Quick Navigation

Topics

Photonic Quantum Computing

Nonclassical oscillations in pre- and post-selected quantum walks

arXiv
Authors: Xiaoxiao Chen, Zhe Meng, Jian Li, Jiazhi Yang, Anning Zhang, Tomasz Kopyciuk, Pawel Kurzynski

Year

2020

Paper ID

532

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

151

Citations

N/A

Abstract

Quantum walks are counterparts of classical random walks. They spread faster, which can be exploited in information processing tasks, and constitute a versatile simulation platform for many quantum systems. Yet, some of their properties can be emulated with classical light. This rises a question: which aspects of the model are truly nonclassical? We address it by carrying out a photonic experiment based on a pre- and post-selection paradox. The paradox implies that if somebody could choose to ask, either if the particle is at position x = 0 at even time steps, or at position x = d (d > 1) at odd time steps, the answer would be positive, no matter the question asked. Therefore, the particle seems to undergo long distance oscillations despite the fact that the model allows to jump one position at a time. We translate this paradox into a Bell-like inequality and experimentally confirm its violation up to eight standard deviations.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Photonic Quantum Computing research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2020 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • Quantum walks are counterparts of classical random walks.

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 #532

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.