Paper detail

Bounding quantum theory with the exclusivity principle in a two-city experiment

Why do correlations between the results of measurements performed on physical systems violate Bell and non-contextuality inequalities up to some specific limits? The answer may follow from the observation that in quantum theory, unlike in other theories, whenever there is an experiment to measure $A$ simultaneously with $B$, another to measure $B$ with $C$, and another to measure $A$ with $C$, there is always an experiment to measure all of them simultaneously. This property implies that quantum theory satisfies a seemingly irrelevant restriction called the exclusivity (E) principle which, surprisingly, explains the set of quantum correlations in some fundamental scenarios. An open problem is whether the E principle explains the maximum quantum violation of the Bell-CHSH inequality. Here we show experimentally that the E principle imposes an upper bound to the violation of the Bell-CHSH inequality that matches the maximum predicted by quantum theory. For that, we use the result of an independent experiment testing a specific non-contextuality inequality. We perform both experiments: the Bell-CHSH inequality experiment on polarization entangled states of pairs of photons in Stockholm and, to demonstrate independence, the non-contextuality inequality experiment on single photons' orbital angular momentum states in Rome. The observed results provide the first experimental evidence that the E principle determines the limits of quantum correlations and prove that hypothetical super-quantum violations for either experiment would violate the E principle. This supports the conclusion that the E principle captures a fundamental limitation of nature. If this is true, much of quantum theory trivially follow from merely taking the E principle to be a fundamental truth, and various information-theoretic postulates are also simplified and/or strengthened.

preprint2013arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.