Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:quant-ph/9612010

Experimental realization of any discrete operator

Karl Svozil

Published Dec 2, 1996• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

A straightforward argument shows that, by allowing counterfactual elements of physical reality, any arbitrary discrete finite-dimensional operator corresponds to an observable.
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/9612010

Related papers

Discrete Time Realizations of Quantum Mechanics and their Possible Experimental Tests

C. Wolf

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 1994•2 citations

Getting contextual and nonlocal elements-of-reality the easy way

Rob Clifton

What if Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen were right that quantum mechanics is incomplete, and there do exist ‘‘elements-of-reality’’ corresponding to all observables whether or not they are compatible? The implications are surprising. Not only must the values of these elements-of-reality depend upon what measurements are actually performed on the system, but also upon measurements performed at spacelike separation from it! The former dependence has been dubbed ‘‘contextualism,’’ and the latter ‘‘nonlocality.’’ It is important for students to understand the necessity of these two features, if only to reinforce the point that a straightforward classical recasting of quantum theory in terms of pre-existing measurement independent elements-of-reality is not feasible. Unfortunately the argument for contextualism, in particular, is daunting due to its reliance on an elaborate geometrical argument. I aim here to minimize the geometry needed to argue for contextualism by using some ideas inspired by the original arguments of Bell and of Kochen and Specker. Using similar methods, I simplify the closely related geometrical argument for nonlocality due to Heywood and Redhead and to Stairs.

American Journal of Physics•May 1, 1993•120 citations

Experimental realization of any discrete unitary operator

Michael Reck, Anton Zeilinger, Herbert Joseph Bernstein +1 more

An algorithmic proof that any discrete finite-dimensional unitary operator can be constructed in the laboratory using optical devices is given. Our recursive algorithm factorizes any N\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}N unitary matrix into a sequence of two-dimensional beam splitter transformations. The experiment is built from the corresponding devices. This also permits the measurement of the observable corresponding to any discrete Hermitian matrix. Thus optical experiments with any type of radiation (photons, atoms, etc.) exploring higher-dimensional discrete quantum systems become feasible.

Physical Review Letters•Jul 4, 1994•2,153 citations

Quantum Discreteness is an Illusion

H. Dieter Zeh

arXiv:0809.2904•Foundations of Physics•Nov 30, 2009•29 citations

A bolt from the blue: the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox

N. David Mermin

Over fifty years ago Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen published a striking argument that quantum theory provides only an incomplete description of physical reality – that is, that some elements of physical reality fail to have a counterpart in quantum-theoretical description. What made this a challenge to the quantum-theoretical Weltanschauung was the very mild character of the sufficient condition for the reality of a physical quantity on which their argument hinged: “If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity.” The argument consists in pointing out that it is possible to construct a quantum-mechanical state ψ with the following properties: The state ψ describes two noninteracting systems (I and II). In almost all discussions the two systems are taken to be two particles, and the absence of relevant interaction is built in by taking ψ to assign negligible probability to finding the particles closer together than some macroscopically large distance. By measuring an observable A of system I, one can predict with certainty the result of a subsequent measurement of a corresponding observable P of system II. If, instead, one chooses to measure a different observable B of system I, one can predict with certainty the result of a subsequent measurement of a corresponding observable Q of system II. The observables P and Q are represented in quantum theory by noncommuting operators, which means that they cannot both have definite values.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Mar 15, 1990•0 citations

Interpretations of quantum mechanics, joint measurement of incompatible observables, and counterfactual definiteness

Willem M. de Muynck, Willy De Baere, Hans Martens

Foundations of Physics•Dec 1, 1994•78 citations
What if Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen were right that quantum mechanics is incomplete, and there do exist ‘‘elements-of-reality’’ corresponding to all observables whether or not they are compatible? The implications are surprising. Not only must the values of these elements-of-reality depend upon what measurements are actually performed on the system, but also upon measurements performed at spacelike separation from it! The former dependence has been dubbed ‘‘contextualism,’’ and the latter ‘‘nonlocality.’’ It is important for students to understand the necessity of these two features, if only to reinforce the point that a straightforward classical recasting of quantum theory in terms of pre-existing measurement independent elements-of-reality is not feasible. Unfortunately the argument for contextualism, in particular, is daunting due to its reliance on an elaborate geometrical argument. I aim here to minimize the geometry needed to argue for contextualism by using some ideas inspired by the original arguments of Bell and of Kochen and Specker. Using similar methods, I simplify the closely related geometrical argument for nonlocality due to Heywood and Redhead and to Stairs.
An algorithmic proof that any discrete finite-dimensional unitary operator can be constructed in the laboratory using optical devices is given. Our recursive algorithm factorizes any N\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}N unitary matrix into a sequence of two-dimensional beam splitter transformations. The experiment is built from the corresponding devices. This also permits the measurement of the observable corresponding to any discrete Hermitian matrix. Thus optical experiments with any type of radiation (photons, atoms, etc.) exploring higher-dimensional discrete quantum systems become feasible.
Over fifty years ago Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen published a striking argument that quantum theory provides only an incomplete description of physical reality – that is, that some elements of physical reality fail to have a counterpart in quantum-theoretical description. What made this a challenge to the quantum-theoretical Weltanschauung was the very mild character of the sufficient condition for the reality of a physical quantity on which their argument hinged: “If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity.” The argument consists in pointing out that it is possible to construct a quantum-mechanical state ψ with the following properties: The state ψ describes two noninteracting systems (I and II). In almost all discussions the two systems are taken to be two particles, and the absence of relevant interaction is built in by taking ψ to assign negligible probability to finding the particles closer together than some macroscopically large distance. By measuring an observable A of system I, one can predict with certainty the result of a subsequent measurement of a corresponding observable P of system II. If, instead, one chooses to measure a different observable B of system I, one can predict with certainty the result of a subsequent measurement of a corresponding observable Q of system II. The observables P and Q are represented in quantum theory by noncommuting operators, which means that they cannot both have definite values.