Observers of quantum systems cannot agree to disagree

Is the world quantum? An active research line in quantum foundations is devoted to exploring what constraints can rule out the postquantum theories that are consistent with experimentally observed results. We explore this question in the context of epistemics, and ask whether agreement between observers can serve as a physical principle that must hold for any theory of the world. Aumann’s seminal Agreement Theorem states that two observers (of classical systems) cannot agree to disagree. We propose an extension of this theorem to no-signaling settings. In particular, we establish an Agreement Theorem for observers of quantum systems, while we construct examples of (postquantum) no-signaling boxes where observers can agree to disagree. The PR box is an extremal instance of this phenomenon. These results make it plausible that agreement between observers might be a physical principle, while they also establish links between the fields of epistemics and quantum information that seem worthy of further exploration.

Experimental test of the Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger-type paradoxes in and beyond graph states

The Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger (GHZ) paradox is an exquisite no-go theorem that shows the sharp contradiction between classical theory and quantum mechanics by ruling out any local realistic description of quantum theory. The investigation of GHZ-type paradoxes has been carried out in a variety of systems and led to fruitful discoveries. However, its range of applicability still remains unknown and a unified construction is yet to be discovered. In this work, we present a unified construction of GHZ-type paradoxes for graph states, and show that the existence of GHZ-type paradox is not limited to graph states. The results have important applications in quantum state verification for graph states, entanglement detection, and construction of GHZ-type steering paradox for mixed states. We perform a photonic experiment to test the GHZ-type paradoxes via measuring the success probability of their corresponding perfect Hardy-type paradoxes, and demonstrate the proposed applications. Our work deepens the comprehension of quantum paradoxes in quantum foundations, and may have applications in a broad spectrum of quantum information tasks.

The ABC of Deutsch–Hayden Descriptors

It has been more than 20 years since Deutsch and Hayden proved the locality of quantum theory, using the Heisenberg picture of quantum computational networks. Of course, locality holds even in the face of entanglement and Bell’s theorem. Today, most researchers in quantum foundations are still convinced not only that a local description of quantum systems has not yet been provided, but that it cannot exist. The main goal of this paper is to address this misconception by re-explaining the descriptor formalism in a hopefully accessible and self-contained way. It is a step-by-step guide to how and why descriptors work. Finally, superdense coding is revisited in the light of descriptors.

Quantum postulate vs. quantum nonlocality: on the role of the Planck constant in Bell’s argument

We present a quantum mechanical (QM) analysis of Bell’s approach to quantum foundations based on his hidden-variable model. We claim and try to justify that the Bell model contradicts to the Heinsenberg’s uncertainty and Bohr’s complementarity principles. The aim of this note is to point to the physical seed of the aforementioned principles. This is the Bohr’s quantum postulate: the existence of indivisible quantum of action given by the Planck constant h. By contradicting these basic principles of QM, Bell’s model implies rejection of this postulate as well. Thus, this hidden-variable model contradicts not only the QM-formalism, but also the fundamental feature of the quantum world discovered by Planck.

Husserl, the mathematization of nature, and the informational reconstruction of quantum theory

As is well known, the late Husserl warned against the dangers of reifying and objectifying the mathematical models that operate at the heart of our physical theories. Although Husserl’s worries were mainly directed at Galilean physics, the first aim of our paper is to show that many of his critical arguments are no less relevant today. By addressing the formalism and current interpretations of quantum theory, we illustrate how topics surrounding the mathematization of nature come to the fore naturally. Our second aim is to consider the program of reconstructing quantum theory, a program that currently enjoys popularity in the field of quantum foundations. We will conclude by arguing that, seen from this vantage point, certain insights delivered by phenomenology and quantum theory regarding perspectivity are remarkably concordant. Our overall hope with this paper is to show that there is much room for mutual learning between phenomenology and modern physics.

Can There be Given Any Meaning to Contextuality Without Incompatibility?

Our aim is to compare the fundamental notions of quantum physics - contextuality vs. incompatibility. One has to distinguish two different notions of contextuality, Bohr-contextuality and Bell-contextuality. The latter is defined operationally via violation of noncontextuality (Bell type) inequalities. This sort of contextuality will be compared with incompatibility. It is easy to show that, for quantum observables, there is no contextuality without incompatibility. The natural question arises: What is contextuality without incompatibility? (What is “dry-residue”?) Generally this is the very complex question. We concentrated on contextuality for four quantum observables. We shown that, for “natural quantum observables” , contextuality is reduced to incompatibility. But, generally contextuality without incompatibility may have some physical content. We found a mathematical constraint extracting the contextuality component from incompatibility. However, the physical meaning of this constraint is not clear. In Appendix 1, we briefly discuss another sort of contextuality based on Bohr’s contextuality-incompatibility principle. Bohr-contextuality plays the crucial role in quantum foundations. Incompatibility is, in fact, a consequence of Bohr-contextuality. Finally, we remark that outside of physics, e.g., in cognitive psychology and decision making Bell-contextuality distilled of incompatibility can play the important role.