A. Peres constructed an example of particles entangled in the state of spin singlet. He claimed to have obtained the CHSH inequality and concluded that the violation of this inequality shows that in a measurement in w...A. Peres constructed an example of particles entangled in the state of spin singlet. He claimed to have obtained the CHSH inequality and concluded that the violation of this inequality shows that in a measurement in which some variables are tested, other variables, not tested, have no defined value. In the present paper is proved that the correct conclusion of the violation of the CHSH inequality is different. It is proved that the classical calculus of probabilities of test results, obeying the Kolmogorov axioms, is unfit for the quantum formalism, dominated by probability amplitudes.展开更多
In this paper, we report the observation and characterisation of a systematic error in the implementation of <em>U</em><sub>3</sub> gates in the IBM quantum computers. By measuring the effect o...In this paper, we report the observation and characterisation of a systematic error in the implementation of <em>U</em><sub>3</sub> gates in the IBM quantum computers. By measuring the effect of this gate for various rotation angles the error appears as an over-rotation, whose magnitude does not correlate with IBM’s cited errors calculated using Clifford randomized benchmarking. We propose a simple mitigation procedure to limit the effects of this error. We show that using a simple mitigation strategy one can obtain improved results in the observed value for the CHSH inequality, measured in a cloud-based quantum computer. This work highlights the utility of simple mitigation strategies for short-depth quantum circuits.展开更多
This paper intends to show how the fabled violation of Bell’s inequality by the probabilistic specifications of quantum mechanics derives from a mathematical error, an error of neglect. I have no objection to the pro...This paper intends to show how the fabled violation of Bell’s inequality by the probabilistic specifications of quantum mechanics derives from a mathematical error, an error of neglect. I have no objection to the probabilities specified by quantum theory, nor to the inequality itself as characterized in the formulation of Clauser, Horne, Shimony, and Holt. Designed to assess consequences of Einstein’s principle of local realism, the inequality pertains to a linear combination of four polarization products <em>on the same pair of photons</em> arising in a gedankenexperiment. My assessment displays that in this context, the summands of the relevant CHSH quantity<em> s</em>(<span style="white-space:nowrap;"><em>λ</em></span>) inhere four symmetric functional relations which have long been neglected in analytic considerations. Its expectation E[<em style="white-space:normal;">s</em><span style="white-space:normal;">(</span><em>λ</em><span style="white-space:normal;">)</span>] is not the sum of four “marginal” expectations from a joint distribution, as quantum theory explicitly avoids such a specification. Rather, I show that <span style="white-space:normal;">E[</span><em style="white-space:normal;">s</em><span style="white-space:normal;">(</span><em style="white-space:normal;">λ</em><span style="white-space:normal;">)</span><span style="white-space:normal;">]</span> has four distinct representations as the sum of <em>three</em> expectations of polarization products plus the expectation of a fourth which is restricted to equal a function value determined by the other three. Analysis using Bruno de Finetti’s fundamental theorem of prevision (FTP) yields only a bound for <em>E</em>(<em>s</em>) within <span style="white-space:nowrap;">(1.1213,2]</span> , surely not <img src="Edit_91a32f90-4b68-4415-98bc-3819733feca8.png" alt="" />at all as is commonly understood. I exhibit slices of the 4-dimensional polytope of joint<em> P</em><sub>++</sub> probabilities actually motivated by quantum theory at the four stipulated angle settings, as it passes through 3-dimensional space. Bell’s inequality is satisfied everywhere within the convex hull of extreme distributions cohering with quantum theoretic specifications, even while in keeping with local realism. Aspect’s proposed “estimation” of <em>E</em>(<em>s</em>) near to <img src="Edit_91a32f90-4b68-4415-98bc-3819733feca8.png" alt="" style="white-space:normal;" />is based on polarization products from different photon pairs that do not have embedded within them the functional relations inhering in the relevant gedankenexperiment. When one actively embeds the restrictions into Aspect’s estimation procedure, it yields an estimate of 1.7667, although this is not and cannot be definitive. While my analysis supports the subjectivist construction of probability as clarifying issues relevant to the interpretation of quantum theory, the error resolved herein is purely mathematical. It pertains to the reconsideration of Bell violation irrespective of one’s attitude toward the meaning of probability.展开更多
文摘A. Peres constructed an example of particles entangled in the state of spin singlet. He claimed to have obtained the CHSH inequality and concluded that the violation of this inequality shows that in a measurement in which some variables are tested, other variables, not tested, have no defined value. In the present paper is proved that the correct conclusion of the violation of the CHSH inequality is different. It is proved that the classical calculus of probabilities of test results, obeying the Kolmogorov axioms, is unfit for the quantum formalism, dominated by probability amplitudes.
文摘In this paper, we report the observation and characterisation of a systematic error in the implementation of <em>U</em><sub>3</sub> gates in the IBM quantum computers. By measuring the effect of this gate for various rotation angles the error appears as an over-rotation, whose magnitude does not correlate with IBM’s cited errors calculated using Clifford randomized benchmarking. We propose a simple mitigation procedure to limit the effects of this error. We show that using a simple mitigation strategy one can obtain improved results in the observed value for the CHSH inequality, measured in a cloud-based quantum computer. This work highlights the utility of simple mitigation strategies for short-depth quantum circuits.
文摘This paper intends to show how the fabled violation of Bell’s inequality by the probabilistic specifications of quantum mechanics derives from a mathematical error, an error of neglect. I have no objection to the probabilities specified by quantum theory, nor to the inequality itself as characterized in the formulation of Clauser, Horne, Shimony, and Holt. Designed to assess consequences of Einstein’s principle of local realism, the inequality pertains to a linear combination of four polarization products <em>on the same pair of photons</em> arising in a gedankenexperiment. My assessment displays that in this context, the summands of the relevant CHSH quantity<em> s</em>(<span style="white-space:nowrap;"><em>λ</em></span>) inhere four symmetric functional relations which have long been neglected in analytic considerations. Its expectation E[<em style="white-space:normal;">s</em><span style="white-space:normal;">(</span><em>λ</em><span style="white-space:normal;">)</span>] is not the sum of four “marginal” expectations from a joint distribution, as quantum theory explicitly avoids such a specification. Rather, I show that <span style="white-space:normal;">E[</span><em style="white-space:normal;">s</em><span style="white-space:normal;">(</span><em style="white-space:normal;">λ</em><span style="white-space:normal;">)</span><span style="white-space:normal;">]</span> has four distinct representations as the sum of <em>three</em> expectations of polarization products plus the expectation of a fourth which is restricted to equal a function value determined by the other three. Analysis using Bruno de Finetti’s fundamental theorem of prevision (FTP) yields only a bound for <em>E</em>(<em>s</em>) within <span style="white-space:nowrap;">(1.1213,2]</span> , surely not <img src="Edit_91a32f90-4b68-4415-98bc-3819733feca8.png" alt="" />at all as is commonly understood. I exhibit slices of the 4-dimensional polytope of joint<em> P</em><sub>++</sub> probabilities actually motivated by quantum theory at the four stipulated angle settings, as it passes through 3-dimensional space. Bell’s inequality is satisfied everywhere within the convex hull of extreme distributions cohering with quantum theoretic specifications, even while in keeping with local realism. Aspect’s proposed “estimation” of <em>E</em>(<em>s</em>) near to <img src="Edit_91a32f90-4b68-4415-98bc-3819733feca8.png" alt="" style="white-space:normal;" />is based on polarization products from different photon pairs that do not have embedded within them the functional relations inhering in the relevant gedankenexperiment. When one actively embeds the restrictions into Aspect’s estimation procedure, it yields an estimate of 1.7667, although this is not and cannot be definitive. While my analysis supports the subjectivist construction of probability as clarifying issues relevant to the interpretation of quantum theory, the error resolved herein is purely mathematical. It pertains to the reconsideration of Bell violation irrespective of one’s attitude toward the meaning of probability.