Quick Navigation
Topics
Trapped Ion Quantum Computing
Experimentally bounding deviations from quantum theory for a photonic three-level system using theory-agnostic tomography
arXiv
Authors: Michael Grabowecky, Christopher Pollack, Andrew Cameron, Robert Spekkens, Kevin Resch
Year
2021
Paper ID
62418
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
195
Citations
N/A
Abstract
If one seeks to test quantum theory against many alternatives in a landscape of possible physical theories, then it is crucial to be able to analyze experimental data in a theory-agnostic way. This can be achieved using the framework of Generalized Probabilistic Theories (GPTs). Here, we implement GPT tomography on a three-level system corresponding to a single photon shared among three modes. This scheme achieves a GPT characterization of each of the preparations and measurements implemented in the experiment without requiring any prior characterization of either. Assuming that the sets of realized preparations and measurements are tomographically complete, our analysis identifies the most likely dimension of the GPT vector space describing the three-level system to be nine, in agreement with the value predicted by quantum theory. Relative to this dimension, we infer the scope of GPTs that are consistent with our experimental data by identifying polytopes that provide inner and outer bounds for the state and effect spaces of the true GPT. From these, we are able to determine quantitative bounds on possible deviations from quantum theory. In particular, we bound the degree to which the no-restriction hypothesis might be violated for our three-level system.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Trapped-Ion Quantum Computing research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2021 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- If one seeks to test quantum theory against many alternatives in a landscape of possible physical theories, then it is crucial to be able to analyze experimental data in a...
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
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
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.