1480 Words6 Pages

\chapter{The Leggett-Garg Inequalities}
Consider a system characterized by a dichotomous observable, which assumes values $\pm1$.
Leggett-Garg inequalities (from now on LGI) set constrains on the value accessible to the two-times correlations functions $C_{ij}= \langle Q_{i}Q_{j} \rangle$, obtain measuring it at $t_{i}$ and $t_{j}$. The simplest of them is:
\begin{equation}\label{LGI}
-3 \leq K \leq 1
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{K}
K=C_{12}+C_{23}-C_{31}
\end{equation}
This inequality is the focus of this chapter. Sections 2.1 is dedicated to the two assumptions required to obtain the inequality, a proof of (\ref{LGI}) is given.
In section 2.2 I examine under which conditions a violation of (\ref{LGI}) can be observed, particular*…show more content…*

This observation leads to the clumsiness loophole (see section 2.2). \subsection{Correlation Functions} These assumptions lead to some properties of correlation functions $C_{ij}$, essential for the proof of (\ref{LGI}). Consider firstly their definition: Where $Q_{i}$ is the value of a dichotomous observable measured at time $t_{i}$, and the joint probabilities are obtained repeating the experiment. Postulate 1 provides that Q(t) is a well defined quantity for every time t, even for times different from $t_{i}$ and $t_{j}$. Thus it is possible to define a three-time probability and to obtain $P_{ij}(Q_{i},Q_{j})$ as its marginal, for notation simplicity set $i=1$ and $j=2$. Where the subscript $12$ specifies at which times the measurements are actually carried out. Because of what I have just said $P_{12}(Q_{1},Q_{2},Q_{3})$ is well defined and the other joint probabilities can be found as marginals of similar distributions. Postulate 2 provides that all these three-times probabilities are the same, the choice of (i,j) is irrelevant since the measurements don't influence the*…show more content…*

Kofler and Brukner have proven that this is indeed the case for any nontrivial time independent Hamiltonian \cite{kofler2008conditions}, in the next section I report the explicit proof. \section{LGI violation} Firstly note that in eq. (\ref{LGI}) just the upper bound is of interest, considering that we are summing three quantities bound in module to unity: Consider a general quantum system characterized by a set of energy eigenstate ${ \{ \ket{u_{i}}\}}$. The proof is effective for any initial state different from an eigenstate of \textbf{H}, for simplicity consider: This\footnote{Note that the ensemble of eigenvectors don't need to be restricted to these two values.} is assumed to be the result of the first measure (at time $t_{0}$), whom is assigned the eigenvalue +1, for every other state the eigenvalue is set to -1. The dichotomic observable is then

This observation leads to the clumsiness loophole (see section 2.2). \subsection{Correlation Functions} These assumptions lead to some properties of correlation functions $C_{ij}$, essential for the proof of (\ref{LGI}). Consider firstly their definition: Where $Q_{i}$ is the value of a dichotomous observable measured at time $t_{i}$, and the joint probabilities are obtained repeating the experiment. Postulate 1 provides that Q(t) is a well defined quantity for every time t, even for times different from $t_{i}$ and $t_{j}$. Thus it is possible to define a three-time probability and to obtain $P_{ij}(Q_{i},Q_{j})$ as its marginal, for notation simplicity set $i=1$ and $j=2$. Where the subscript $12$ specifies at which times the measurements are actually carried out. Because of what I have just said $P_{12}(Q_{1},Q_{2},Q_{3})$ is well defined and the other joint probabilities can be found as marginals of similar distributions. Postulate 2 provides that all these three-times probabilities are the same, the choice of (i,j) is irrelevant since the measurements don't influence the

Kofler and Brukner have proven that this is indeed the case for any nontrivial time independent Hamiltonian \cite{kofler2008conditions}, in the next section I report the explicit proof. \section{LGI violation} Firstly note that in eq. (\ref{LGI}) just the upper bound is of interest, considering that we are summing three quantities bound in module to unity: Consider a general quantum system characterized by a set of energy eigenstate ${ \{ \ket{u_{i}}\}}$. The proof is effective for any initial state different from an eigenstate of \textbf{H}, for simplicity consider: This\footnote{Note that the ensemble of eigenvectors don't need to be restricted to these two values.} is assumed to be the result of the first measure (at time $t_{0}$), whom is assigned the eigenvalue +1, for every other state the eigenvalue is set to -1. The dichotomic observable is then

Related

## Monty Hall Problem

2503 Words | 11 PagesThe probability of the Monty hall problem can be calculated with the use of Bayes Theorem (Bayes). Before I do however, let me first show how the theorem is deduced, which will also give an understanding of what it is. First it starts with the basic equation of conditional probability. P(A∩B)=P(B)∙P(A│B). The conditional probability of both event A and B happening is calculated by the probability of the event B multiplied by the probability of event A given event B happens.

## Chromium Removal Lab Report

1471 Words | 6 PagesTo model the adsorption behavior two set of adsorption studies were studied and their correlation with the experimental data was assessed. This includes the Freundlich and Langmuir isotherms, which are the earliest and simplest known relationships describing the adsorption equation. 6.6.1 LANGMUIR ISOTHERM Langmuir isotherm equation in linear form can be shown as Ce/qe = 1/bqm +Ce/qm Where ,b and qm are constants related to the apparent energy of adsorption and the adsorption capacity, respectively qe → the amount adsorbed per unit mass of the adsorbent (mg/g) with an equilibrium concentration of Ce (mg/ L ). A plot of (Ce /qe) vs. Ce was linear (graph 6.9) and the constants qm and b were determined from the slope and intercept of the plot. The correlation coefficient obtained with the Langmuir equation was high, which indicated a good fit between the parameters.

## Chaos Theory Case Study

3050 Words | 13 PagesThis hypothesis testing uses the test statistics in which mechanism is based on the correlation integrals. The BDS test is a powerful tool for detecting serial dependence in time series. It tests the null hypothesis of independent and identically distributed (I.I.D.) against an unspecified alternative. The null and alternative hypothesis is as follows: H0:The data are independently and identically distributed (I.I.D.).

## Theoretical Chemistry Essay

748 Words | 3 PagesThe ground state energy may be found by searching all possible wavefunctions for the one that minimizes the total energy. Hartree-Fock theory consists the structure of ψ and it is assumed to be an antisymmetric product of functions (fi) each of which depends on the coordinates of a single electron, that is; where det indicates a Slater determinant.11,12 Substitution of ψ into the Schrödinger equation results in an expression for the Hartree Fock

## Math 1280 Unit 4 Assignment

1600 Words | 7 PagesThen I find the middle location of all data in the upper half of the data rightward of the median (2.8) to get the third quartile (Q3). Then the difference between Q3 and Q1 is the interquartile range, the below-depicted image will demonstrate my approach ………………………………………………… Task 4 What is the formula for calculating the interquartile range? Solution to Task 4 The formula is IQR = Q3 – Q1 A short description of solution 4: According to Yakir(2011), “The inter-quartile range is the distance between the third Quartile (Q3) and the first quartile (Q1), i.e., IQR = Q3 - Q1” (p.

## Quantum Physics: Energy Levels Of Hydrogen Atoms

1807 Words | 8 PagesFor n =2, there are two values allowed for l. The possible values of l are l=0 and l=1because this energy level is above the wells of l=0 and l=1and below l=2 (green) and l=3 (violet). In other words, there is only one possible orbital (1s) for the first energy level (n=1)). The existence of other superior orbitals (1p,1d,etc) is forbidden by the fact that their energy wells (in which they lie) are above the n=1n=1 energy. Figure 1: Sketch where n = 1 PART C: Sketch just the l = 0 effective potential. Add the locations of the n = 1,2,3 energy levels to your sketch.

## Probability Distribution Case Study

1603 Words | 7 PagesFor continuous random variables, the probability function is denoted f(x) and called the probability density function. Properties of discrete random variable: A probability function has two key properties: 0 ≤ p(x) ≤ 1, because probability is a number between 0 and 1 The sum of the properties p(x) over all values of X equals 1. If we add up the probabilities of all the distinct possible outcomes of a random variable, that the sum equals 1. Example: A coin toss has only two possible outcomes: heads or tails and taking a test could have two possible outcomes: Head or tail. The discrete possibilities of head can be as

## Reaction Kinetics Lab Report

1356 Words | 6 PagesThe conductivity values can be used to calculate the conversion of sodium hydroxide. Sodium hydroxide is component B and due to the fact that conversion of B will be calculated, it is necessary to ensure that B is the limiting reagent. The relationship between conductivity values and conversion is given in equation 15. x= (K_START-K)/(K_START-K_FINAL )

## Essay On Significant Figures

712 Words | 3 PagesWhen you multiply or divide measurements, the number of significant figures in the answer is equal to the number of significant figures in the least precise measurement. For the addition or subtraction of measurements, the number of significant figures in the answer is equal to the number of decimal places in the least precise measurement. Nonzero integers always count as significant figures, and exact numbers, quantities obtained without the use of a measuring device, have an infinite number of significant figures. For example, the number 15.1 has three significant figures because none of the integers are zero. However, there are three classes of zeros: leading zeros, captive zeros, and trailing zeros.

## Steganography Analysis

1503 Words | 7 PagesIt has two properties - a code with a minimal length, it is not only the prefix code and is therefore uniquely decodable. The disadvantage is that we should know the probability distribution of the occurrence of each symbol. Sample Huffman’s coding table of a clear and coded pictures are as follows (Table1 and Table 2) Table 1: Huffman’s Coding – Clear Picture Bits DC, Class0 DC, Class1 AC, Class0 AC, Class1 1 0 0 0 0 2 82 537 111597 41239 3 2811 494 39917 30606 4 886 602 46384 31571 5 837 542 30163 18650 6 724 475 5825 7639 7 547 293 14139 724 8 213 112 6943 3479 9 44 17 2526 842 10 0 0 2580 352 11 0 0 658

### Monty Hall Problem

2503 Words | 11 Pages### Chromium Removal Lab Report

1471 Words | 6 Pages### Chaos Theory Case Study

3050 Words | 13 Pages### Theoretical Chemistry Essay

748 Words | 3 Pages### Math 1280 Unit 4 Assignment

1600 Words | 7 Pages### Quantum Physics: Energy Levels Of Hydrogen Atoms

1807 Words | 8 Pages### Probability Distribution Case Study

1603 Words | 7 Pages### Reaction Kinetics Lab Report

1356 Words | 6 Pages### Essay On Significant Figures

712 Words | 3 Pages### Steganography Analysis

1503 Words | 7 Pages