Reply to Marinatto's comment on "Bell's theorem without inequalities and without probabilities for two observers"

It is shown that Marinatto's claim [Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 258901 (2003)] that the proof of "Bell's theorem without inequalities and without probabilities for two observers" [A. Cabello, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1911 (2001)] requires four spacelike separated observers rather than two is unjustified.Comment: REVTeX4, 1 pag

Bell non-locality and Kochen-Specker contextuality: How are they connected?

Bell non-locality and Kochen-Specker (KS) contextuality are logically independent concepts, fuel different protocols with quantum vs classical advantage, and have distinct classical simulation costs. A natural question is what are the relations between these concepts, advantages, and costs. To address this question, it is useful to have a map that captures all the connections between Bell non-locality and KS contextuality in quantum theory. The aim of this work is to introduce such a map. After defining the theory-independent notions of Bell non-locality and KS contextuality for ideal measurements, we show that, in quantum theory, due to Neumark's dilation theorem, every matrix of quantum Bell non-local correlations can be mapped to an identical matrix of KS contextual correlations produced in a scenario with identical relations of compatibility but where measurements are ideal and no space-like separation is required. A more difficult problem is identifying connections in the opposite direction. We show that there are "one-to-one" and partial connections between KS contextual correlations and Bell non-local correlations for some KS contextuality scenarios, but not for all of them. However, there is also a method that transforms any matrix of KS contextual correlations for quantum systems of dimension $d$ into a matrix of Bell non-local correlations between two quantum subsystems each of them of dimension $d$. We collect all these connections in map and list some problems which can benefit from this map.Comment: 13 pages, 2 figure

Quantum key distribution in the Holevo limit

A theorem by Shannon and the Holevo theorem impose that the efficiency of any protocol for quantum key distribution, $\cal E$, defined as the number of secret (i.e., allowing eavesdropping detection) bits per transmitted bit plus qubit, is ${\cal E} \le 1$. The problem addressed here is whether the limit ${\cal E} =1$ can be achieved. It is showed that it can be done by splitting the secret bits between several qubits and forcing Eve to have only a sequential access to the qubits, as proposed by Goldenberg and Vaidman. A protocol with ${\cal E} =1$ based on polarized photons and in which Bob's state discrimination can be implemented with linear optical elements is presented.Comment: REVTeX, 4 pages, 2 figure

Interpretations of quantum theory: A map of madness

Motivated by some recent news, a journalist asks a group of physicists: "What's the meaning of the violation of Bell's inequality?" One physicist answers: "It means that non-locality is an established fact". Another says: "There is no non-locality; the message is that measurement outcomes are irreducibly random". A third one says: "It cannot be answered simply on purely physical grounds, the answer requires an act of metaphysical judgement". Puzzled by the answers, the journalist keeps asking questions about quantum theory: "What is teleported in quantum teleportation?" "How does a quantum computer really work?" Shockingly, for each of these questions, the journalist obtains a variety of answers which, in many cases, are mutually exclusive. At the end of the day, the journalist asks: "How do you plan to make progress if, after 90 years of quantum theory, you still don't know what it means? How can you possibly identify the physical principles of quantum theory or expand quantum theory into gravity if you don't agree on what quantum theory is about?" Here we argue that it is becoming urgent to solve this too long lasting problem. For that, we point out that the interpretations of quantum theory are, essentially, of two types and that these two types are so radically different that there must be experiments that, when analyzed outside the framework of quantum theory, lead to different empirically testable predictions. Arguably, even if these experiments do not end the discussion, they will add new elements to the list of strange properties that some interpretations must have, therefore they will indirectly support those interpretations that do not need to have all these strange properties.Comment: 3 pages, 1 tabl

Recursive proof of the Bell-Kochen-Specker theorem in any dimension n>3n>3

We present a method to obtain sets of vectors proving the Bell-Kochen-Specker theorem in dimension $n$ from a similar set in dimension $d$ ($3\leq d<n\leq 2d$). As an application of the method we find the smallest proofs known in dimension five (29 vectors), six (31) and seven (34), and different sets matching the current record (36) in dimension eight.Comment: LaTeX, 7 page