You're viewing papers too quickly. Please wait a moment.<br>This helps keep the archive available for everyone.

Quick Navigation

Overview Topics Abstract Importance Paper Tools References Reactions Discussion Publication Related

Topics

Quantum Foundations

A physical approach to Tsirelson's problem

arXiv

Authors: Miguel Navascues, Tom Cooney, David Perez-Garcia, Ignacio Villanueva

Year

2011

Paper ID

8790

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

Citations

N/A

Abstract

Tsirelson's problem deals with how to model separate measurements in quantum mechanics. In addition to its theoretical importance, the resolution of Tsirelson's problem could have great consequences for device independent quantum key distribution and certified randomness. Unfortunately, understanding present literature on the subject requires a heavy mathematical background. In this paper, we introduce quansality, a new theoretical concept that allows to reinterpret Tsirelson's problem from a foundational point of view. Using quansality as a guide, we recover all known results on Tsirelson's problem in a clear and intuitive way.

Why This Paper Matters

This paper contributes to the Quantum Foundations research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
It adds a 2011 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
Tsirelson's problem deals with how to model separate measurements in quantum mechanics.

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.

Become a member Sign in

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

References & Citation Signals

[1] DOI https://doi.org/arXiv:1105.3373 [2] arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3373 [3] Publisher https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3373

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0

Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.