Quick Navigation

Topics

Quantum Foundations

Hardy's paradox and violation of a state-independent Bell inequality in time

arXiv
Authors: Alessandro Fedrizzi, Marcelo P. Almeida, Matthew A. Broome, Andrew G. White, Marco Barbieri

Year

2010

Paper ID

10557

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

81

Citations

N/A

Abstract

Tests such as Bell's inequality and Hardy's paradox show that joint probabilities and correlations between distant particles in quantum mechanics are inconsistent with local realistic theories. Here we experimentally demonstrate these concepts in the time domain, using a photonic entangling gate to perform nondestructive measurements on a single photon at different times. We show that Hardy's paradox is much stronger in time and demonstrate the violation of a temporal Bell inequality independent of the quantum state, including for fully mixed states.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Quantum Foundations research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2010 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • Tests such as Bell's inequality and Hardy's paradox show that joint probabilities and correlations between distant particles in quantum mechanics are inconsistent with local...

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #10557 #69036 CARVE-Q: Quantum-Proposed, Clas... #69035 A Modular Approach to Succinct ... #69013 Quantum correlations and cohere... #68989 Quantum correlations in QBism's...

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.