103/PhysRevD.34.470
9. J. Kofler and Č. Brukner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 180403 (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.180403
10. A. J. Leggett and A. Garg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 857 (1985). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.54.857
11. J. S. Bell, Phys. 1, 195 (1964).
12. M. E. Goggin, e-print arXiv:0907.1679.
13. J.-S. Xu, C.-F. Li, X.-B. Zou, and G.-C. Guo, e-print arXiv:0907.0176.
14. A. N. Jordan, A. N. Korotkov, and M. Büttiker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 026805 (2006). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.026805
15. N. S. Williams and A. N. Jordan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 026804 (2008). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.026804
16. A. Peres, Quantum Theory, Concepts and Methods (Kluwer, Norwell, 1993).
17. G. Kirchmair, Nature (London) 460, 494 (2009). 10.1038/nature08172
18. J. F. Clauser, M. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880 (1969). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.880
19. Based on intuition, we build a hierarchical scale for LGIs based on the difference between the quantum expectation value and the classical bound. In different contexts, alternative definitions might provide a better insight: see A. Cabello, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 140406 (2006) 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.140406
20. M. Barbieri, P. Mataloni, F. De Martini, G. Vallone, and A. Cabello, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 140407 (2006). On a separate note, we observe that experimentalists might prefer to test the one including less terms, both for the sake of simplicity and because shorter chains might lead to smaller statistical uncertainties (see). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.140407
21. We have not been able to find an optimality proof of the symmetrical choice of angles, although optimality it is partially supported by some numerical calculations. Intuition suggests that this should be the case since biasing one of the angles to enhance the violation of one of the subinequalities in Eq. 10 or 11 might reduce the amount of violation in many others involving that same term.