Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Foundations
Detection loophole in quantum causality and its countermeasures
arXiv
Authors: Zhu Cao
Year
2021
Paper ID
63079
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
190
Citations
N/A
Abstract
Quantum causality violates classical intuitions of cause and effect and is a unique quantum feature different from other quantum phenomena such as entanglement and quantum nonlocality. In order to avoid the detection loophole in quantum causality, we initiate the study of the detection efficiency requirement for observing quantum causality. We first show that previous classical causal inequalities require detection efficiency at least 95.97% (89.44%) to show violation with quantum (nonsignaling) correlations. Next we derive a classical causal inequality I_{222} and show that it requires lower detection efficiency to be violated, 92.39% for quantum correlations and 81.65% for nonsignaling correlations, hence substantially reducing the requirement on detection. Then we extend this causal inequality to the case of multiple measurement settings and analyze the corresponding detection efficiency. After that, we show that previous quantum causal inequalities require detection efficiency at least 94.29% to violate with nonsignaling correlations. We subsequently derive a quantum causal bound J_{222} that has a lower detection efficiency requirement of 91.02% for violation with nonsignaling correlations. Our work paves the way towards an experimental demonstration of quantum causality and shows that causal inequalities significantly differ from Bell inequalities in terms of the detection efficiency requirement.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Quantum Foundations research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2021 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- Quantum causality violates classical intuitions of cause and effect and is a unique quantum feature different from other quantum phenomena such as entanglement and quantum...
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.