删除或更新信息,请邮件至freekaoyan#163.com(#换成@)

Chain Inequality Violation with Quantum Weak Measurement Technology

本站小编 Free考研考试/2022-01-02

Zheng-Mao Xu, Hong-Wei Li,?Zhengzhou Information Science and Technology Institute, Zhengzhou 450004, China

Corresponding authors: ? E-mail:lihow@ustc.edu.cn

Received:2018-11-23Online:2019-04-1
Fund supported:*Supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant.61675235
Supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant.11304397
National Key Research and Development Program of China under Grant.2016YFA0302600


Abstract
Bell inequality is an important resource in the quantum information theory, which can be applied to guarantee security of the device independent quantum information protocols. By utilizing the quantum weak measurement technology, we propose the Chain inequality violation with three parties, and the analysis result demonstrates that double Chain inequality violation can be observed in the case of Alice and Bob have two different measurement bases. Since the weak measurement model can be assumed to be an eavesdropping model, our analysis model may be applied to analyze security of the device independent quantum information protocols.
Keywords: chain inequality;weak measurement


PDF (292KB)MetadataMetricsRelated articlesExportEndNote|Ris|BibtexFavorite
Cite this article
Zheng-Mao Xu, Hong-Wei Li. Chain Inequality Violation with Quantum Weak Measurement Technology *. [J], 2019, 71(4): 393-396 doi:10.1088/0253-6102/71/4/393

1 Introduction

Based on Einstein's local realism and hidden variable model, Bell proposed the famous Bell inequality,[1] which is an important resource in the quantum information theory. Chain inequality is an important kind of Bell inequality, which has $n$ ($n\geq2$) measurement bases, and the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (universally known as CHSH inequality[2]) inequality can be assumed to be a special Chain inequality with $n=2$. More precisely, Chain inequality can be applied to propose device independent quantum information protocols,[3-4] where security of the protocols can be guaranteed by the Chain inequality violation, not based on the perfect quantum states preparation and measurement assumption. More recently, Colbeck et al.[5-10] have proved that the imperfect randomness could be amplified via Chain inequality.

The Bell inequality violation is usually based on the entanglement states preparation and the projective measurement assumption, which will lead to the states collapse after the projective measurement. However, by applying the weak measurement technology, an observer can extract less information about a system with the smaller disturbance.[11-12] The weak measurement technology has been proved to propose double CHSH inequality violation,[13-15] and double classical dimension witness violation[16-17] respectively. Inspired by the double classical dimension witness violation with the weak measurement technology, we propose the double Chain inequality violation with three parties. More precisely, we propose the weak measurement model in the Chain inequality with different measurement setups ($n\geq2$), and the result demonstrates that double Chain inequality violation can be realized in the case of $n=2$. Since our analysis model is based on three parties, the analysis result may be applied to propose device independent protocols based on the network environment. On the other side, the weak measurement model can be assumed to be controlled by the eavesdropper, thus our analysis model may be applied to analyze security of the device independent quantum information protocols.

2 Chain Inequality

Bell inequality was proposed to study the local reality theory, which demonstrates that the entanglement state measurement outcomes cannot be reproduced by the local hidden variable theory. Chain inequality is one significant type of the Bell inequality, which was proposed by Braunstein and Caves in 1988,[18] and it can be applied to propose the device independent quantum information protocols.

Chain inequality has two cooperate parties Alice and Bob, which links $n-$1 CHSH inequalities. More precisely, Alice and Bob have $n$ different measurement bases, which should be selected with true random numbers. The detailed Chain inequality can be given by

$ C(x_{1},y_{2})+C(y_{2},x_{3})+C(x_{3},y_{4})+\cdots +C(x_{N-1},y_{N}) \quad -C(y_{N},x_{1})\leq N-2\,, $

where $N=2n$, $x_{i}$, $y_{i}$, $i=1,2,\ldots,N$ are the measurement bases selected by Alice and Bob respectively. $$ C(x_i,y_j)=\langle a_ib_j\rangle=\sum\limits_{a_i,b_j} a_ib_jP(a_i,b_j)=\cos(2\theta), $$ where $a_i,b_j$ demonstrate Alice's and Bob's measurement outcomes respectively, $\theta$ is the included angle between $x_i$ and $y_i$. In this formulation, $\langle a_ib_j\rangle$ and $P(a_i,b_j)$ demonstrate the expectation value of $a_i,b_j$ and the probability when Alice measures $a_i$ and Bob measures $b_j$. By utilizing this inequality, the classical upper bound of Chain inequality is $N-2$, while the quantum bound is $N\cos({\pi}/{N})$. To analyze the Chain inequality violation, the $n$ measurement operators applied by Alice and Bob have the following type



where $\omega_{i}$, $i=1,3,\ldots, N-1$ are Alice's measurement operators when Alice's measurement bases selection are $x_i$, and Alice's measurement operators can be represented by $A_{x_i}^{a_i}$. Similarly, $i=2,4, \ldots, N$ are Bob's measurement operators when Bob's measurement bases selection are $y_i$, and Bob's measurement operators can be represented by $B_{y_i}^{b_i}$. Here $X=\sigma_{x}=$, $Y=\sigma_{y}=$, and $Z=\sigma_{z}=$ are Pauli operators. Specifically, if there are only four measurement bases (i.e. $N=2n=4$), Chain inequality is equal to the CHSH inequality.

3 Weak Measurement

Quantum weak measurement was proposed by Aharonov, Albert, and Vaidamn in 1988,[19] which was proven to be useful for signal amplification, state tomography, and solving quantum paradoxes.[20-24] Comparing with the projective measurement, quantum weak measurement only introduces small disturbance to quantum system and will not make quantum states collapse entirely. The detailed weak measurement model is demonstrated in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

New window|Download| PPT slide
Fig. 1(Color online) Operating procedure of weak measurement.



In the weak measurement model, $S$ generates the maximal entanglement state $\Psi_{AB}={(|01\rangle-|10\rangle)}/{\sqrt{2}}$ and sends the two particles to Alice and Bob respectively. After receiving the quantum state, Alice (Bob) selects measurement basis with the random number $x$ ($y$). The weak measurement model Charlie receives the quantum state and applies the operation $R_{z}|0\rangle=|\omega_{z}\rangle$, $R_{z}|1\rangle=|\omega_{z}^{\bot}\rangle$, where $|\omega_{z}\rangle$ and $|\omega_{z}^{\bot}\rangle$ are a new basis in the two-dimensional Hilbert space.

After receiving the quantum state $|1\rangle$, Charlie applies the following control operation $e^{i\varepsilon\sigma_{z}}$, where $\varepsilon$ is the weak measurement parameter. This process is equal to the operation that carries out collective measurement on the particle sent to Bob and Charlie's state $|+\rangle$, then Alice, Bob, and Charlie measure their quantum states to get the measurement outcomes. By considering Alice, Bob and Charlie as an integer system, the previous $R$ operation can be represented as

$ U_{1}=I\otimes R_{z}\otimes I\,. $

After the $R$ operation, the weak measurement operation $e^{i\varepsilon\sigma_{z}}$ can be represented as

$ U_{2}=I\otimes |0\rangle \langle0| \otimes I +I\otimes |1\rangle \langle1| \otimes e^{i\varepsilon\sigma_{z}}\,. $

Finally, the last operation can be represented as

$ U_{3}=I\otimes R_{z}^{+}\otimes I\,. $

Combining these three steps, we can get

$ \qquad U=U_{3}U_{2}U_{1} =I\otimes \pi_{B}^{+Z}\otimes I +I\otimes \pi_{B}^{-Z}\otimes e^{i \varepsilon \sigma_{z}}\,, $

where $\pi_{B}^{+Z}=|\omega_{z}\rangle\langle\omega_{z}|$ and $ \pi_{B}^{-Z}=|\omega_{z}^{\bot}\rangle\langle\omega_{z}^{\bot}|$.

The density matrix of the initial state about Alice, Bob and Charlie's quantum system can be given by $\rho_{ABC}=\rho_{AB}\otimes |+\rangle\langle+|_{C}$, where Alice and Bob's systems have no correlation with Charlie's system. The density matrix of Alice and Bob's system is $\rho_{AB}=({1}/{2})P(|0\rangle|1\rangle-|1\rangle|0\rangle)=({1}/{2})P(|\omega_{z}\rangle |\omega_{z}^{\bot}\rangle-|\omega_{z}^{\bot}\rangle|\omega_{z}\rangle)$ where $P|x\rangle=|x\rangle\langle x|$. After the corresponding quantum state evolution, the density matrix of Alice, Bob and Charlie's quantum system can be given by

$ \rho_{ABC}^{'}=U\rho_{ABC}U^{\dagger} =(I\otimes \pi_{B}^{+Z}\otimes I+I\otimes \pi_{B}^{-Z}\otimes e^{i \varepsilon \sigma_{z}})\rho_{ABC}(I\otimes \pi_{B}^{+Z} \otimes I+I\otimes \pi_{B}^{-Z}\otimes e^{i \varepsilon \sigma_{z}})^{\dagger}\,. $

4 Chain Inequality with Weak Measurement

After receiving the quantum state $\rho_{AB}$, Alice and Bob firstly calculate their own Bell inequality according to their measurement outcomes. Similarly, Alice and Charlie also can calculate their Bell inequality by receiving the quantum state $\rho_{AC}$. If the two Bell inequality values both violate classical upper bound, we can realize the double Bell inequality violation.

The number of measurement bases $N$ is determined by Alice and Bob, which have different Bell inequality values. Note that, the measurement bases selected by Charlie are equal to Bob's measurement bases selection, which can be represented by $C^{c}$, $c$ is Charlie's measurement outcome.

When applying the weak measurement model with the Chain inequality, we calculate the Chain inequality about Alice and Bob's systems to get the inequality value $I_{AB}$. Similarly, we can calculate the Chain inequality about Alice and Charlie's systems to get the inequality value $I_{AC}$. To calculate the Chain inequality value, we apply the following equation

$$ I _{AB}=C(x_{1},y_{2})+C(y_{2},x_{3})+C(x_{3},y_{4})+\cdots +C(x_{N-1},y_{N}) -C(y_{N},x_{1}) (C(x_i,y_j)=\sum\limits_{a_i,b_j} a_ib_jP(a_i,b_j|x_i,y_j)) $$

represents the Chain inequality value about Alice and Bob's quantum systems with input random number $x_i$ and $y_j$ and measurement outcomes $a_i$ and $b_j$.

$$ I _{AC}=C(x_{1},z_{2})+C(z_{2},x_{3})+C(x_{3},z_{4}) +\cdots+C(x_{N-1},z_{N}) -C(z_{N},x_{1}) (C(x_i,z_k)=\sum\limits_{a_i,c_k} a_ic_kP(a_i,c_k|x_i,z_k)) $$

represents the Chain inequality value about Alice and Charlie's quantum systems with input random number $x_i$ and $z_k$ and measurement outcomes $a_i$ and $c_k$.

To calculate the Chain inequality value, the conditional probabilities between Alice and Bob can be given by

$ \qquad P(a_ib_j|x_iy_j)=\sum\limits_{z_k}P(z_k) {\rm tr}(A_{x_i}^{a_i}B_{y_j}^{b_j}\rho_{AB}^{'}(z_k))\,. $

Correspondingly, the conditional probabilities between Alice and Charlie can be given by

$ P(a_ic_k|x_iz_k)={\rm tr}(A_{x_i}^{a_i}C^{c_k}\rho_{AC}^{'}(z_k))\,. $

The corresponding density matrices are $\rho_{AB}^{'}(z_k)={\rm tr}_{C}(\rho_{ABC}^{'})$ and $\rho_{AC}^{'}(z_k)={\rm tr}_{B}(\rho_{ABC}^{'})$. The main difficulty to estimate the Chain inequality is to calculate the conditional probabilities $P(a_ib_j|x_iy_j)$ and $P(a_ic_k|x_iz_k)$. The precise density matrix can be respectively given by

$ \rho_{ABC}^{'}=\pi_{B}^{+Z}\rho_{ABC}\pi_{B}^{+Z}+ \pi_{B}^{+Z}\rho_{ABC}\pi_{B}^{-Z}(e^{-i\varepsilon\sigma_{z}})_{C} +\pi_{B}^{-Z}(e^{i\varepsilon\sigma_{z}})\rho_{ABC}\pi_{B}^{+Z} +\pi_{B}^{-Z}(e^{i\varepsilon\sigma_{z}})\rho_{ABC}\pi_{B}^{-Z} \times(e^{-i\varepsilon\sigma_{z}})\,, $

then

$ \rho_{AB}^{'}(z_k)={\rm tr}_{C}(\rho_{ABC}^{'}) =\pi_{B}^{+Z}\rho_{AB}\pi_{B}^{+Z}+\pi_{B}^{+Z}\rho_{AB} \pi_{B}^{-Z}\cos \varepsilon +\pi_{B}^{-Z}\rho_{AB}\pi_{B}^{+Z}\cos \varepsilon +\pi_{B}^{-Z}\rho_{AB}\pi_{B}^{-Z} =\rho_{AB}\cos\varepsilon+(1-\cos\varepsilon)(\pi_{B}^{+Z} \rho_{AB}\pi_{B}^{+Z} +\pi_{B}^{-Z}\rho_{AB}\pi_{B}^{-Z})\,. $

Substituting Eq. (11) into Eq. (8),

$ P(a_ib_j|x_iy_j) =\sum\limits_{z_k}P(z_k){\rm tr}(A_{x_i}^{a_i}B_{y_j}^{b_j}\rho_{AB}^{'}(z_k)) =\sum\limits_{z_k}P(z_k){\rm tr}(|\mu_{x_i}^{a_i} \rangle\langle\mu_{x_i}^{a_i}||\theta_{y_j}^{b_j}\rangle\langle \theta_{y_j}^{b_j}|(\rho_{AB}\cos\varepsilon +(1-\cos\varepsilon)(\pi_{B}^{+Z}\rho_{AB}\pi_{B}^{+Z} +\pi_{B}^{-Z}\rho_{AB}\pi_{B}^{-Z}))) =\frac{1}{4}\sum\limits_{z_k}P(z_k)(\cos\varepsilon(1-a_ib_j (\mu_{x_i}\cdot\theta_{y_j})) +(1-\cos\varepsilon) (1-a_ib_j(\mu_{x_i}\cdot\eta_{z_k})(\theta_{y_j}\cdot\eta_{z_k})))\,. $

We assume that Alice, Bob and Charlie apply the optimal measurement to reach the upper bound value of the Chain inequality, the corresponding Pauli operators can be given by $\mu_{x_i}$, $\theta_{y_j}$, and $\eta_{z_k}$.

Then we have the Chain inequality value between Alice and Bob is

$ I_{AB}=\cos\frac{\pi}{N}((N-2)\cos\varepsilon+2)\,. $

Similarly, the Chain inequality value between Alice and Charlie is given by

$ I_{AC}=N\cos\frac{\pi}{N}\sin^{2}\varepsilon\,. $

Note that $\varepsilon=0$ indicates $I_{AB}=N\cos({\pi}/{N})$ and $I_{AC}=0$, which demonstrates that Charlie's quantum state has no interaction with Bob's system. In this case, only $I_{AB}$ violates the classical upper bound $N-2$. In the case of $\varepsilon={\pi}/{2}$, we can get $I_{AB}=2\cos{\pi}/{N}$ and $I_{AC}=N\cos{\pi}/{N}$, which demonstrates that only Charlie and Bob's system can violate the classical upper bound.

Figures 2, 3, and 4 illustrate the Chain inequality values $I_{AB}$ and $I_{AC}$ with different weak measurement parameters $\varepsilon$, where the blue line represents the Chain inequality value $I_{AB}$, the red line represents the Chain inequality value $I_{AC}$, the green curve represents the classical upper bound of different Chain inequalities.

Fig. 2

New window|Download| PPT slide
Fig. 2(Color online) Two measurement basis with $n$=2. The blue line represents the Chain inequality value $I_{AB}$, the red line represents the Chain inequality value $I_{AC}$, the green curve represents the classical upper bound of Chain inequalities.



Fig. 3

New window|Download| PPT slide
Fig. 3(Color online) Two measurement basis with $n$=3. The blue line represents the Chain inequality value $I_{AB}$, the red line represents the Chain inequality value $I_{AC}$, the green curve represents the classical upper bound of Chain inequalities.



Fig. 4

New window|Download| PPT slide
Fig. 4(Color online) Two measurement basis with $n$=4. The blue line represents the Chain inequality value $I_{AB}$, the red line represents the Chain inequality value $I_{AC}$, the green curve represents the classical upper bound of Chain inequalities.



We can figure out that the inequality values $I_{AB}$ and $I_{AC}$ can both violate the classical upper bound value in the case of $n=2$ with the appropriate weak measurement parameter. In the case of $n\geq3$, the Chain inequality can not realize the double classical upper bound violation. However, we can realize the inequality value $I_{AB}$ or $I_{AC}$ violate the classical upper bound with different weak measurement parameters. Thus our analysis model may be applied to analyze the device independent protocols with the network environment.

5 Conclusion

In conclusion, we propose the weak measurement model to analyze the Chain inequality, and the double inequality violation can be observed in the case of $n=2$. In the case of $n\geq3$, two different parties can respectively realize the Chain inequality violation with different weak measurement parameters. The analysis results demonstrate that weak measurement may have significant applications in multi observer quantum information theory. More precisely, our analysis model may be applied to analyze the device independent quantum information protocols in the network environment, which can be utilized to generate high efficiency device independent random numbers. On the other side, our analysis result also provides tremendous motivation for further experimental research.

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.


Reference By original order
By published year
By cited within times
By Impact factor

J. S. Bell , Physics (New York) 1(1964) 195.
[Cited within: 1]

J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shinomy, R. A. Holt , Phys. Rev. Lett. 23(1969) 880.
DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.880URL [Cited within: 1]

S. Pironio, A. Acín, S. Massar , et al., Nature (London) 464(2010) 1021.
DOI:10.1038/nature09008 [Cited within: 1]

A. Acín, N. Brunner , N. Gisin, et al., Phy. Rev. Lett. 98(2007) 230501.
DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.230501URLPMID:17677888 [Cited within: 1]
We present the optimal collective attack on a quantum key distribution protocol in the "device-independent" security scenario, where no assumptions are made about the way the quantum key distribution devices work or on what quantum system they operate. Our main result is a tight bound on the Holevo information between one of the authorized parties and the eavesdropper, as a function of the amount of violation of a Bell-type inequality.

R. Colbeck and R. Renner, Nature Phys. 10(2012) 1038.
[Cited within: 1]

R. Gallego, L. Masanes , G. De La Torre, et al., Nature Commun. 4(2012) 2654.


M. Herrero-Collantes and J.C. Garcia-Escartin, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89(2017) 015004.
DOI:10.1103/RevModPhys.89.015004URL

J. D. Bancal, L. Sheridan, V. Scarani , New J. Phys. 16(2014) 258.


M. J. W. Hall , Phys. Rev. A 84 (2011) 022102.
DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.84.022102URL

R. Colbeck and R. Renner, Nature Commun. 2(2011) 411.
[Cited within: 1]

O. Hosten and P. Kwiat , Science 319 (2008) 787.
[Cited within: 1]

P. B. Dixon, D. J. Starling, A. N. Jordan, J. C. Howell , Phys. Rev. Lett. 102(2009) 173601.
DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.173601URL [Cited within: 1]

M. J. Hu, Z. Y. Zhou, X. M. Hu , et al., arXiv:quant-ph/1609.01863, ( 2016).
[Cited within: 1]

M. Schiavon, L. Calderaro, M. Pittaluga , et al., Quant. Sci.Technol. 2(2017) 015010.
DOI:10.1088/2058-9565/aa62beURL
Bipartite Bell inequalities can be simultaneously violated by two different pairs of observers when weak measurements and signaling is employed. Here we experimentally demonstrate the violation of two simultaneous CHSH inequalities by exploiting a two-photon polarization maximally entangled state. Our results demonstrate that large double violation is experimentally achievable. Our demonstration may have impact for Quantum Key Distribution or certification of Quantum Random Number generators based on weak measurements.

R. Silva, N. Gisin, Y. Guryanova, S. Popescu , Phys. Rev. Lett. 114(2015) 250401.
DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.250401URL [Cited within: 1]
We investigate the trade-off between information gain and disturbance for von Neumann measurements on spin-1/2 particles, and derive the measurement pointer state that saturates this trade-off, which turns out to be highly unusual. We apply this result to the question of whether the nonlocality of a single particle from an entangled pair can be shared among multiple observers that act sequentially and independently of each other, and show that an arbitrarily long sequence of such observers can all violate the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt-Bell inequality.

H. W. Li, Y. S. Zhang, X. B. An , et al., Commun. Phys. 1(2018) 10.
DOI:10.1038/s42005-018-0011-xURL [Cited within: 1]

X. B. An, H. W. Li, M. J. Hu , et al., Opt. Lett. 43(2018) 14.
[Cited within: 1]

S. L . Braunstein and C. M.Caves, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61(1988) 662.
DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.61.662URL [Cited within: 1]

Y. Aharonov, D. Z. Albert, L. Vaidman , Phys. Rev. Lett. 60(1988) 1351.
DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.60.1351URL [Cited within: 1]

P. B. Dixon, D. J. Starling, A. N. Jordan, J. C. Howell , Phys. Rev. Lett. 102(2009) 173601.
DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.173601URL [Cited within: 1]

X. Y. Xu, Y. Kedem, K. Sun , et al., Phys. Rev.Lett. 111(2013) 033604.
DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.033604URLPMID:23909319
We report results of a high precision phase estimation based on a weak measurements scheme using commercial light-emitting diode. The method is based on a measurement of the imaginary part of the weak value of a polarization operator. The imaginary part of the weak value appeared due to the measurement interaction itself. The sensitivity of our method is equivalent to resolving light pulses of order of attosecond and it is robust against chromatic dispersion.

J. S. Lundeen, B. Sutherland, A. Patel , et al., Nature (London) 474(2011) 188.
DOI:10.1038/nature10120URLPMID:21654800
Abstract: Central to quantum theory, the wavefunction is the complex distribution used to completely describe a quantum system. Despite its fundamental role, it is typically introduced as an abstract element of the theory with no explicit definition. Rather, physicists come to a working understanding of the wavefunction through its use to calculate measurement outcome probabilities via the Born Rule. Presently, scientists determine the wavefunction through tomographic methods, which estimate the wavefunction that is most consistent with a diverse collection of measurements. The indirectness of these methods compounds the problem of defining the wavefunction. Here we show that the wavefunction can be measured directly by the sequential measurement of two complementary variables of the system. The crux of our method is that the first measurement is performed in a gentle way (i.e. weak measurement) so as not to invalidate the second. The result is that the real and imaginary components of the wavefunction appear directly on our measurement apparatus. We give an experimental example by directly measuring the transverse spatial wavefunction of a single photon, a task not previously realized by any method. We show that the concept is universal, being applicable both to other degrees of freedom of the photon (e.g. polarization, frequency, etc.) and to other quantum systems (e.g. electron spin-z quantum state, SQUIDs, trapped ions, etc.). Consequently, this method gives the wavefunction a straightforward and general definition in terms of a specific set of experimental operations. We expect it to expand the range of quantum systems scientists are able to characterize and initiate new avenues to understand fundamental quantum theory.

J. S . Lundeen and C. Bamber, Phys.Rev. Lett. 108(2012) 070402.
DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.070402URLPMID:22401180
Abstract Recent work by Lundeen et al. [Nature (London) 474, 188 (2011)] directly measured the wave function by weakly measuring a variable followed by a normal (i.e., "strong") measurement of the complementary variable. We generalize this method to mixed states by considering the weak measurement of various products of these observables, thereby providing the density matrix an operational definition in terms of a procedure for its direct measurement. The method only requires measurements in two bases and can be performed in situ, determining the quantum state without destroying it.

Y. Aharonov, A. Botero, S. Popescu , et al., Phys. Lett. A 301 (2002) 130.
DOI:10.1016/S0375-9601(02)00986-6URL [Cited within: 1]
Hardy's paradox is revisited. Usually the paradox is dismissed on grounds of counterfactuality, i.e., because the paradoxical effects appear only when one considers results of experiments which do not actually take place. We suggest a new set of measurements in connection with Hardy's scheme, and show that when they are actually performed, they yield strange and surprising outcomes. More generally, we claim that counterfactual paradoxes point to a deeper structure inherent to quantum mechanics.
闂傚倸鍊搁崐鐑芥嚄閸撲礁鍨濇い鏍仜缁€澶嬩繆閵堝懏鍣圭紒鐘靛█閺岀喖骞戦幇闈涙闂佸憡淇洪~澶愬Φ閸曨垰妫橀柛顭戝枓閹稿啴姊洪崨濠庢畷鐎光偓閹间礁绠栨俊銈呮噺閺呮煡骞栫€涙ḿ绠橀柣鈺佹捣缁辨挻鎷呮搴ょ獥闂侀潻缍囩紞浣割嚕婵犳碍鍋勯柣鎾虫捣椤ρ囨⒑閸忚偐銈撮柡鍛箞閹繝宕掗悙绮规嫼缂備礁顑堝▔鏇㈡倿閸ф鐓欓柛鎴欏€栫€氾拷2婵犵數濮烽弫鎼佸磻閻愬搫鍨傞柛顐f礀缁犳壆绱掔€n偓绱╂繛宸簻鎯熼梺鍐叉惈椤戝洨绮欒箛娑欌拺闁革富鍘奸崝瀣亜閵娿儲顥㈢€规洜鏁婚崺鈧い鎺戝閳锋垿鏌涘☉姗堝伐濠殿噯绠戦湁婵犲﹤鎳庢禒杈┾偓瑙勬礃濡炰粙寮幘缁樺亹鐎规洖娲ら獮妤呮⒒娓氣偓濞佳呮崲閸儱纾归柡宓偓濡插牏鎲搁弮鍫濊摕闁挎繂顦悞娲煕閹板吀绨奸柛锝勫嵆濮婅櫣鎷犻垾铏闂佹悶鍎滈崶褎鏆梻鍌欑劍鐎笛呮崲閸屾娲閵堝懐锛涢梺鍦劋椤ㄥ棝鍩涢幋锔界厱婵犻潧妫楅鈺呮煃瑜滈崜娆戠礊婵犲洤绠栭梺鍨儐缂嶅洭鏌嶉崫鍕簽婵炶偐鍠栧铏规崉閵娿儲鐝㈤梺鐟板殩閹凤拷
婵犵數濮烽弫鍛婃叏娴兼潙鍨傜憸鐗堝笚閸嬪鏌曡箛瀣偓鏇㈡倷婵犲嫭鍠愮€广儱妫欓崣蹇涙煏閸繍妲归柍閿嬪灴閺屾稑鈽夊鍫濅紣缂備焦顨嗙敮妤佺┍婵犲浂鏁冮柨婵嗘处閸掓稑顪冮妶鍐ㄧ仾婵☆偄鍟幈銊╁焵椤掑嫭鐓忛柛顐g箖閿涘秵淇婇銏狀伃闁哄矉绲鹃幆鏃堫敍濠婂憛锝夋⒑閸濄儱校闁绘濮撮悾鐑藉閵堝懐顔掑銈嗘⒒閺咁偊宕㈤幖浣光拺闁告稑锕ョ粈瀣箾娴e啿娲﹂崐鍫曟煥濠靛棙顥撳ù婊勭矒閺岀喓鈧稒岣跨粻鏍ь熆鐠哄搫顏紒杈ㄥ笧閳ь剨缍嗘禍璺何熼埀顒勬⒑缁洘鏉归柛瀣尭椤啴濡堕崱妤€娼戦梺绋款儐閹瑰洭寮诲鍥ㄥ珰闁哄被鍎卞鏉库攽閿熺姷鐣哄ù婊冪埣瀵顓奸崼顐n€囬梻浣告啞閹稿鎮烽埡浣烘殾妞ゆ牗绋戦閬嶆倵濞戞顏呯椤栨埃鏀介柣鎰级閳绘洖霉濠婂嫮绠炵€殿喗鐓¢、妤呭礋椤掆偓閳ь剙鐖奸弻锝夊箛椤旇姤姣勯梺纭呮閸婂潡寮诲☉銏犖ч柛銉仢閵忋倖顥嗗璺侯儑缁♀偓婵犵數濮撮崐鎼佸汲閿濆棎浜滈幖娣焺濞堟洟鏌曢崶褍顏柛鈺冨仱椤㈡﹢鎮欏顔荤棯濠电姵顔栭崹閬嶅箰閹惰棄钃熼柨鐔哄Т閻愬﹪鏌嶆潪鎵妽闁诲繋绶氬娲川婵犲嫭鍠涢梺绋款儐閹瑰洤顫忕紒妯诲闁告縿鍎虫婵犵數鍋橀崠鐘诲幢閹邦亝鐫忛梻浣虹帛閸旀寮崫銉т笉闁哄啫鐗婇悡娆撴煙椤栧棗鑻▓鍫曟⒑瀹曞洨甯涙慨濠傜秺楠炲牓濡搁妷搴e枔閹风娀骞撻幒婵囨祰闂傚倷鐒﹂幃鍫曞磹瑜忕划濠氬箻鐠囪尪鎽曢梺缁樻濞咃綁鎯屽▎鎾寸厵缂佸鐏濋銏ゆ煙椤旂晫鎳囨慨濠勫劋鐎电厧鈻庨幋鐘樻粎绱撴担鍝勑i柣妤佹礋椤㈡岸鏁愭径妯绘櫇闂佸啿鐏堥弲婊堟倵婵犳碍鈷戠憸鐗堝笒娴滀即鏌涘Ο鍝勨挃缂侇喗鐟╁畷鐔碱敍濞戞帗瀚奸梻浣告贡鏋繛瀵稿厴閸┿儲寰勯幇顓犲幐闂佸壊鍋掗崑鍕櫠鐎电硶鍋撶憴鍕缂傚秴锕ユ穱濠傤潰瀹€濠冃┑鐘愁問閸ㄤ即濡堕幖浣歌摕婵炴垶菤濡插牊鎱ㄥΔ鈧悧濠囧极閸撗呯=濞达絽鎼牎闁汇埄鍨抽崑銈夊春閳ь剚銇勯幒鍡椾壕闂佽绻戦懝楣冣€﹂崹顕呮建闁逞屽墴楠炲啳顦圭€规洖宕湁闁哄瀵ч崰妯尖偓瑙勬礈鏋摶鏍归敐澶嬫珳闁汇儺浜缁樻媴娓氼垱鏁梺瑙勬た娴滎亜顫忔禒瀣妞ゆ牗绋掑▍鏍⒑閸濆嫮鈻夐柛妯圭矙閹ょ疀濞戞瑧鍘遍梺鏂ユ櫅閸燁垳绮堥埀顒€顪冮妶蹇曞矝闁哄棙绔糴婵犵數濮烽弫鍛婃叏娴兼潙鍨傞柛锔诲幘缁€濠傗攽閻樺弶鎼愰柣鎺戠仛閵囧嫰骞掑鍫濆帯闂佹剚鍨卞ú鐔煎蓟閺囥垹骞㈡俊銈傚亾闁哄棴缍侀弻锛勪沪閸撗勫垱濡ょ姷鍋炵敮锟犵嵁鐎n喗鍊婚柛鈩冿供濡冣攽閿涘嫬浜奸柛濠冪墱閺侇噣鎮欓崫鍕崶闂佸綊鍋婇崰姘舵儗濞嗗繆鏀介柣妯哄级婢跺嫰鏌涚€n偄濮嶉柡宀嬬秮婵偓闁靛繆鍓濆В鍕煛娴e摜澧︽慨濠勭帛閹峰懐绮欓幐搴♀偓顖氣攽閻橆喖鐏柨鏇樺灩閻g兘顢涘☉姗嗗殼闁诲孩绋掗敋濞存粠鍨跺娲川婵犲嫮鐣垫繝娈垮灥妞存悂骞嗛弮鍫濐潊闁挎稑瀚倴濠碉紕鍋戦崐鏍礉濡ゅ懎绐楅幖娣灮椤╂彃螖閿濆懎鏆為柣鎾寸洴閺屾盯濡烽敐鍛瀴闂佹眹鍔嶉崹鍧楀蓟閿濆鍋勯柛娆忣槹閻濇棃姊虹€圭姵顥夋い锔炬暬閻涱喖螣閼测晝顦╅梺缁樏畷顒勵敆閵忊€茬箚闁绘劦浜滈埀顒佺墪鐓ゆ繝闈涙閺嬪秹鏌¢崶鈺佷憾缂傚倹宀搁悡顐﹀炊閵娧€妲堥悗鐟版啞缁诲啴濡甸崟顖氱婵°倐鍋撻柛鐕佸灦椤㈡瑩鏁撻敓锟�20濠电姴鐥夐弶搴撳亾濡や焦鍙忛柣鎴f绾惧鏌eΟ娆惧殭缂佺姴鐏氶妵鍕疀閹炬惌妫″銈庡亝濞叉ḿ鎹㈠┑瀣棃婵炴垵宕崜鎵磽娴e搫校闁搞劌娼″濠氬Χ閸℃ê寮块梺褰掑亰閸忔﹢宕戦幘婢勬棃鍩€椤掑嫬鐓濋柡鍐ㄧ墕椤懘鏌eΟ鐑橆棤闁硅櫕鎹囬妶顏呭閺夋垹顦ㄩ梺鍐叉惈閿曘儵鏁嶉崨顖滅=闁稿本鐟чˇ锔姐亜閿旇鐏︽い銏″哺椤㈡﹢濮€閻橀潧濮︽俊鐐€栧濠氬磻閹惧绡€闁逞屽墴閺屽棗顓奸崨顖ょ幢闂備胶绮濠氬储瑜斿鍛婄瑹閳ь剟寮婚弴銏犻唶婵犲灚鍔栨晥闂備胶枪妤犲摜绮旇ぐ鎺戣摕婵炴垯鍨归崡鎶芥煏婵炲灝鍔氭い顐熸櫊濮婄儤瀵煎▎鎴犳殸缂傚倸绉撮敃顏堢嵁閸愩剮鏃堝礃閳轰焦鐎梻浣告啞濞诧箓宕f惔銊ユ辈闁跨喓濮甸埛鎴︽煕濠靛棗顏い銉﹀灴閺屾稓鈧綆鍋呭畷灞炬叏婵犲啯銇濈€规洦鍋婂畷鐔煎垂椤愬诞鍥ㄢ拺闁告稑锕ラ埛鎰版煟濡ゅ啫鈻堟鐐插暣閺佹捇鎮╅搹顐g彨闂備礁鎲″ú锕傚礈濞嗘挻鍋熷ù鐓庣摠閳锋垿姊婚崼鐔恒€掔紒鐘冲哺閺屾盯骞樼€靛摜鐤勯梺璇″枓閳ь剚鏋奸弸搴ㄦ煙闁箑鏋ゆい鏃€娲樼换婵嬪閿濆棛銆愬銈嗗灥濡稓鍒掗崼銉ョ劦妞ゆ帒瀚崐鍨箾閸繄浠㈡繛鍛Ч閺岋繝鍩€椤掑嫬纭€闁绘垵妫楀▓顐︽⒑閸涘﹥澶勯柛瀣浮瀹曘儳鈧綆鍠楅悡鏇㈡煛閸ャ儱濡兼鐐瓷戞穱濠囧矗婢跺﹦浼屽┑顔硷攻濡炶棄鐣烽锕€绀嬫い鎰枎娴滄儳霉閻樺樊鍎滅紓宥嗙墪椤法鎹勯悜妯绘嫳闂佺ǹ绻戠划鎾诲蓟濞戙埄鏁冮柨婵嗘椤︺劑姊洪崫鍕闁告挾鍠栭獮鍐潨閳ь剟骞冨▎鎾搭棃婵炴垶顨呴ˉ姘辩磽閸屾瑨鍏屽┑顔炬暩閺侇噣鍨鹃幇浣圭稁婵犵數濮甸懝楣冩倷婵犲洦鐓ユ繝闈涙閸gǹ顭跨憴鍕婵﹥妞介幊锟犲Χ閸涱喚鈧儳鈹戦悙鎻掔骇闁搞劌娼¢獮濠偽旈崘鈺佺/闁荤偞绋堥崜婵嬫倶娓氣偓濮婅櫣娑甸崨顔兼锭闂傚倸瀚€氭澘鐣烽弴銏犵闁挎棁妫勯埀顒傛暬閺屻劌鈹戦崱娑扁偓妤侇殽閻愮榿缂氱紒杈ㄥ浮閹晛鐣烽崶褉鎷伴梻浣告惈婢跺洭宕滃┑鍡╁殫闁告洦鍋€濡插牊绻涢崱妤佺濞寸》鎷�
相关话题/Chain Inequality Violation