Quantum incompatibility of a physical context

Pivotal within quantum physics, the concept of quantum incompatibility is generally related to algebraic aspects of the formalism, such as commutation relations and unbiasedness of bases. Recently, the concept was identified as a resource in tasks involving quantum state discrimination and quantum programmability. Here we link quantum incompatibility with the amount of information that can be extracted from a system upon successive measurements of noncommuting observables, a scenario related to communication tasks. This approach leads us to characterize incompatibility as a resource encoded in a physical context, which involves both the quantum state and observables. Moreover, starting with a measure of context incompatibility we derive a measurement-incompatibility quantifier that is easily computable, admits a geometrical interpretation, and is maximum only if the eigenbases of the involved observables are mutually unbiased.

[1]  M. Wolf,et al.  Measurements incompatible in quantum theory cannot be measured jointly in any other no-signaling theory. , 2009, Physical review letters.

[2]  Teiko Heinosaari,et al.  Notes on Joint Measurability of Quantum Observables , 2008, 0811.0783.

[3]  Nicolas Brunner,et al.  Incompatible quantum measurements admitting a local hidden variable model , 2015, 1510.06722.

[4]  Nicolas Brunner,et al.  Quantum measurement incompatibility does not imply Bell nonlocality , 2017, 1707.06960.

[5]  Jiangwei Shang,et al.  Quantifying Quantum Resources with Conic Programming. , 2018, Physical review letters.

[6]  Claudio Carmeli,et al.  Informationally complete joint measurements on finite quantum systems , 2011, 1111.3509.

[7]  M. Horodecki,et al.  Reversible transformations from pure to mixed states and the unique measure of information , 2002, quant-ph/0212019.

[8]  M. Plenio,et al.  Quantifying coherence. , 2013, Physical review letters.

[9]  Tamás Vértesi,et al.  Joint measurability, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steering, and Bell nonlocality. , 2014, Physical review letters.

[10]  Pérès,et al.  Quantum-state disturbance versus information gain: Uncertainty relations for quantum information. , 1995, Physical review. A, Atomic, molecular, and optical physics.

[11]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  The extended Bloch representation of quantum mechanics and the hidden-measurement solution to the measurement problem , 2014, 1404.2429.

[12]  J. Aron.  About Hidden Variables , 1969 .

[13]  A. C. S. Costa,et al.  Information-based approach towards a unified resource theory , 2020, Quantum Information Processing.

[14]  S. Chaturvedi.  Mutually unbiased bases , 2002 .

[15]  Claudio Carmeli,et al.  Quantum Incompatibility Witnesses. , 2018, Physical review letters.

[16]  Wenbin Zhou,et al.  Complete Resource Theory of Quantum Incompatibility as Quantum Programmability. , 2020, Physical review letters.

[17]  P. R. Dieguez,et al.  Information-reality complementarity: The role of measurements and quantum reference frames , 2017, 1711.07739.

[18]  Paul Skrzypczyk,et al.  All Sets of Incompatible Measurements give an Advantage in Quantum State Discrimination. , 2019, Physical review letters.

[19]  Otfried Gühne,et al.  One-to-One Mapping between Steering and Joint Measurability Problems. , 2015, Physical review letters.

[20]  Paul Busch,et al.  Comparing the degrees of incompatibility inherent in probabilistic physical theories , 2012, 1210.4142.

[21]  T. V'ertesi,et al.  Measurement incompatibility does not give rise to Bell violation in general , 2017, 1705.10069.

[22]  Shin-Liang Chen,et al.  Natural Framework for Device-Independent Quantification of Quantum Steerability, Measurement Incompatibility, and Self-Testing. , 2016, Physical review letters.

[23]  Erkka Haapasalo,et al.  Robustness of incompatibility for quantum devices , 2015, 1502.04881.

[24]  Teiko Heinosaari,et al.  Non-disturbing quantum measurements , 2010, 1005.5659.

[25]  S'ebastien Designolle,et al.  Incompatibility robustness of quantum measurements: a unified framework , 2019, New Journal of Physics.

[26]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  The extended Bloch representation of quantum mechanics: Explaining superposition, interference, and entanglement , 2015, 1504.04781.

[27]  Gilles Brassard,et al.  Quantum Cryptography , 2005, Encyclopedia of Cryptography and Security.

[28]  Wojciech T. Bruzda,et al.  Mutually unbiased bases and Hadamard matrices of order six , 2007 .

[29]  Teiko Heinosaari,et al.  An invitation to quantum incompatibility , 2015, 1511.07548.

[30]  W. Zurek.  Decoherence and the Transition from Quantum to Classical—Revisited , 2003, quant-ph/0306072.

[31]  T. Heinosaari,et al.  Noise robustness of the incompatibility of quantum measurements , 2015, 1501.04554.

[32]  M. Plenio,et al.  Colloquium: quantum coherence as a resource , 2016, 1609.02439.

[33]  Shin-Liang Chen,et al.  Exploring the framework of assemblage moment matrices and its applications in device-independent characterizations , 2018, Physical Review A.

[34]  Claudio Carmeli,et al.  State discrimination with postmeasurement information and incompatibility of quantum measurements , 2018, Physical Review A.

[35]  E. Prugovec̆ki.  Information-theoretical aspects of quantum measurement , 1977 .

[36]  A. Fine.  Hidden Variables, Joint Probability, and the Bell Inequalities , 1982 .

[37]  Paul Skrzypczyk,et al.  Quantitative relations between measurement incompatibility, quantum steering, and nonlocality , 2016, 1601.07450.

[38]  Otfried Gühne,et al.  Joint measurability of generalized measurements implies classicality. , 2014, Physical review letters.

[39]  D. Reitzner,et al.  Incompatibility breaking quantum channels , 2015, 1504.05768.

[40]  P. Busch,et al.  Unsharp reality and joint measurements for spin observables. , 1986, Physical review. D, Particles and fields.

[41]  G. Gour,et al.  Quantum resource theories , 2018, Reviews of Modern Physics.