Abstract
The Leggett–Garg inequality (LGI) is used to test incompatibility between the classical world view of macrorealism and quantum mechanics. Except for the LGI, other formulations for testing macrorealism have also been proposed, such as the entropic LGI and the no-signaling-in-time (NSIT) condition. And these formulations of macrorealism are not both the necessary and sufficient conditions for macrorealism. In this paper, analogous to the LGI, an equality for the energy change of a quantum system is given for testing macrorealism. It is called as the energy LG (ELG). Then, we study quantum violations of the ELG, the LGI, the entropic LGI and the NSIT condition for a two-level system. It is shown that for the projective measurement, the ELG can be violated for a wider parameter regime than the NSIT condition, and the NSIT condition can be violated for a wider parameter regime than the LGI and the entropic LGI. For the coarsening measurement reference and coarsening final resolution, we find that the quantum violations of the ELG and the NSIT condition provide the same robustness, which are both the most robust, and the quantum violation of the entropic LGI is the most vulnerable.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availibility
The authors declare that all the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.
References
Leggett, A.J., Garg, A.: Quantum mechanics versus macroscopic realism: is the flux there when nobody looks? Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 857 (1985)
Leggett, A.J.: Testing the limits of quantum mechanics: motivation, state of play, prospects. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 14, R415 (2002)
Leggett, A.J.: Realism and the physical world. Rep. Prog. Phys. 71, 022001 (2008)
Palacios-Laloy, A., Mallet, F., Nguyen, F., Bertet, P., Vion, D., Esteve, D., Korotkov, A.N.: Experimental violation of a Bell’s inequality in time with weak measurement. Nat. Phys. 6, 442–447 (2010)
Dressel, J., Broadbent, C.J., Howell, J.C., Jordan, A.N.: Experimental violation of two-party Leggett–Garg inequalities with semiweak measurements. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 040402 (2011)
Goggin, M.E., Almeida, M.P., Barbieri, M., Lanyon, B.P., O’Brien, J.L., White, A.G., Pryde, G.J.: Violation of the Leggett–Garg inequality with weak measurements of photons. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 1256–1261 (2011)
Knee, G.C., Simmons, S., Gauger, E.M., Morton, J.J.L., Riemann, H., Abrosimov, N.V., Becker, P., Pohl, H.J., Itoh, K.M., Thewalt, M.L.W., et al.: Violation of a Leggett–Garg inequality with ideal non-invasive measurements. Nat. Commun. 3, 606 (2012)
Zhou, Z.Q., Huelga, S.F., Li, C.F., Guo, G.C.: Experimental detection of quantum coherent evolution through the violation of Leggett–Garg-type inequalities. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 113002 (2015)
Robens, C., Alt, W., Meschede, D., Emary, C., Alberti, A.: Ideal negative measurements in quantum walks disprove theories based on classical trajectories. Phys. Rev. X 5, 011003 (2015)
Usha Devi, A. R., Karthik, H. S., Sudha, Rajagopal, A. K.: Macrorealism from entropic Leggett-Garg inequalities. Phys. Rev. A 87, 052103 (2013)
Kumari, S., Pan, A.K.: Probing various formulations of macrorealism for unsharp quantum measurements. Phys. Rev. A 96, 042107 (2017)
Kofler, J., Brukner, C.: Condition for macroscopic realism beyond the Leggett–Garg inequalities. Phys. Rev A 87, 052115 (2013)
Clemente, L., Kofler, J.: Necessary and sufficient conditions for macroscopic realism from quantum mechanics. Phys. Rev. A 91, 062103 (2015)
Clemente, L., Kofler, J.: No fine theorem for macrorealism: limitations of the Leggett–Garg inequality. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 150401 (2016)
Li, C.M., Lambert, N., Chen, Y.N., Chen, G.Y., Nori, F.: Witnessing quantum coherence: from solid-state to biological systems. Sci. Rep. 2, 885 (2012)
Kurzynski, P., Ramanathan, R., Kaszlikowski, D.: Entropic test of quantum contextuality. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 020404 (2012)
Chaves, R., Fritz, T.: Entropic approach to local realism and noncontextuality. Phys. Rev. A 85, 032113 (2012)
Kofle, J., Brukner, Č.: Classical world arising out of quantum physics under the restriction of coarse-grained measurements. Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 180403 (2007)
Zurek, W.H.: Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical. Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 715 (2003). ((and references therein))
Jeong, H., Lim, Y., Kim, M.S.: Coarsening measurement references and the quantum-to-classical transition. Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 010402 (2014)
Kofler, J., Brukner, Č.: Conditions for quantum violation of macroscopic realism. Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 090403 (2008)
Jeong, H., Paternostro, M., Ralph, T.C.: Failure of local realism revealed by extremely-coarse-grained measurements. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 060403 (2009)
Vitelli, C., Spagnolo, N., Toffoli, L., Sciarrino, F., De Martini, F.: Quantum-to-classical transition via fuzzy measurements on high-gain spontaneous parametric down-conversion. Phys. Rev. A 81, 032123 (2010)
Raeisi, S., Sekatski, P., Simon, C.: Coarse graining makes it hard to see micro-macro entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 250401 (2011)
Wang, T., Ghobadi, R., Raeisi, S., Simon, C.: Precision requirements for observing macroscopic quantum effects. Phys. Rev. A 88, 062114 (2013)
Sekatski, P., Gisin, N., Sangouard, N.: How difficult is it to prove the quantumness of macroscropic states? Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 090403 (2014)
Mal, S., Das, D., Home, D.: Quantum mechanical violation of macrorealism for large spin and its robustness against coarse-grained measurements. Phys. Rev. A 94, 062117 (2016)
Zhang, Y., Zou, J., Shao, B.: Bell inequality, steering, incompatibility and Leggett–Garg inequality under coarsening measurement. Quantum Inf. Process. 17, 173 (2018)
Mukherjee, S., Rudra, A., Das, D., Mal, S.: Effects of coarsening measurement times on quantum violations of macrorealism for multilevel spin systems. arXiv:1811.03397v1 (2018)
Zhang, Y., Zou, J., Shao, B.: Comparing Leggett-Garg inequality for work moments with Leggett–Garg inequality and NSIT. Eur. Phys. J. Plus 135, 154 (2020)
Zhang, Y., Tan, X., Qiu, T.: Leggett–Garg inequality, Wigner form of Leggett–Garg inequality and no-signaling-in-time condition under coarsening measurement. Quantum Inf. Process. 21, 157 (2022)
Zhang, Y., Tan, X., Qiu, T.: Quantum violation of LGI under an energy constraint for different scenarios systems. Sci. Rep. 13, 12530 (2023)
Bell, J.S.: On the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox. Physics 1, 195–200 (1964)
Clauser, J.F., Horne, M.A.: Experimental consequences of objective local theories. Phys. Rev. D 10, 526–535 (1974)
Sagawa, T., Ueda, M.: Erratum: minimal energy cost for thermodynamic information processing: measurement and information erasure. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 189901 (2011)
Jacobs, K.: Quantum measurement and the first law of thermodynamics: the energy cost of measurement is the work value of the acquired information. Phys. Rev. E 86, 040106 (2012)
Navascués, M., Popescu, S.: How energy conservation limits our measurements. Phys. Rev. Letters 112, 140502 (2014)
Abdelkhalek, K., Nakata, Y., Reeb, D.: Fundamental energy cost for quantum measurement. arXiv:1609.06981 (2016)
Guryanova, Y., Friis, N., Huber, M.: Ideal projective measurements have infinite resource costs. Quantum 4, 222 (2020)
Chanda, T., Das, T., Mal, S., Sen, A., Sen, U.: Canonical Leggett-Garg inequality: nonclassicality of temporal quantum correlations under energy constraint. Phys. Rev. A 98, 022138 (2018)
Emary, C., Lambert, N., Nori, F.: Leggett–Garg inequalities. Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 016001 (2014)
Maroney, O.J.E., Timpson, C.G.: Quantum-vs. macro-realism: What does the Leggett-Garg inequality actually test? arXiv:1412.6139 (2014)
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 62201324), and Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province (ZR2022QA101, ZR2022QF065 and ZR2021LLZ001).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
ELG
From Eqs. (1), (5) and (9), the ELG under the coarsening final measurement resolution can be obtained as
It can be found that in the case of \(\alpha =0.3, \tau =\frac{\pi }{4\omega }\) and \(\theta =\frac{\pi }{5}\), the ELG can be always violated for any value of coarsening degree \(\delta \), i.e., \(0<\delta <0.5\). In other words, in the case of the coarsening final measurement resolution, there are no conditions that make the ELG not be violated, which is listed in Table 2.
LGI
Using Eqs. (1), (2), (4), (9) and (10), the LGI under the projective measurement, the coarsening measurement reference and the coarsening measurement in final resolution, can be, respectively, given as
It can be found from Eq. (A2) that under the projective measurement, when one of the following conditions is satisfied: (1)\(\theta = 0\); (2) \(\frac{\pi }{2\omega }\le \tau \le \frac{\pi }{\omega }\), the LGI can be satisfied, which is listed in Table 1. From Eq. (A3), we find the LGI with the coarsening measurement in reference, can be satisfied, when \(0.3073<\mathrm{{\Delta }}<1\) (suppose \(\alpha =0.3, \tau =\frac{\pi }{4\omega }\) and \(\theta =\frac{\pi }{5}\)). That is to say, when \(0<\mathrm{{\Delta }}\le 0.3073\), the LGI can be violated. For the coarsening measurement in final resolution, we from Eq. (A4) find that when \(0.0323<\delta <0.5\), the LGI can be satisfied (suppose \(\alpha =0.3, \tau =\frac{\pi }{4\omega }\) and \(\theta =\frac{\pi }{5}\)). And the non-violation conditions of the LGI under coarsening measurement both in reference and in final resolution are listed in Table 2.
Entropic LGI
From Eqs. (9), (10) and (14), the entropic LGI under the projective measurement can be expressed as
From above expression, the non-violation conditions of the entropic LGI (i.e., Eq. (14)) for the projective measurement can be found, and then, these non-violation conditions are listed in Table 1.
NSIT condition
From Eqs. (9), (10) and (15–17), the NSIT condition with the projective measurement can be written as
From Eqs. (A6) to (A11), we find that the NSIT condition under the projective measurement can be satisfied (i.e., Eqs. (15–17) is satisfied), if one of the following conditions is satisfied: (1) \(\theta =0\); (2) \(\theta =\frac{\pi }{2}\) and \(\tau =\frac{\pi }{\omega }\). The results obtained for the NSIT condition in this case are summarized in Table 1.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Zhang, Y., Tan, X. & Qiu, T. Comparing various formulations of macrorealism. Quantum Inf Process 22, 354 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-023-04099-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-023-04099-7