Real trajectories in the semiclassical coherent state propagator
The semiclassical approximation to the coherent state propagator requires complex classical trajectories in order to satisfy the associated boundary conditions, but finding these trajectories in pract...
The semiclassical approximation to the coherent state propagator requires complex classical trajectories in order to satisfy the associated boundary conditions, but finding these trajectories in pract...
Inequalities for experimental tests of the Kochen-Specker theorem
J. Math. Phys. 46, 102101 (2005); doi:10.1063/1.2081115
Published 12 October 2005
You are not logged in to this journal. Log in
We derive inequalities for n-partite states under the assumption that the hidden-variable theoretical joint probability distribution for any pair of commuting observables is equal to the quantum mechanical one. Fine showed that this assumption is connected to the no-hidden-variables theorem of Kochen and Specker (KS theorem). These inequalities give a way to experimentally test the KS theorem. The fidelity to the Bell states which is larger than 1/2 is sufficient for the experimental confirmation of the KS theorem. Hence, the Werner state is enough to test experimentally the KS theorem. Furthermore, it is possible to test the KS theorem experimentally using uncorrelated states. An n-partite uncorrelated state violates the n-partite inequality derived here by an amount that grows exponentially with n.
©2005 American Institute of Physics
| History: | Received 16 September 2004; accepted 26 August 2005; published 12 October 2005 |
| Permalink: |
http://link.aip.org/link/?JMAPAQ/46/102101/1 |
| BUY THIS ARTICLE | (US$24) |
|
|
Connotea
CiteULike
del.icio.us
BibSonomy
REFERENCES (21)
For access to fully linked references, you need to log in.
For access to fully linked references, you need to Log in.
- A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen,
Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935) . - M. Redhead, Incompleteness, Nonlocality, and Realism, 2nd ed. (Clarendon, Oxford, 1989).
- A. Peres, Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1993).
- J. S. Bell,
Physics (Long Island City, N.Y.) 1, 195 (1964) . - S. Kochen and E. P. Specker,
J. Math. Mech. 17, 59 (1967) . - A. Fine, J. Math. Phys. 23, 1306 (1982).
- A. Fine,
Synthese 29, 257 (1974) . - D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Horne, and A. Zeilinger, in Bell's Theorem, Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe, edited by M. Kafatos (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1989), pp. 69–72;
- C. Pagonis, M. L. G. Redhead, and R. K. Clifton,
Phys. Lett. A 155, 441 (1991) . - N. D. Mermin, Phys. Today 43, 9 (1990);
- A. Peres,
Phys. Lett. A 151, 107 (1990) . - N. D. Mermin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 3373 (1990).
- N. D. Mermin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 1838 (1990).
- S. M. Roy and V. Singh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 2761 (1991);
- M.
ukowski,
Phys. Lett. A 177, 290 (1993) ;
M. - See, for example, A. Cabello, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 190401 (2003).
- C. Simon,
. Brukner, and A. Zeilinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 4427 (2001);
J.-Å. Larsson, - For a recent experimental report of tests for all versus nothing type KS theorem, see Y.-F. Huang, C.-F. Li, Y.-S. Zhang, J.-W. Pan, and G.-C. Guo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 250401 (2003).
- R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A 40, 4277 (1989).
- K. Nagata, M. Koashi, and N. Imoto, Phys. Rev. A 65, 042314 (2002).
- We know that every proposition is true if the presupposition is false [see Eq. (3.6)]. Therefore, one might think that theorem (4.2) and theorem (5.16) are trivial. However, this is not the matter of our argument. We have used a quantum mechanical rule
=–I in the proof of the theorem (3.6). But, we have not used the quantum mechanical rule in the proof of the theorem (4.2). Likewise, a quantum mechanical rule
=I, (i,j
![[is-an-element-of]](http://scitation.aip.org/stockgif3/isin.gif)
Nn,i![[not-equal]](http://scitation.aip.org/stockgif3/ne.gif)
j) is needless to prove the theorem (5.16), while we have used the quantum mechanical rule in the proof of the theorem (3.6). Obviously, =–I, (i,j,k
Nn,ijki) is needless to prove the theorem (5.16). Of course, Gleason's theorem is needless. Therefore, we can derive these inequalities (4.2 d5.16) from more precise and weaker presupposition which should not be necessarily false.
A. V. Belinskii and D. N. Klyshko,
R. F. Werner and M. M. Wolf, Phys. Rev. A 61, 062102 (2000).
ukowski and D. Kaszlikowski, Phys. Rev. A 56, R1682 (1997);M.
ukowski and . Brukner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 210401 (2002);R. F. Werner and M. M. Wolf, Phys. Rev. A 64, 032112 (2001);
R. F. Werner and M. M. Wolf,
A. Cabello, Phys. Rev. A 65, 052101 (2002).
