User:Boris Tsirelson/Sandbox1: Difference between revisions
imported>Boris Tsirelson No edit summary |
imported>Boris Tsirelson No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
no matter which quantum apparata are used. | no matter which quantum apparata are used. | ||
Second, | Second, there exist quantum apparata that ensure a winning probability higher than 3/4 = 0.75. This is a manifestation of entanglement, since under the three classical assumptions (counterfactual definiteness, local causality and no-conspiracy) the winning probability cannot exceed 3/4 (the classical bound). But moreover, ideal quantum apparata can reach the winning probability <math> \frac{ 2 + \sqrt 2 }{ 4 } </math> (the quantum bound), and non-ideal quantum apparata can get arbitrarily close to this bound. | ||
Revision as of 03:15, 26 September 2010
Classical physics obeys the counterfactual definiteness and therefore negates entanglement. Classical apparata A, B cannot help Alice and Bob to always win (that is, agree on the intersection). What about quantum apparata? The answer is quite unexpected.
First, quantum apparata cannot ensure that Alice and Bob win always. Moreover, the winning probability does not exceed
no matter which quantum apparata are used.
Second, there exist quantum apparata that ensure a winning probability higher than 3/4 = 0.75. This is a manifestation of entanglement, since under the three classical assumptions (counterfactual definiteness, local causality and no-conspiracy) the winning probability cannot exceed 3/4 (the classical bound). But moreover, ideal quantum apparata can reach the winning probability (the quantum bound), and non-ideal quantum apparata can get arbitrarily close to this bound.
