arXiv:quant-ph/0402127

Quantum Entanglement in Time

Časlav Brukner, Taylor, Samuel, Sancho Cheung, Vlatko Vedral

Published Feb 18, 2004• 54 citations

Abstract

The temporal Bell inequalities are derived from the assumptions of realism and locality in time. It is shown that quantum mechanics violates these inequalities and thus is in conflict with the two assumptions. This can be used for performing certain tasks that are not possible classically. Our results open up a possibility for introducing the notion of entanglement in time in quantum physics.

DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0402127

Related papers

Entanglement in Time and Temporal Communication Complexity

Samuel Taylor

From assumptions of reality and locality in time, we develop a temporal analogue of a Bell inequality. We show how the predictions of quantum mechanics violate this inequality. We investigate how multiple‐time correlations behave. Finally we introduce an application of this temporal correlation, showing how the violation of the temporal Bell’s inequality allows for a ‘better‐than‐classical’ solution to a temporal analogue of a communication complexity problem.

AIP conference proceedingsJan 1, 200414 citations

Violations of Locality Beyond Bell's Theorem

Zeng‐Bing Chen, Sixia Yu, Zhang, Yong-De

Locality and realism are two main assumptions in deriving Bell's inequalities. Though the experimentally demonstrated violations of Bell's inequalities rule out local realism, it is, however, not clear what role each of the two assumptions solely plays in the observed violations. Here we show that two testable inequalities for the statistical predictions of two-qubit systems can be derived by assuming either locality or realism. It turns out that quantum mechanics respects a nonlocal classical realism, and it is locality that is incompatible with experimental observations and quantum mechanics.

arXiv:quant-ph/0307143Jul 20, 20031 citation

Violation of Bell Inequalities: Mapping the Conceptual Implications

Brian Drummond

This short article concentrates on the conceptual aspects of the violation of Bell inequalities, and acts as a map to the 265 cited references. The article outlines (a) relevant characteristics of quantum mechanics, such as statistical balance and entanglement, (b) the thinking that led to the derivation of the original Bell inequality, and (c) the range of claimed implications, including realism, locality and others which attract less attention. The main conclusion is that violation of Bell inequalities appears to have some implications for the nature of physical reality, but that none of these are definite. The violations constrain possible prequantum (underlying) theories, but do not rule out the possibility that such theories might reconcile at least one understanding of locality and realism to quantum mechanical predictions. Violation might reflect, at least partly, failure to acknowledge the contextuality of quantum mechanics, or that data from different probability spaces have been inappropriately combined. Many claims that there are definite implications reflect one or more of (i) imprecise non-mathematical language, (ii) assumptions inappropriate in quantum mechanics, (iii) inadequate treatment of measurement statistics and (iv) underlying philosophical assumptions.

arXiv:2106.14767Jun 28, 20213 citations

Does a Bell inequality violation imply irrealism?

P. Silva, Ana C. S. Costa, R. M. Angelo

Abstract Seminal for the raising of the quantum information age and quintessential for a deep understanding of nature, Bell inequality violations are known for having provided a profound disruption to classical models of the physical world. Yet, their meaning is still debatable nowadays. An important point under dispute in this context concerns the relevance of realism. While some believe that a Bell inequality violation implies the manifestation of nonlocal aspects, others defend that it is the notion of realism that should be abandoned. The purpose of the present work is to shed some light on the matter by employing a formal definition of (ir)realism. Our strategy consists of (i) rephrasing Bell’s assumption of local causality in terms of more primitive hypotheses and (ii) assessing where the fundamental difficulties emerge when using the quantum formalism. We analyze the question posed in the title using two distinct approaches and assert that a positive answer is justifiable. Nevertheless, even in this scenario, it becomes evident that violations of locality cannot be avoided. As a byproduct of our approach, the connections of (ir)realism with both quantum steering and entanglement are also discussed.

Physica ScriptaApr 10, 20242 citations

Bell’s theorem for temporal order

Magdalena Zych, Fabio Costa, Igor Pikovski +1 more

Time has a fundamentally different character in quantum mechanics and in general relativity. In quantum theory events unfold in a fixed order while in general relativity temporal order is influenced by the distribution of matter. When matter requires a quantum description, temporal order is expected to become non-classical-a scenario beyond the scope of current theories. Here we provide a direct description of such a scenario. We consider a thought experiment with a massive body in a spatial superposition and show how it leads to entanglement of temporal orders between time-like events. This entanglement enables accomplishing a task, violation of a Bell inequality, that is impossible under local classical temporal order; it means that temporal order cannot be described by any pre-defined local variables. A classical notion of a causal structure is therefore untenable in any framework compatible with the basic principles of quantum mechanics and classical general relativity.

arXiv:1708.00248Nature CommunicationsAug 21, 2019122 citations

Classicality and Bell’s theorem

Márton Gömöri, Carl Hoefer

Abstract A widespread view among physicists is that Bell’s theorem rests on an implicit assumption of “classicality,” in addition to locality. According to this understanding, the violation of Bell’s inequalities poses no challenge to locality, but simply reinforces the fact that quantum mechanics is not classical. The paper provides a critical analysis of this view. First we characterize the notion of classicality in probabilistic terms. We argue that classicality thus construed has nothing to do with the validity of classical physics, nor of classical probability theory, contrary to what many believe. At the same time, we show that the probabilistic notion of classicality is not an additional premise of Bell’s theorem, but a mathematical corollary of locality in conjunction with the standard auxiliary assumptions of Bell. Accordingly, any theory that claims to get around the derivation of Bell’s inequalities by giving up classicality, in fact has to give up one of those standard assumptions. As an illustration of this, we look at two recent interpretations of quantum mechanics, Reinhard Werner’s operational quantum mechanics and Robert Griffiths’ consistent histories approach, that are claimed to be local and non-classical, and identify which of the standard assumptions of Bell’s theorem each of them is forced to give up. We claim that while in operational quantum mechanics the Common Cause Principle is violated, the consistent histories approach is conspiratorial. Finally, we relate these two options to the idea of realism, a notion that is also often identified as an implicit assumption of Bell’s theorem.

European Journal for Philosophy of ScienceSep 1, 20230 citations