Experimental entanglement of temporal order
Extracted source text ยท arXiv 1712.06884
\documentclass[
reprint,
amsmath,amssymb,
aps,
longbibliography,
prl,
citeautoscript
]{revtex4-1}
\usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
\usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
\usepackage{bm}% bold math
\usepackage[english]{babel}
\usepackage{lipsum} % Used for inserting dummy 'Lorem ipsum' text into the template
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{times}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amssymb,bm}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{epsfig}
\usepackage{mathrsfs}
\usepackage{color,soul}
\usepackage{bbold}
%\usepackage{cite}
\hypersetup{colorlinks,%
citecolor=black,%
filecolor=black,%
linkcolor=black,%
urlcolor=black}
\usepackage{pstricks}
\usepackage{multirow}
%\usepackage{multicol}
\usepackage{graphicx}
%\usepackage{mathtools}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{braket}
\usepackage{empheq}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\hypersetup{colorlinks,%
citecolor=black,%
filecolor=black,%
linkcolor=black,%
urlcolor=black}
\usepackage{color}
%\usepackage{xcolor}
%\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{rotating}
%\usepackage{mparhack}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amsthm}
\usepackage{eurosym}
%\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{siunitx}
%\usepackage{booktabs,siunitx}
\usepackage{rotating}
%\usepackage{mparhack}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{eurosym}
\usepackage[babel]{csquotes}
\renewcommand{\labelitemi}{\localtextbulletone}
\usepackage[font=small]{caption}
\usepackage{mwe}
\DeclareMathOperator{\tr}{Tr}
\newtheorem*{theorem}{Theorem}
\usepackage[framemethod=default]{mdframed}
\usepackage[labelfont=bf,labelsep=quad,justification=raggedright]{caption}
\usepackage{newfloat}
\newenvironment{absolutelynopagebreak}
{\par\nobreak\vfil\penalty0\vfilneg
\vtop\bgroup}
{\par\xdef\tpd{\the\prevdepth}\egroup
\prevdepth=\tpd}
\DeclareFloatingEnvironment[name={S}]{suppfigure}
\DeclareFloatingEnvironment[name={S}]{supptable}
\newmdenv[linecolor=white,backgroundcolor=gray!15!]{myframe}
\def\FCW{1.0\columnwidth}
\def\HCW{0.55\columnwidth}
\def\TPW{0.33\textwidth}
\begin{document}
\title{Experimental Entanglement of Temporal Orders}
\author{Giulia Rubino$^{1\ast}$, Lee A. Rozema$^{1}$, Francesco Massa$^{1}$, Mateus Ara\'ujo$^{2}$,\\ Magdalena Zych$^{3}$, \v{C}aslav Brukner$^{1,4}$, Philip Walther$^{1\ast}$}
\affiliation{
\normalsize{$^{1}$Vienna Center for Quantum Science and Technology (VCQ), Faculty of Physics, University of Vienna, Boltzmanngasse 5, Vienna A-1090, Austria}\\
\normalsize{$^{2}$Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Cologne, Germany}\\
\normalsize{$^{3}$Centre for Engineered Quantum Systems, School of Mathematics and Physics, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072,
Australia}\\
\normalsize{$^{4}$Institute for Quantum Optics \& Quantum Information (IQOQI), Austrian Academy of Sciences, Boltzmanngasse 3, Vienna A-1090, Austria}\\
\\
\normalsize{$^\ast$To whom correspondence should be addressed;}\\
\normalsize{ E-mail: giulia.rubino@univie.ac.at (G.R.); philip.walther@univie.ac.at (P.W.)}
}
\date{\today}
\begin{abstract}
The study of causal relations, a cornerstone of physics, has recently been applied to the quantum realm, leading to the discovery that not all quantum processes have a definite causal structure. Here, we present the first theory-independent experimental demonstration of entangled temporal orders, resulting in a process with an indefinite causal structure. While such processes have previously been observed, these observations relied on the assumption that experimental operations and systems are described by quantum theory. This opens a `loophole' wherein the observed process can be explained by an underlying theory with a definite causal structure. To circumvent this, we build a model attempting to describe our experimental data using a large class of general probabilistic theories that are local and have a definite temporal order. We then experimentally invalidate this model by violating a Bell inequality. We therefore conclude that nature is incompatible with theories requiring a local definite temporal order.
\end{abstract}
\maketitle
% In setting up this template for *Science* papers, we've used both
% the \section* command and the \paragraph* command for topical
% divisions. Which you use will of course depend on the type of paper
% you're writing. Review Articles tend to have displayed headings, for
% which \section* is more appropriate; Research Articles, when they have
% formal topical divisions at all, tend to signal them with bold text
% that runs into the paragraph, for which \paragraph* is the right
% choice. Either way, use the asterisk (*) modifier, as shown, to
% suppress numbering.
Bell's theorem revolutionized the foundations of physics, proving that quantum mechanics cannot be described by a local-realist theory, and paving the way for modern quantum information \cite{Bell1964, RevModPhys.86.419}.
%One of the main strengths of the theorem is that it is formulated without reference to any particular theory. Because of this `theory-independence', experimental loophole-free violations of Bell's theorem not only show that quantum mechanics is not locally realist, but indeed that Nature herself cannot be described by any locally realist model \cite{Nature.526.682, PhysRevLett.115.250402, PhysRevLett.115.250401}.
Over the past decades, the theorem has been violated with
%proven for
many different physical systems thereby entangling different observables (such as spin \cite{PhysRevD.14.2543, Nature.409.791, Nature.526.682}, polarization \cite{PhysRevLett.28.938, PhysRevLett.49.1804, PhysRevLett.115.250402, PhysRevLett.115.250401}, position \cite{PhysRevLett.92.210403}, and energy \cite{PhysRevA.47.R2472, PhysRevLett.64.2495}) of two or more particles.
However, since there is no observable corresponding to a measurement of the temporal order between events, this theorem had never been applied to causal structures.
Typically, in all of our well-established theories, it is assumed that the order between events is pre-defined, precluding the possibility of observing situations where the causal order is genuinely indefinite.
%Nevertheless, recent work has provided techniques to investigate this topic both theoretically \cite{NewJournPhys.17.102001, 1367-2630-18-9-093020} and experimentally \cite{Rubinoe1602589}.
%The role of causal order in quantum mechanics has recently been studied, and
Nevertheless, it was recently realized that quantum mechanics predicts the existence of processes that are neither causally ordered nor a probabilistic mixture of causally ordered processes.
In other words, these processes cannot be understood as one-way-signalling quantum channels, quantum states, or any convex mixture of them \cite{PhysRevA.88.022318, NatComm.3.012316, NatPhys.10.259}.
More precisely, a quantum process is called \textit{causally separable} if it can be decomposed as a convex combination of causally ordered processes, otherwise it is \textit{causally non-separable}.
(Note that the term `temporal' order is here used to refer to events which cannot be used to receive signals --- in particular, to unitary operations --- whereas `causal' order refers to more general operations which allow for the exchange of information.)
%(Note that the term `temporal' order is used to refer to events which do not include measurements --- and thus cannot be used to receive signals --- but rather unitary operations, whereas `causal' order refers to more general operations.)
Recently, a method for certifying causal separability, based on `causal witnesses', was developed \cite{NewJournPhys.17.102001, 1367-2630-18-9-093020, ScienRep.6.26018}, and used to experimentally demonstrate that a certain process --- a quantum SWITCH \cite{PhysRevA.86.040301} --- is causally non-separable \cite{Rubinoe1602589}.
In the quantum SWITCH, a qubit is transmitted between two parties, and the order in which the parties receive it is entangled with a second system, which can result %resulting
in a superposition of temporal orders.
%This leads to a genuinely indefinite causal structure.
The existence of such a superposition has been experimentally demonstrated \cite{NatCommun.6, Rubinoe1602589}.
However, the certification of this `indefiniteness' of temporal orders was theory-dependent, requiring the assumption that the system under investigation and the applied operations were described by quantum theory. In more detail, Ref. \cite{Rubinoe1602589} reported the measurement of a value for a causal witness that could not be explained by any model making the following three assumptions: there was a definite causal order between the parties, each party acted only once, and the quantum description of their operations was the correct one. Under these conditions, it was concluded that the causal order was indefinite in the experiment. Nevertheless, the experimental results could also potentially have been explained in a causal manner by a different description (\textit{i.e.}, not by quantum theory) of their experiment. Thus, the structure of an indefinite causal order has not yet been probed without assuming the validity of the quantum formalism.
%{\color{red} Causal inequalities are theory independent. They only required measuring probabilities. But SWITCH satisfies causal inequalities.}
In addition to theory-dependent causal witnesses, there are also theory-independent ways of certifying indefinite causal orders via `causal inequalities' \cite{NatComm.3.012316, 1367-2630-18-1-013008}.
These inequalities only require one to measure the probabilities of outcomes for different parties in the process under study.
Any probabilities that show signaling in only one direction --- which can be interpreted as an influence from the past to the future --- or that is a convex mixture of those which allow signaling only in one direction (from $A$ to $B$ or from $B$ to $A$) satisfy causal inequalities.
It can be shown that the quantum SWITCH satisfies all such causal inequalities (see Refs. \cite{NewJournPhys.17.102001, 1367-2630-18-9-093020} or \textbf{Suppl. Material} for details).
Currently, it is not known how to realize a process which violates a causal inequality.
The question then arises if it is at all possible to prove the existence of an indefinite causal order in a theory-independent manner.
Here, we provide an affirmative answer to this question by experimentally violating a Bell inequality for temporal orders, thereby demonstrating that the order of events in our experiment cannot be pre-defined using a large class of generalized probabilistic theories satisfying our assumptions (\textit{i.e.}, locality of states and locality of laboratory operations).
In our work, we generalize a Bell's inequality for temporal orders \cite{mag}, and then experimentally violate it. The inequality is derived under `\textit{theory-independent}' (\textit{i.e.}, it is valid for a large class of so-called `generalized probabilistic theories') yet `\textit{device-dependent}' assumptions (\textit{i.e.}, assumptions which depend on the internal functionality of experimental devices).
%(The relation between the assumptions and implications of the current work and those of Ref. \cite{mag} are analyzed in \textbf{Methods - Section III.-VI.}.)
Our experimental data show a violation of the Bell inequality, thus demonstrating that Nature is incompatible with a large class of theories that assume the local order between events to be pre-defined.
\section{No-Go Theorem for Definite Temporal Orders}
We now present a \textit{no-go theorem} for definite temporal orders that applies to a large class of generalized probabilistic theories (GPTs) for which the order of local events is assumed to be predefined. GPTs are a general framework encompassing all operational theories -- including classical probability theory and quantum theory as special cases -- that specify a set of laboratory devices that can be applied on physical systems, and assigns probabilities to experimental outcomes \cite{GPT1, GPT2, GPT3, 1367-2630-13-6-063001}. This no-go theorem was previously derived in the context of gravity ~\cite{mag}. Our derivation uses an assumption about the initial state of the systems weaker than that in Ref.~\cite{mag} (we consider Bell-local states rather than separable states, which are a subset of Bell-local states) and a different notion of locality. (The relation between the assumptions and implications of the current work and those of Ref. \cite{mag} are analyzed in \textbf{Methods - Section III.-VI.}.)%generalizes the one from Ref. \cite{mag} as ours is not based on the use of a separable state, but rather on a Bell-local state (which is a weaker assumption, as separable states are a subset of Bell-local states).
% it does not rely on the existence of the tensor product structure in GPTs.
%{\color{red} Now define and a Bell inequality for causal order, from the assumptions I, II and III.
%We also require the standard Bell assumptions (of locality, free choice and fair sampling).
%The fact that our experiment violates this not only shows us that QM is incompatible with a definite causal order, but that and GPT is.}
%Building on Ref. \cite{mag}, we will now define a Bell inequality for causal orders.
%In order to do so, we will first introduce some basic concepts and notation.
We first define what we mean by a causal order in a GPT. Consider a system in the state $\omega \in \Omega$ of a GPT state space $\Omega$ and imagine two parties, Alice and Bob, who perform some operations on this state. For example, suppose that the operation in Alice's laboratory is given by a transformation $\mathcal{A}$ and that in Bob's laboratory is given by a transformation $\mathcal{B}$. Alice's and Bob's operations are said to undergo a process that is `causally separable' in GPTs whenever Alice's operation happens before Bob's ($\mathcal{A} \preceq \mathcal{B}$), Bob's operation happens before Alice's ($\mathcal{B} \preceq \mathcal{A}$), or there is a convex mixture of these two cases:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:convex_mixture}
\mathcal{S}(\omega)=\zeta \, \mathcal{B}\bigl(\mathcal{A}(\omega)\bigr) +(1-\zeta) \, \mathcal{A}\bigl(\mathcal{B}(\omega)\bigr).
\end{equation}
where $0 \leqslant \zeta \leqslant 1$ is the probability with which one or the other order is chosen and $\mathcal{Y}\bigl(\mathcal{X}(\cdot)\bigr)$ is a composition of operations $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Y}$. %[Referring to what follows, I note that, strictly speaking, the switch is the case of $N=3$. I wonder if we should adapt Eq. (1) for this case.]
While in the current work we limit our analysis to the case of only $N=2$ parties, an analogue relation can be established for $N>2$ parties, giving rise to a classical mixture of all possible permutations among the $N$ parties, or to a dynamical causal order, where the causal order between operations may depend on operations performed beforehand \cite{Abbott2017genuinely}. If a process cannot be written in the form of Eq. \ref{eqn:convex_mixture}, it is called a `causally non-separable process'.
%Application of this concept to quantum mechanics has shown that not all processes can be described in this form \cite{NatComm.3.012316, PhysRevA.86.040301}.
%This has led to the notion of `\textit{causally separable}' quantum processes (processes that can be described by Eq. (\ref{eqn:convex_mixture}) ), and `\textit{causally non-separable}' quantum processes (processes that cannot be written in the form of Eq. (\ref{eqn:convex_mixture}) ).
%From this definition, it is possible to introduce the concept of the \textit{order between events} (as we have already defined in Eq. \ref{eqn:convex_mixture}) and the fundamental idea that, regardless of their order, a causal relation between two events can only be discussed if both events actually occur. %One must also assume the existence of a state and identify the \textit{events} as transformations of that state.
%These notions, while not being independent of the \textit{device} we are testing, do not require any specific concept from quantum formalism and thus allow us to construct a theory-independent test of the causal orders in our experiment.
Within the GPT framework, we now consider $\omega$ to be a state of the following composite system: one system (the \textit{control} system) governing the order in which the operations $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ are applied, and one system (the \textit{target} system) on which the operations are performed. We will further imagine that there are two parties, S1 and S2, each possessing one such composite system.
In the \textbf{Methods - Section III.} we prove a \textit{no-go theorem}, stating that any two-party system that obeys the following three assumptions cannot violate a Bell inequality.
%{\red [We should discuss what I propose below, as I am not sure about it. In any case, I tried to address comment 1.9. In line of what the referee says "act only on the target system" is ambiguous, because although one operationally acts only on the target system, this action can influence correlations or the state of the control or even the distant target system.]}
%; see also \cite{mag} for a similar proof).
\vspace{3mm}
\begin{quote}
\begin{myframe}
\vspace{2mm}
%\textbf{1. Free-choice assumption (or measurement independence).}
\begin{enumerate}
%\item \textbf{\red The laboratory operations $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ do not give rise to a violation of Bell inequalities between the target systems.}
\item \textbf{The initial joint state of the target system is \textit{local} (\textit{i.e.}, it does not violate a Bell inequality).}
%\item {\red\textbf{The laboratory operations within each party S$i$ act only on the corresponding target system.}}
\item \textbf{The laboratory operations are \textit{ local transformations} of the target systems (\textit{i.e.}, they do not increase the amount of a violation of Bell inequalities between the two target systems).}
\item \textbf{The order of local operations on the two target systems is pre-defined}.
\end{enumerate}
%We assume that the causal order of both parties can be described by equation \ref{eqn:convex_mixture}.
%{\color{blue}This can be proven in a theory-independent manner, see for example \cite{PhysRevLett.84.2726, PhysRevLett.84.2722} CAN IT?}.
\vspace{2mm}
\end{myframe}
\end{quote}
%The assumption 1. means that laboratory operations that act only on the target systems
%\item \textbf{ neither can increase correlations between (distant) target systems belonging to two parties;}\textbf{}
%\item \textbf{nor between a target and control system of a single party}.
%\end{enumerate}
We will briefly comment on assumption \textbf{2.} here, and refer to the \textbf{\textit{Results}} section for an in-depth analysis of all three assumptions. Assumption \textbf{2.} implies that the laboratory operations do not have any `global' effects on the joint states of the target and control systems in a GPT on the operational level. This has two implications, and hence we further identify two sub-assumptions within it. \textbf{(2a)} The laboratory operations cannot increase the `non-classical correlations' (\textit{i.e.}, non-local correlations) between the target systems of parties S$1$ and S$2$. In other words there is no non-local interaction between the two systems. (\textbf{2b}) Within a single party S$i$, the laboratory operations act only on the target system, and hence they cannot increase the `non-classical correlations' between the control and the target systems (\textit{i.e.}, they do not `couple' the two systems.)
In the next section, we will present a quantum mechanical process that violates this no-go theorem.
Hence, at least one of the assumptions must not hold for this process.
%for which the underlying GPT is assumed to satisfy assumptions \textbf{1.}, \textbf{2.} and \textbf{3.}.
In the \textbf{\textit{Results}} section, we will analyze the experimental data to corroborate assumptions \textbf{1.} and \textbf{2.} using GPTs. This implies that the order of operations within each system $\text{S}i$ is indefinite.
\subsection{Entangled quantum SWITCH}
%The quantum SWITCH is a two-qubit process that is known to be causally non-separable {\color{blue} REF}.
%See either panel of Fig. \ref{img:scheme_experiment}.
To understand a single quantum SWITCH, first imagine two parties, Alice and Bob, who are in two \textit{closed laboratories}; \textit{i.e.}, their only interaction with the outside environment is through an input and output system.
They each perform a fixed operation on the same qubit (the `target' qubit).
The target qubit can be first sent to Alice and then Bob, or vice versa.
In a quantum SWITCH, one controls the order of the operations on the target qubit with the state of a second, a `control', qubit. For example, if the control qubit is in the state $\ket{0}^C$, the target qubit is sent first to Alice and then to Bob, and vice versa if the control qubit is in the state $\ket{1}^C$. When the control qubit is prepared in the state $\bigl({\ket{0}^C+\ket{1}^C}\bigr) /\ \sqrt{2}$, the resulting process has been shown to be causally non-separable within quantum mechanics \cite{NewJournPhys.17.102001,Rubinoe1602589, PhysRevA.88.022318, PhysRevA.86.040301}.
Now consider two quantum SWITCHes (S1 and S2), each containing an Alice and a Bob.
S1 and S2 are prepared in a state where their control qubits are entangled, but their target qubits are in a product state (see Fig. \ref{img:scheme_experiment}):
\begin{equation}
\ket{0}_1^T\otimes\ket{0}_2^T\otimes\left(\dfrac{\ket{0}_1^C\otimes\ket{0}_2^C - \ket{1}^C_1\otimes\ket{1}^C_2}{\sqrt{2}}\right)
\end{equation}
The superscripts $C$ and $T$ refer to the control and target qubits within one SWITCH, respectively, while the subscripts $1$ and $2$ refer to SWITCH S1 and S2.
Since we will attempt to observe a Bell violation with the target qubits, which are in a separable state, this initial condition satisfies assumption \textbf{2.} in quantum theory.
{\centering
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{scheme_experiment4}
\captionof{figure}{\footnotesize \textbf{Entangled quantum SWITCH}.
Our work is based on two quantum SWITCHes (SWITCH S1 and SWITCH S2).
In each quantum SWITCH, there are two parties, Alice (${U}_{i_\text{A}}$) and Bob (${U}_{i_\text{B}}$). A target qubit is first sent to one party and then to the other.
The order in which the qubit is sent to the two parties is governed by the state of an additional qubit: if the state of the control qubit is $\ket{0}_i$, the target qubit is sent first to Alice and then Bob (Panel \textbf{a)}$\,$), and vice versa if the control qubit is in the state $\ket{1}_i$ (Panel \textbf{b)}$\,$).
In our work, we entangle the control qubits (Panel \textbf{c)}).
In this case, the order in which the target qubit in SWITCH S1 passes through ${U}_{1_\text{A}}$ and ${U}_{1_\text{B}}$ is entangled with the order in which the target qubit in SWITCH S2 passes through ${U}_{2_\text{A}}$ and ${U}_{2_\text{B}}$.
The control qubits are measured in the basis $\lbrace\ket{+}_i, \ket{-}_i\rbrace$ (labelled $O$).
If the orders inside the two SWITCHes are entangled, it will be possible to violate a Bell inequality by measuring the target qubits after the SWITCHes (BM).
This is possible even if the target qubits start in a separable state and only local operations are applied within each SWITCH.}
\label{img:scheme_experiment}
\end{figure}}
Given this input state and the action of an individual SWITCH, it is straightforward to calculate the output of the entangled quantum SWITCH system
\begin{align}
&\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\Bigl({U}_{1_\text{B}} {U}_{1_\text{A}}\ket{0}_1^{T}\Bigr)\otimes\ket{0}_1^{C}\otimes\Bigl({U}_{2_\text{B}} {U}_{2_\text{A}}\ket{0}_2^{T}\Bigr)\otimes\ket{0}_2^{C}\\
&- \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\Bigl({U}_{1_\text{A}} {U}_{1_\text{B}}\ket{0}_1^{T}\Bigr)\otimes\ket{1}_1^{C}\otimes\Bigl({U}_{2_\text{A}} {U}_{2_\text{B}}\ket{0}_2^{T}\Bigr)\otimes\ket{1}_2^{C}\notag
\end{align}
where ${U}_{i_\text{A}}$ and ${U}_{i_\text{B}}$ $(i=1,2)$ are the unitaries performed by the two parties Alice and Bob inside each SWITCH S$i$.
Next, we measure the two control qubits in the basis $\{\ket{+}\bra{+}, \ket{-}\bra{-}\}$.
If we observe both of the control qubits in the same state (either $\ket{+}_1^C\ket{+}_2^C$ or $\ket{-}_1^C\ket{-}_2^C$), the target qubits will be in the (in general) unnormalised state
\begin{equation}
\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\bigl({U}_{1_\text{B}} {U}_{1_\text{A}}\ket{0}^{T}_1\otimes {U}_{2_\text{B}} {U}_{2_\text{A}}\ket{0}^{T}_2- {U}_{1_\text{A}} {U}_{1_\text{B}}\ket{0}^{T}_1\otimes {U}_{2_\text{A}} {U}_{2_\text{B}}\ket{0}^{T}_2 \bigr),
\end{equation}
while if we find the control qubits in orthogonal states (either $\ket{+}_1^C\ket{-}_2^C$ or $\ket{-}_1^C\ket{+}_2^C$) the sign between the two terms in the superposition in the equation above is `+'.
In general, depending on the choice of the unitaries in the two SWITCHes, the target qubits will be left either in a separable or an entangled state. In particular, if we choose the gates
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gates}
{U}_{1_\text{A}} = {U}_{2_\text{A}} = \sigma_z \qquad {U}_{1_\text{B}} = {U}_{2_\text{B}} = \dfrac{\mathbb{1}+i\sigma_x}{\sqrt{2}},
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_x$ ans $\sigma_z$ are the Pauli operators, the state of the target qubits becomes
\begin{equation}\label{eq:entangledState}
\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\bigl(\ket{l}_1^{T} \ket{l}_2^{T} -\ket{r}_1^{T} \ket{r}_2^{T} \bigr),
\end{equation}
where $\ket{r} = \bigl(\ket{0}-i\ket{1}\bigr) /\ \sqrt{2}$ and $\ket{l} = \bigl(\ket{0}+i\ket{1}\bigr) /\ \sqrt{2}$. This is a \textit{maximally entangled state} and, as a result, one can now violate a Bell inequality maximally on the target qubits.
In the language of quantum mechanics, this shows that the indefiniteness of the temporal orders in the two SWITCHes can be displayed via the entanglement between their target qubits. In other words, such entanglement has not been `generated', but rather `transferred' from the control qubits by means of the indefinite temporal order of the unitaries applied.
Outside of quantum mechanics, the presence of non-classical correlations can be determined through a violation of a Bell inequality. In our case, violating a Bell inequality also violates the no-go theorem for temporal orders, proving that no underlying GPTs where \textbf{1.}, \textbf{2.} and \textbf{3.} hold can explain the experimental data.
By demonstrating without assuming validity of quantum mechanics that assumptions \textbf{1.} and \textbf{2.} hold, the presence of an indefinite temporal order is shown theory-independently.
%\mz{\textit{[MZ: I don't understand the sentence `Outside the quantum theory....' Is it different `inside quantum theory'? Also`demonstrating outside the quantum formalism that assumptions \textbf{1.} and \textbf{2.} hold,' is unclear. Do you mean: demonstrating without assuming validity of QM?]}}
%Moreover, we can certify that the target qubits are entangled using well-established device-independent tools, by measuring a Bell violation--this our experimental goal.
\subsection{Experimental scheme}
We create a quantum SWITCH with entangled control qubits using a photonic set-up. Let us first consider a single quantum SWITCH. Each quantum SWITCH applies gates on a target qubit, where the gates' order depends on the state of a control qubit. Experimentally, we encode the control qubit in a path degree of freedom (DOF), and the target qubit in the polarization DOF of a single photon.
The photon is initially placed in a superposition of two paths (as explained in Fig. \ref{img:AliceBob_setup} and the \textbf{Methods - Section I.}). These paths are labeled $0_1$ and $1_1$ for SWITCH S1 and $0_2$ and $1_2$ for SWITCH S2 in Fig. \ref{img:AliceBob_setup}. The two paths are then routed through a two-loop \textit{Mach-Zehnder interferometer} \cite{NatCommun.6, Rubinoe1602589}.
The $0_i$ paths lead the photons through a set of gates acting on the polarization DOF in the order ${U}_{i_\text{A}} \preceq {U}_{i_\text{B}}$.
While the paths $1_i$ guide the photons through the gates in the opposite order ${U}_{i_\text{B}} \preceq {U}_{i_\text{A}}$.
To generate the maximally entangled state between the target qubits (Eq. (\ref{eq:entangledState}) ), we need to implement the non-commuting gates ${U}_{i_\text{A}}=\sigma_z$ and ${U}_{i_\text{B}}=(\mathbb{1} + i \sigma_x)/\sqrt{2}$, which we do with waveplates. In particular, a half-waveplate (HWP) at $0^\circ$ for $\sigma_z$ and a sequence of quarter-waveplate (QWP) and HWP both at $45^\circ$ for $(\mathbb{1} + i \sigma_x)/\sqrt{2}$). After this, the two paths are recombined on a 50/50 beamsplitter (BS) --- which projects the path DOF in the basis $\lbrace\ket{+}\bra{+}, \ket{-}\bra{-}\rbrace$. The path lengths and the relative phases are set by means of a piezo-driven trombone-arm delay line. At the two outputs of each interferometer, QWPs, HWPs and polarizing beam splitters (PBSs) are used to perform arbitrary polarization measurements on the target qubits.
To entangle the two quantum SWITCHes, we first entangle the path DOFs of the two photons. As explained in the \textbf{Methods - Section I.}, we generate path-entangled photon pairs that are separable in their polarization DOF:
\begin{align}\label{eq:input}
&\ket{\Phi^{-}}_{1,2}^{\text{path}}\otimes(\ket{H}_1\ket{H}_2)^{\text{polarization}} =\\
&=\left(\dfrac{\ket{0}_1\ket{0}_2-\ket{1}_1\ket{1}_2}{\sqrt{2}}\right)^{\text{path}}\otimes(\ket{H}_1\ket{H}_2)^{\text{polarization}}.\notag
\end{align}
Each photon is thus delocalized over two paths. The two photons are then sent to their respective SWITCHes, and, since the control qubits began in an entangled state, the order in which the gates act on the two target qubits becomes entangled.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{AliceBob_setup2}
\captionof{figure}{\footnotesize \textbf{Experimental implementation of an entangled quantum SWITCH.}
Each SWITCH is composed of a two-loop Mach-Zehnder interferometer. The interferometers start in the photon-pair source, wherein photon 1 and photon 2 are placed in superposition of the paths $0_1$ and $1_1$, and $0_2$ and $1_2$, respectively (see the \textbf{Methods - Section I.}).
(For simplicity we have drawn these paths as fibers, however the photons are transmitted via free-space from the source to the experiment.)
These paths are routed such that path $0_i$ sees gate ${U}_{i_\text{A}}$ and then gate ${U}_{i_\text{B}}$, and vice versa for the path $1_i$. Each gate, acting on the polarization degree of freedom, is made up of waveplates (as described in the main text).
%
The paths $0_i$ and $1_i$ are then combined on a beam splitter (BS).
In SWITCH S1 (SWITCH S2), the photon is detected after the polarization measurement at $M_1$ or $M_2$ ($M_3$ or $M_4$).
Together with the BS (which applies a Hadamard gate to the qubit encoded in the path DOF), detecting the photon at $M_1$ or $M_2$ ($M_3$ or $M_4$) projects the path qubit on $\ket{+}$ or $\ket{-}$, respectively.
Furthermore, within each measurement $M_i$, the polarization qubit can be measured in any basis by a combination of a quarter-waveplate (QWP), half-waveplate (HWP) and polarizing beam splitter (PBS).
}
\label{img:AliceBob_setup}
\end{figure*}
\section{Results}
Our goal is to demonstrate that the order of application of the gates within the two quantum SWITCHes is genuinely indefinite without assuming that the laboratory operations and the states of the systems are described by quantum theory. We can arrive at this conclusion in two steps.
We will first argue that assumptions \textbf{1.} and \textbf{2.} are satisfied in our experiment using both quantum theory and a large class of GPTs.
We will then show experimental data that violates a Bell inequality.
From this we can conclude that assumption \textbf{3.} does not hold in our experiment, and, therefore, that the local operations within the two SWITCHes must have been applied in an indefinite temporal order.
%First, we will show that our experimental data violate a Bell inequality {\color{yellow}that is fulfilled by GPTs (WHAT DOES THIS MEAN??)} when one only performs local operations (assumption \textbf{2.}) on an initial state that does not violate a Bell inequality (assumption \textbf{1.}), and the local operations are applied in a definite order (assumption \textbf{3.}). We will then argue that assumptions \textbf{1.} and \textbf{2.} are satisfied in our experiment using both quantum theory and a large class of GPTs.
%In the following section, we will first take some general considerations on the results of our work, in order to provide the reader with a broad-spectrum reading key of our result. We will then proceed to analyze each assumption individually in order to argue whether it should be discarded or maintained.
%We will now briefly discuss each assumption in the context of our experiment and GPTs.
Assumption \textbf{1.} of our no-go theorem says that the joint target state (shared between system S1 and S2) does not initially violate a Bell inequality.
Within quantum theory, one can show this by demonstrating that the state is separable; this can be done using quantum state tomography, for example.
To this end, we performed tomography on the target states before the SWITCHes. The resulting density matrix is shown in Fig. \ref{img:HH}, Panels \textbf{a)} and \textbf{b)}.
For our experiment, the target was nominally prepared in $\ket{HH}$; our measured state has a fidelity of $0.935 \pm 0.004$ with $\ket{HH}$. Furthermore, the concurrence of the estimated state is $0.001 \pm 0.010$, indicating that, within experimental error, the initial target state is separable, in agreement with assumption \textbf{1.}.
The error bars are computed using a Monte Carlo simulation of our experiment; the dominant contribution comes from errors in setting the WPs and cross-talk in the polarizing BSs.
To show that a given bipartite state does not violate a Bell inequality within a GPT, one can demonstrate that the joint state is a product state.
This test can be carried out by performing a set of `fiducial' measurements (defined in \textbf{Methods - Section III.}) \cite{GPT1, GPT2, GPT3, 1367-2630-13-6-063001}, and analyzing the resulting probabilities directly.
If the probabilities for outcome pairs on a bipartite-state are equal to the product of the two marginalized probabilities of each subsystem, then the state is a product state (see \textbf{Methods - Section III.} for more details).
We experimentally performed this characterization for a wide range of measurements; the results are presented in Suppl. Tabs. \ref{tab:sep1} and \ref{tab:sep2}.
The first four columns are the measured joint probabilities, the second four columns are the products of the marginalized probabilities.
The excellent agreement between the two sets indicates that the target joint state is indeed a product state, and cannot violate a Bell inequality.
We further quantify this by calculating the \textit{root-mean-square} (RMS) difference between the two distributions, resulting in an average difference of $0.6 \cdot 10^{- 2} \pm 2.7 \cdot 10^{- 2}$.
This proves, in a theory-independent manner, that assumption \textbf{1.} of our no-go theorem holds.
The second assumption of our no-go theorem says that the laboratory operations are local transformations acting on the target states.
As discussed earlier, this has two implications.
First, it implies that the laboratory operations performed in the two SWITCHes cannot transform the joint state of the target systems of S$1$ and S$2$ from a local state to a non-local one \textbf{(2a)}.
In the language of quantum mechanics, this means that no entangling operation is applied between the two target systems.
This could be ensured by performing the operations with a space-like separation in which case the condition would be guaranteed in any theory obeying relativistic locality.
However, in our experiment, we make the (well-justified) device-dependent assumption that the laboratory operations are local transformations within S$1$ and S$2$ in GPTs, since the transformations of the systems take place at spatially separated parts of the optical table.% to exclude the same class of GPTs by violation of Bell's inequalities for temporal order.
The second implication of Assumption \textbf{2.} is that the laboratory operations do not increase the non-classical correlations between the control and the target systems within each SWITCH \textbf{(2b)}.
This means, in other words, that the laboratory operations of one party S$i$ do not `couple' the control and the target systems.
Such a coupling would make it possible to transfer the non-local correlations from the control systems of the two parties S$1$ and S$2$ to their target systems, and therefore a violation of Bell's inequalities would be possible even in presence of a definite temporal order.
In our experiment, the laboratory operations (implemented using waveplates) act only on the state of the target system (the polarization DOF), and there is no device that directly couples it to the control DOF (the path), \textit{i.e.}, there is no gate (such as, \textit{e.g.}, a PBS) that could directly `swap' the entanglement.
We can quantify how well our experiment agrees with Assumption \textbf{(2b)} in a theory independent manner using a similar technique as for Assumption \textbf{1.}.
We start by preparing the target and control systems of a single SWITCH in a product state, and choosing a state for the control system such that the order of operations within each SWITCH is well-defined.
(Notice that this is a device-dependent step, but the overall proof will remain theory-independent as everything is described in the framework of GPTs.)
In this case, the output state of the two systems remains a product state provided that there is no coupling between the control and target systems.
We analyze this by performing a set of measurements on the joint control-target system and showing that the joint probabilities can be described by the product of the marginal probabilities (see Suppl. Tabs. \ref{tab:RR} and \ref{tab:LL}, and \textbf{Methods - Section VI.} for more details).
The RMS difference between the two distributions is, on average, $0.045 \pm 0.016 \pm 0.010$ (where the first error is a statistical error due to limited photon counts and the second one is a systematic error due to leakage from the PBSs used to generate the path entanglement. This measurement is particularly sensitive to this leakage as it can lead to a non-negligible amplitude in the unwanted causal order). This value is within two st. dev. of zero, confirming that the probability distribution is consistent with that of a product state, and hence the laboratory operations do not couple the control and target systems.
%Notice that although this argument is device-dependent (since it relies on the assumption that the device realizes a definite causal order for certain input states of the target) it is theory-independent since the systems are described by GPTs.
%{\red Assumption \textbf{(2a)}: We assume that the laboratory operations performed in the two SWITCHes cannot transform the state of systems of S$1$ and S$2$ from a local to a non-local one. In an experiment in which the operations would be performed at a space-like separation, the condition would be guaranteed in any theory obeying relativistic locality. In the present experiment, we require a stronger condition that the laboratory operations of S$1$ and S$2$ coincide with local transformations on the systems of S$1$ and S$2$ in GPTs to exclude the same class of GPTs by violation of Bell's inequalities for temporal order.
%Assumption \textbf{(2b)}: We assume that the laboratory operations of one party S$i$ do not `couple' the control and the target systems within the party. Such a coupling would enable transferring the non-local correlations from the control systems of two parties S$1$ and S$2$ to their target systems, and hence a violation of Bell's inequalities for temporal orders would be possible even in presence of a definite causal order. In our experiment, within the two SWITCHes (S1 and S2), the laboratory operations (implemented via wave-plates) acts only on the state of the target system (\textit{i.e.}, the polarization degree of freedom). Hence, within quantum theory there is no device that directly couples the degrees of freedom of the control (\textit{i.e.}, the path degree of freedom) and target systems and, therefore, no gate (such as, \textit{e.g.}, a PBS) that could directly `swap' entanglement from the control to the target systems.
%The validity of the assumption \textbf{(2b)} can be justified in a theory-independent fashion as well. In Ref. \cite{NatCommun.6} it was shown that whenever the order of operations is fixed, if a product state of the target and control systems is inserted into a single SWITCH, the output state of the two systems will remain a product state. This shows that there is no `direct coupling' between the target and control systems of single party S$i$. The argument is device-dependent as it relies on the assumption that the device realizes a definite causal order for certain input states of the target and it is theory-independent as the systems can be described by GPTs.}
%{\red [I incorporated in points 2a and 2b what I thought is relevant from the paragraph below. I suggest to delete the rest: "Something about no direct coupling between control and target system in each party S$i$. \textbf{2.b)} In our experiment, a non-local transformation would require the equivalent of a two-qubit logic gate between the two degrees of freedom (\textit{e.g.}, a two-photon controlled-not gate \cite{Nature.426.264, PhysRevLett.93.020504, Jonas}). This is not the case in our set-up. [...] We can further exploit our knowledge of the experiment to confirm that operations act either only on target state (\textit{i.e.}, the polarization degree of freedom) or only on control state (\textit{i.e.}, the path degree of freedom) and, therefore, that there is no interaction between two states that could directly `swap' the entanglement from the control to the target states. In other words, within the two SWITCHes (S1 and S2) there is no device that directly couples the degrees of freedom of the control and target systems.}
%{\textbf{1.b)} \blue [I find good what you write above. I am not sure if you want to add a more formal view to it. To me this is probable not necessary as it complicates the story. Whatever you decide, one could say the following:] In the quantum (causal) circuit model, when a series of physical operations $U_A$ and $U_B$ only act on a \textit{subsystem}, it is described by $\mathbb{1}\otimes U_B U_A$. It is obvious that such a series cannot entangle the two subsystems. As a concrete example one can think of the path DOF of a photon as the first subsystem, its polarization DOF as the second subsystem and the transformations as those induced by waveplates. In order to entangle the two subsystems one necessarily needs to couple them, for example, through a PBS. In a circuit with indefinite order of operations a physical operation can act only on the \textit{subspace}, resulting in: $U_A \, U_B \oplus U_B \, U_A$ for the SWITCH transformation. More precisely, let $\{|H\rangle,|V\rangle\}$ be a basis spanning the space of internal DOF in which $U$ acts, and $\{|0\rangle, |1\rangle\}$ be the two paths. Then, in the basis $\{|0\rangle,|1 \rangle\} \otimes \{|H\rangle, |V\rangle\}$ the physical operation is represented by
%$$
%\begin{pmatrix}
%U_AU_B & 0 \\
%0 & U_BU_A \\
%\end{pmatrix},
%$$
%which for suitable choices of the unitaries can entangle the two DOFs."}]}
%Assumption \textbf{3}: Whether the order of the laboratory operations is pre-defined is what we aim at counter-proving with our no-go theorem. To the best of our knowledge, no experimental evidence can therefore be gathered to corroborate this assumption.
%{\red Having completed the analysis of each individual assumption, we now proceed with the verification of the violation of the no-go theorem.}
The next step is to perform a Bell test between the target states at the output of the apparatus.
This allows us to experimentally probe a conjunction of all three assumptions.
Since we know from the above measurements that assumptions \textbf{1.} and \textbf{2.} hold for our apparatus, it will not be possible to violate a Bell inequality on the target states if the order of operations inside of SWITCHes S1 and S2 is well-defined.
%Let us, hence, proceed with analyzing the state of the output target system.
%While the violation of a Bell inequality could originate from any of the three assumptions being invalid, the knowledge of our experimental set-up and our additional measurements provide solid grounds that \textbf{1.} and \textbf{2.} hold not only in quantum theory, but also in the class of GPTs considered. More specifically, local operations are performed at spatially separated regions of a laboratory and no device coupling the target and order systems was present in our apparatus (assumption \textbf{1.}). Moreover, all experimental data were compatible with assumption \textbf{2.} (\textit{i.e.}, that the initial target system cannot violate any Bell inequality).
In previous theory-dependent tests \cite{Rubinoe1602589,NatCommun.6}, the temporal order of the operations was made indefinite by placing the state of the control system in a superposition state.
As we showed above (Section 1.1), one can also achieve this indefiniteness by entangling the two control systems. This has the advantage of allowing us to perform a theory-independent test of the indefinite temporal order.
%Our results show that one can achieve this indefiniteness by entangling the two control systems. Furthermore, we can use this entanglement to perform theory-independent verification
Experimentally, the control systems are encoded in path DOF of two photons.
We verified the initial entanglement by performing a Bell measurement on the joint control system before the SWITCH, obtaining a CHSH parameter of $2.58\pm0.09$ (see Fig. \ref{img:HH}).
Thus, we have confirmed that the joint target system starts in a separable state, while the joint control system is initially entangled.
We then send this joint state into our two quantum SWITCHes and perform measurements on the output state.
Within quantum mechanics, we first perform polarization-state tomography on the two-qubit output target state after the SWITCHes, using four equivalent measurement set-ups (orange and blue boxes in Fig. \ref{img:AliceBob_setup}).
Since the 50/50 BSs apply a Hadamard gate on the path qubits, we post-select the control qubits in the same state (either $\ket{+}_1^O\ket{+}_2^O$ or $\ket{-}_1^O\ket{-}_2^O$) by grouping the results of $M_1$ with $M_3$ (orange boxes) and $M_2$ with $M_4$ (blue boxes).
The resulting density matrix is presented in Fig. \ref{img:RR-LL}, and it shows a clear presence of entanglement. The reconstructed state has a fidelity of $0.922 \pm 0.005$ with the ideal one (Eq. (\ref{eq:entangledState}) ), and a concurrence of $0.95 \pm 0.01$.
Finally, to perform a theory-independent measurement, we perform a Bell test (more specifically, we measure a CHSH inequality \cite{PhysRevLett.23.880}) on the polarization DOF, obtaining $S_{\text{target}} = 2.55\pm 0.08$. This violates the inequality, and thus also the no-go theorem, by almost 7 standard deviations. Hence, no GPT satisfying assumptions \textbf{1.}, \textbf{2.} and \textbf{3.} is compatible with the experimental data. Having previously justified assumptions \textbf{1.} and \textbf{2.} inside and outside the quantum theory, this implies that assumption \textbf{3.} does not hold, \textit{i.e.}, that the order of the operations in our experiment is genuinely indefinite.
As a control, we perform two tests. First, we decrease the entanglement of the joint control system by increasing the delay of the interferometer inside the source (see the \textbf{Methods - Section I.}). %In this case, each SWITCH is still a causally non-separable process, but we are unable to violate a Bell inequality.
In this case, each individual SWITCH could still produce a causally non-separable processes if the control systems were in a sufficiently coherent state.
However, since we insert the control systems in a mixed separable state, we cannot violate a Bell inequality with their target systems. The Bell parameter versus the ``source visibility'' (the two-photon visibility in its anti-correlated basis) is plotted in Fig. \ref{img:decreasing_visiSWITCH}\textbf{a)}. The dashed line is a calculation of the expected Bell parameter, including the imperfect visibility of the two interferometers. All the data points agree with the expected trend within error. The small step at an entanglement visibility of around $0.5$ was caused by a lower fringe visibility which increased the systematic error in setting the phases $\phi_1$ and $\phi_1 + \pi/4$ (see Fig. \ref{img:HH}).
Next, we decrease the degree of causal non-separability of the two processes. To do this, we introduce distinguishing information between the paths corresponding to the orders ${U}_{i_\text{A}}\preceq {U}_{i_\text{B}}$ and ${U}_{i_\text{B}}\preceq {U}_{i_\text{A}}$ (in only one SWITCH, squares in Fig. \ref{img:decreasing_visiSWITCH}\textbf{b)}, and in both simultaneously, circles in Fig. \ref{img:decreasing_visiSWITCH}\textbf{b)}) by lengthening one of the paths with respect to the other, effectively reducing the visibility of the interferometers comprising the SWITCHes. As this occurs, we transition from a superposition of temporal orders to a mixture of them (in other words, to a causally-separable process, which satisfies assumption \textbf{3.}). If all three assumptions are met, one cannot violate a Bell inequality between the two systems. Indeed, we experimentally observe that as the visibility is decreased, the Bell parameter also decreases (Fig. \ref{img:decreasing_visiSWITCH}b). In this plot the dashed lines are linear fits to the experimental data.
%Finally, to prove that our work is consistent with previous (theory-dependent) techniques, we measure a causal witness on an individual SWITCH. A causal witness is a series of measurements from whose outcome one can directly determine whether a given process is causally ordered or not \cite{Rubinoe1602589}. These measurement outcomes are combined in such a way that, if the process was causally non-separable, the value of the causal witness is positive. The particular details of the measured witness are presented in detail in \textbf{Methods - Section IV.}). We obtain a value of {\red \#\#\#\# [VALUE FORTHCOMING]} (the corresponding theoretical expectation value is 0.3604), showing that the process is causally non-separable.
{\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{HH_and_BellPath}
\captionof{figure}{\footnotesize \textbf{Input state characterization} \textbf{a)-b)} \textit{State tomography of the target qubits---}
The real (Panel \textbf{a)}$\,$) and imaginary (Panel \textbf{b)}$\,$) parts of the two-photon polarization state measured before the two photons enter the SWITCHes. This state has a fidelity $0.935 \pm 0.004$ with the ideal state $\ket{HH}$, and a concurrence of $0.001 \pm 0.010$.
\textbf{c)} \textit{Bell measurement on the order qubits---}
Each curve is a measurement of a Bell correlation term $C\bigl(\mathcal{O}_1(\phi_1),\mathcal{O}_2(\phi_2)\bigr)$ on the control qubits, wherein the phase of $\phi_1$ is fixed, and the phase $\phi_2$ is scanned. As described in Eq. (\ref{eqn:CHSH}) of the \textbf{Methods - Section I.}, we test the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality \cite{PhysRevLett.23.880} achieving a violation of $2.59 \pm 0.09$.
%The control qubits are path qubits, created in a maximally entangled state.
%The two paths of each qubit are interfered at a beam splitter (BS), projecting each qubit onto the $\ket{0}\pm e^{-i\phi}\ket{0}$ basis, where $\phi$ is the phase of the interferometer (see \textbf{Methods - Section I.} for details).
For the data in the green curve, the phase $\phi_1$ was nominally shifted by $\pi/4$ rad with respect to the blue curve.
The red shaded areas represent the regions where values of $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ correspond with those used to construct our CHSH parameter (Eq. (\ref{eqn:CHSH}) of the \textbf{Methods - Section I.}). In particular, $\mathcal{O}=(\mathcal{O}_1, \mathcal{O}_2)$ where $\mathcal{O}_i(\phi_1,\phi_2)=cos(\phi_i) \, \sigma_x+cos(\phi_i) \,\sigma_z$.
These data confirm that the two photons start in a path-entangled state, and the polarization state is initially separable.
}
\label{img:HH}
\end{figure}}
%\begin{figure}[ht]
%\centering
%\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{HH}
%\captionof{figure}{\footnotesize \textbf{Input state characterization}
%The real (Panel \textbf{a)}$\,$) and imaginary (Panel \textbf{b)}$\,$) parts of the two-photon polarization state measured before the two photons enter the SWITCHes. This state has a fidelity $0.935 \pm 0.004$ with the ideal state $\ket{HH}$, and a concurrence of $0.001 \pm 0.010$.
%}
%\label{img:HH}
%\end{figure}
{\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{RR-LL}
\captionof{figure}{\footnotesize
\textbf{Output state characterization.} Panels \textbf{a)} and \textbf{b)} show the real and imaginary parts, respectively, of the two-photon polarization state measured after the photons leave the SWITCHes. For the data shown here, the two control qubits were found to be in the same state (either $\ket{+}_1^O\ket{+}_2^O$ or $\ket{-}_1^O\ket{-}_2^O$). This state has a fidelity of $0.922 \pm 0.005$ with the target state $(\ket{HV}+\ket{VH})/\sqrt{2}$, and a concurrence of $0.95 \pm 0.01$.
Performing a Bell measurement directly using this state results in a CHSH parameter of $2.55 \pm 0.08$.
}
\label{img:RR-LL}
\end{figure}}
{\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{DecVisiSWITCH_and_DecoSource}
\captionof{figure}{\footnotesize \textbf{Bell parameter in the presence of various decoherence sources.}
\textbf{a)} For these data the initial entanglement of control qubits is decreased, passing from the entangled state $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\bigl(\ket{0,0}-\ket{1,1}\bigr)$ to a mixture of $\ket{0,0}$ and $\ket{1,1}$.
We measure the Bell parameter both on the input path qubits (squares) and output polarization qubits (circles) as the source is decohered. Here, the Bell parameter is plotted versus the visibility of the entangled state in its anti-correlated basis.
The dashed line is a simulation of the experimental results.
%
\textbf{b)} For these data the coherence of the superposition of the orders of operations inside the SWITCHes is decreased, leading to a classical mixture of orders.
To control this transition, we decrease the visibility of either only one of the two interferometers (circles) or of both interferometers at the same time (squares).
Each graph shows the Bell parameter plotted versus the visibility of one interferometer.
The dashed lines are linear fits to the data.
The horizontal dashed blue line, in both plots, is the classical limit for a Bell violation.
When the state of the control qubit is too decohered, we can no longer violate a Bell inequality.
}
\label{img:decreasing_visiSWITCH}
\end{figure}}
In our work we engineered a situation wherein the only way entanglement can be transferred from one system to another is by means of causally non-separable processes. In our experiment, this transfer takes place between different internal DOFs of photon pairs. Although it is often easy to transfer the entanglement from one DOF to another, this is typically done with a device that directly couples the two DOFs; \textit{e.g.}, in the case of path-polarization transfer, a PBS could be used, violating assumption \textbf{2.}. In our experiment, we used an entangled quantum SWITCH to accomplish this interchange. Our SWITCHes do not contain any device which directly couples these DOFs (only waveplates, which act solely on the polarization state, and 50/50 BSs, which act solely on the path state). Rather, here the interchange occurs because the control qubit (the path) governs the order of the application of gates on the target qubit (the polarization). Then, since we begin with an entangled state of the control qubits, this state is transferred to the target qubits via an indefinite order of the application of the gates. In other words, by choosing a specific set of operations, the superposition of these operations is mapped onto a superposition of orthogonal states. As a result, this transfer of entanglement is the signature of an indefinite temporal order.
\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{Conclusion}
\section*{Conclusion}
We entangled the temporal orders between two parties and experimentally showed that resulting temporal orders is indefinite. %Through the violation of a {\red no-go theorem for temporal orders}, we were able to do this in a theory-independent way.
%In particular, we showed that a pair of quantum SWITCHes can act as an interface to transfer an entangled state from one pair of qubits (the control qubits), to the order of operations, and, finally, to another pair of qubits (the target qubits).
%This transfer of entanglement only works if the order of operations is entangled (and thus, indefinite).
By violating a Bell inequality using the joint target system after the SWITCHes, we verified that the temporal orders in a quantum SWITCH cannot be described by any underlying (generalized probabilistic) theory in which the initial joint target state does not violate Bell's inequalities, the operations on the target states are local, and they have a predefined order. This did not require the assumption that the systems and the operations are described by quantum formalism.
Clearly, for our demonstration to be loophole-free (as proposed in \cite{mag}), the standard Bell loopholes (fair-sampling and locality) would need to be closed.
Further loopholes can arise related to implementation of the quantum SWITCH (for example, quantifying the number of gate uses via theory-independent techniques is an open question).
This is a relevant line of research, that has ties to several foundational issues in quantum mechanics.
%The high noise resistance of the process here shown is illustrated by the large number of standard deviations through which the process is achieved.
%To make our experiment theory independent we violated a Bell inequality.
All previous work involving quantum processes with indefinite temporal orders achieved their goal by superimposing the order of operations, rather than entangling them.
The first proposal to entangle the temporal orders was made very recently \cite{mag}.
Here we show that the basis of this theoretical concept is in fact experimentally accessible.
Moreover, we exploit this resource as a new means to validate indefinite causal structures. Techniques to characterize these structures are becoming increasingly relevant, as it is known that these processes can lead to linear advantages in query complexity and exponential advantages in quantum communication tasks \cite{PhysRevA.88.022318, PhysRevLett.113.250402,PhysRevA.92.052326, PhysRevLett.117.100502}.
%Our work represents the first experimental demonstration of the existence of causally unordered quantum systems that does not rely on any underlying theory. Furthermore, we showed that the quantum SWITCH can be used as an interface to coherently exchange quantum information, which may pave the way for further applications of the quantum SWITCH \cite{PhysRevA.88.022318, PhysRevLett.113.250402,PhysRevA.92.052326, PhysRevLett.117.100502}.
\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.2}
\bibliography{main.bbl}
%\bibliography{QDC_BIB}
\bibliographystyle{Science}
\vspace{2mm}
\textbf{Acknowledgments:} We thank C. Branciard, F. Costa, B. Daki\'c, A. Moqanaki and T. Str\"omberg for useful discussions. \textbf{Funding:} G.R. acknowledges support from the uni:docs fellowship programme at the University of Vienna. L.A.R. acknowledges support from the Templeton World Charity Foundation (fellowship no. TWCF0194). M.A. acknowledges support from the
Excellence Initiative of the German Federal and State Governments (Grant
ZUK 81). M.Z.~acknowledges support through an ARC DECRA grant DE180101443, and ARC Centre EQuS (CE170100009). \v C.B. acknowledges support from the John Templeton Foundation, Innovationsfond of Austrian Academy of Sciences (\"OAW), Austrian Science Fund (FWF) through the projects no. I-2562-N27 and I-2906, as well as support from the European Commission via Testing the Large-Scale Limit of Quantum Mechanics (TEQ) (No. 766900) project. \v C.B. and P.W. acknowledge support from the Doctoral Programme CoQuS (no. W1210-4) and the research platform TURIS. P.W. also acknowledges support from the European Commission, Photonic Integrated Compound Quantum Encoding (PICQUE) (no. 608062), Quantum Simulation on a Photonic Chip (QUCHIP) (no. 641039) and the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) through the START Program (Y585-N20) and NaMuG (P30067-N36), United States Air Force Office of Scientific Research via QAT4SECOMP (FA2386-17-1-4011) and Red Bull GmbH. \textbf{Author contributions:} G.R., L.A.R., \v C.B. and P.W. designed the experiment. G.R. built the set-up and carried out data collection. G.R. and L.A.R. performed data analysis. F.M. built the single-photon source. M.Z., M.A. and \v C.B. developed the theoretical idea. L.A.R., P.W. and \v C.B. supervised the project. All authors contributed to writing the paper.
\textbf{Competing interests:} The authors declare that they have no competing interests. \textbf{Data and materials availability:} All data needed to evaluate the conclusions in the paper are present in the paper and/or the Supplementary Materials. Additional data related to this paper may be requested from the authors.
\onecolumngrid
\newpage
\newpage
\section*{Materials and Methods}
\subsection*{Section I. Entangled Photon Source}
A \textit{periodically-poled potassium titanyl phosphate} (PPKTP) crystal, phase-matched for collinear type-II \textit{spontaneous parametric down-conversion} (SPDC), converts one photon at $426$ nm into two photons at $852$ nm. The photonic state after the crystal can be approximated to a Fock state of two photons in two orthogonal polarization modes $\vert H, a \rangle \vert V, a \rangle$, where $a$ indicates the common spatial mode of the two photons defined in Fig. \ref{img:source}. Two PBSs are used to separate and then recombine the two photons. Each photon passes through a HWP set at $\pm 45^{\circ}$. The state after the second PBS is therefore: $\bigl(\ket{H, b} \ket{H, c} - \ket{H, b} \ket{V, b} + \ket{H, c} \ket{V, c} - \ket{V, b} \ket{V, c}\bigr) /\ 2$, where $b$ and $c$ indicate the two output spatial modes of the second PBS. By post-selecting on coincidences, only the part of the state with the photons in two different spatial modes is kept, resulting in the polarization-entangled state $\bigl(\vert H, b\rangle \vert H, c\rangle - \vert V, b \rangle \vert V, c \rangle\bigr) /\ \sqrt{2}$.
We then use two PBSs and two HWPs (Fig. \ref{img:source}) to convert this state into a path-entangled state: $\bigl(\ket{0}_1 \ket{0}_2 - \ket{1}_1\ket{1}_2\bigr) /\ \sqrt{2}$, where the notation is the same as specified in Fig. \ref{img:source}.
A trombone delay line in between the two PBSs is used to compensate temporal delay between the two photons, and a multi-order QWP in one mode is tilted to compensate for undesired phases between the two components of the final quantum state.
The delay line and the QWP can be also used to modify the final output state in a controllable way. In particular, by unbalancing the two paths by the coherence length of the down-converted photons, the entangled state can be converted into a statistical mixture of the states $\vert 0\rangle_1 \vert 0\rangle_2$ and $\vert 1 \rangle_1 \vert 1 \rangle_2$.
%Additionally, by tilting the multi-order QWP, a phase can be added between these two terms. Furthermore, not maximally entangled states can be produced if the HWPs after the first PBS are set to angles different than $\pm 45^{\circ}$.
\begin{suppfigure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ent_source1}
\captionof{suppfigure}{\footnotesize \textbf{Entangled photon-pair source.} \textbf{a)} \textit{The source} --- The beam from a Toptica DL Pro HP 426 laser is focused on a 30-mm-long PPKTP crystal, phase-matched for degenerate collinear type-II SPDC from $426$ nm to $852$ nm. The phase-matching is finely tuned by controlling the temperature of the crystal with a precision greater than $0.01 K$. The emitted photons have a bandwidth of approximately $0.2$ nm. After the crystal, the residual pump beam is filtered, the photons are then collimated and sent to a set-up to create entanglement by post-selection (as explained in the main text). The entanglement is first produced in polarization and then converted into path using polarizing beam splitters. The source produces $\approx 30.000$ path-entangled photon pairs per second with a pump power of $8$ mW.
\textbf{b)} \textit{Set-up used to measure a Bell Inequality on the path qubits} --- The two paths composing each qubit are interfered on a beam splitter (BS) projecting each qubit onto a basis on the equator of the Bloch sphere (see main text for more details).
}
\label{img:source}
\end{suppfigure}
For our experiment, both the path and the polarization states of the photon pairs are important. To characterize the polarization state, we can perform two-qubit polarization state tomography using a QWP, a HWP and a PBS for each photon ({Fig. \ref{img:source}, Panel \textbf{a)$\,$}}).
To characterize the path entanglement, we perform a Bell measurement on the path qubits using the apparatus shown in Fig. \ref{img:source}, Panel \textbf{b)}, which is essentially composed of one Mach-Zehnder interferometer for each photon. The phase of the interferometers sets the measurement bases $\lbrace \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{0} + e^{-i\phi_i}\ket{1}), \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{0} - e^{-i\phi_i}\ket{1}) \rbrace$.
Using these two interferometers we can measure all what is required for a CHSH parameter:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:CHSH}
S=\left\lvert C(o_1,o_2) + C(o_1',o_2) + C(o_1,o_2') - C(o_1',o_2') \right\rvert,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
C(o_1,o_2)=\dfrac{N_{++}-N_{+-}-N_{-+}+N_{--}}{N_{++}+N_{+-}+N_{-+}+N_{--}}.
\end{equation}
Here, $N_{++}$ is the number of coincidence events between detectors labelled $+$ for each photon in Fig. \ref{img:source}b., $N_{+-}$ the number of coincidence events between detectors $+$ and $-$ for each photon, and so on.
\subsection*{Section II. Data Analysis}
In order to convert the coincidence counts into probabilities, we weight each measured count rate by the net detection efficiency of the corresponding detector pair.
We estimate these efficiencies in two parts.
First, we measure the relative coupling efficiencies between the output ports $M_1$ and $M_2$ of SWITCH S1, and $M_3$ and $M_4$ of SWITCH S2.
Then, within each output port, we measure the relative efficiency of the detector in the transmitted port and the reflected port.
We find relative efficiencies between $\approx 0.85$ and $1$.
For more details, see the Methods section of our previous work \cite{Rubinoe1602589}.
The main source of error in our experiment was phase fluctuations.
In the Bell measurement, this dephasing is mainly due to two contributions. \textit{1)} Undesired phase-shifts in the interferometer (which we estimated to be about $0.97^{\circ}$). \textit{2)} Fluctuations of the source, which produces time varying phase between the $\ket{HH}$ and $\ket{VV}$ terms. In our source, we estimate this to be approximately $1.9^{\circ}$, which is caused by a combination of fluctuations in the pump laser wavelength, and the phase-matching temperature.
We convert these errors into an error in the Bell parameter using Gaussian error propagation.
To calculate the error for the Bell measurements on the polarization qubits after the SWITCHes, we consider the same error sources as above (where now the phase shifts in the measurement interferometer are replaced by phase shifts in the SWITCHes).
However, we also consider errors arising from setting the polarization measurements.
%They results rotated of about $1.5424^{\circ}$ from the ideal states $\ket{H}$, $\ket{D}$, $\ket{R}$ which are used in the theoretical model.
Finally, to estimate the errors in the results extracted from tomography (\textit{i.e.}, fidelity and concurrence), we performed a Monte Carlo simulation considering the phase fluctuations discussed above.
%using the following technique. Starting from the experimentally reconstructed densities matrices $\rho$ for the separable and the entangled case, we built new densities matrices
%\begin{equation}
%\label{eqn:rho_m}
%\rho_m = U \cdot \rho \cdot U^{\dagger}
%\end{equation}
%where
%\begin{equation}
%U = \begin{pmatrix}
%1 & 0\\
%0 & e^{i*\phi}
%\end{pmatrix}
%\end{equation}
%and $phi = d\phi \cdot \text{rand}$ where $\text{rand} \in [0,1]$. Starting from the density matrices $\rho_m$, we made a Monte Carlo simulation where we calculated the fidelity of the fits of many repetition of density matrices $\rho_m$. In order to evaluate of the error in the concurrence, instead, we made a similar Monte Carlo simulation, where we applied matrices $\rho_n$ of the form
%\begin{equation}
%\rho_n = \dfrac{1}{N} \sum_{m=0}^{N} U \cdot \rho_m \cdot U^{\dagger}
%\end{equation}
%where $N \approx 10^3$ and $\rho_m$ is calculated as in Eq. \ref{eqn:rho_m}.
%The versatility of the source is used to evaluate the effect of a partially entangled input state on the Bell violation. Fig. \ref{img:sourceDecoher} shows a study of the entanglement visibility in two bases --- $H$, $V$ (green dots) and $A$, $D$ (orange dots) --- while translating the delay line located on one arm of the interferometer. The fact that the visibility in $H$, $V$ remains constant while the one in $A$, $D$ is gradually decreasing shows a gradual transition from the entangled state $\bigl(\ket{H,H}-\ket{V,V}\bigr) /\ \sqrt{2}$ to the separable state $\ket{H,H}$, $\ket{V,V}$.
%\begin{figure}
%\centering
%\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figures/sourceDecoher}
%\captionof{figure}{\footnotesize \textbf{Measurement of the entanglement visibility in two bases ($A$, $D$ and $H$, $V$).}
%Translating the delay line positioned on one of the two arms of the interferometer that gives rise to the entanglement by post-selection, it is possible to gradually decrease the degree of entanglement between the input photons in the SWITCHes. This is observable from the fact that, when translating the delay line, the visibility in $A$, $D$ decreases while the visibility in $H$, $V$ remains constant. This shows that one can gradually pass from an entangled state of the form $\bigl(\ket{H,H}-\ket{V,V}\bigr)/\ \sqrt{2}$ to the separable state $\ket{H,H}$, $\ket{V,V}$ --- in fact, the mutual phase between the two terms is gradually decohered. This can be observed by projecting on $A$, $D$ but not on $H$, $V$.}
%\label{img:sourceDecoher}
%\end{figure}
%This allows us to make a study of the Bell parameter variation, both with the input state (blue dots in Fig. \ref{img:BellViolDec}) and in the output state (red dots in Fig. \ref{img:BellViolDec}) while decohering the degree of entanglement of the photon pairs generated by the source. Fig. \ref{img:BellViolDec} clearly shows that the less entangled is the incoming state, the less significant is the corresponding Bell inequality violations (until the complete lack of violation for visibilities below 50\%).
%\begin{figure}
%\centering
%\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figures/BellViolDec1}
%\captionof{figure}{\footnotesize \textbf{Decrease of the Bell parameter while decreasing the degree of entanglement of the injected photon pairs in the entangled quantum SWITCH.} The gradual transition from the entangled state $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\bigl(\ket{0,0}-\ket{1,1}\bigr)$ to the mixed state $\ket{0,0}$, $\ket{1,1}$ allows us to measure the Bell parameters while decreasing the entanglement of the state of the control qubit. Both Bell parameter measured on the path for the input state (blue dots) and that measured on the polarization for the output state (red dots) show a gradual decrease as decohering the degree of entanglement between the two incoming photons. The Bell parameter evaluated on the DOF of the path shows a discontinuity below the 50\% visibility (while still maintaining a straight descending trend). This can be justified by a non-perfect capability of positioning the delay line at $\ket{0}$ and $\cos\left(\pi/4\right)\ket{0}+\sin\left(\pi/4\right)\ket{1}$ when the visibility of the fringes diverts by more than 50\% from the ideal value.}
%\label{img:BellViolDec}
%\end{figure}
%\subsection*{Section III. Verification of Entanglement of the Input Control Qubit}
%{\red In order to complete our characterization of the initial state, in this Section we show the entanglement of the control system.} To verify that the control state is entangled at the input, we perform a Bell test on the path DOF of the photon pairs by recombining the two paths of each photon on a BS and scanning the phase of these two interferometers (this allows us to measure the path qubits in different bases). The resulting two-photon coincidence patterns are shown in Fig. \ref{img:HH}, Panel \textbf{c)}. From these fringes, we estimate a Bell parameter \cite{PhysRevLett.23.880} of $S_{\text{control}} = 2.59\pm 0.09$.
%\begin{figure}[ht]
%\centering
%\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{BellPath}
%\captionof{figure}{\footnotesize \textbf{Input state characterization}
%Each curve is a measurement of a Bell correlation term $C\bigl(\mathcal{O}_1(\phi_1),\mathcal{O}_2(\phi_2)\bigr)$ on the control qubits, wherein the phase of $\phi_1$ is fixed, and the phase $\phi_2$ is scanned. As described in Eq. (\ref{eqn:CHSH}) of the \textbf{Methods - Section I.}, we test the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality \cite{PhysRevLett.23.880} achieving a violation of $2.59 \pm 0.09$.
%The control qubits are path qubits, created in a maximally entangled state.
%The two paths of each qubit are interfered at a beam splitter (BS), projecting each qubit onto the $\ket{0}\pm e^{-i\phi}\ket{0}$ basis, where $\phi$ is the phase of the interferometer (see \textbf{Methods - Section I.} for details).
%For the data in the green curve, the phase $\phi_1$ was nominally shifted by $\pi/4$ rad with respect to the blue curve.
%The red shaded areas represent the regions where values of $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ correspond with those used to construct our CHSH parameter (Eq. (\ref{eqn:CHSH}) of the \textbf{Methods - Section I.}). In particular, $\mathcal{O}=(\mathcal{O}_1, \mathcal{O}_2)$ where $\mathcal{O}_i(\phi_1,\phi_2)=cos(\phi_i) \, \sigma_x+cos(\phi_i) \,\sigma_z$.
%These data confirm that the two photons start in a path-entangled state, and the polarization state is initially separable.
%}
%\label{img:BellPath}
%\end{figure}
%{\red The measurements performed on the control and target input states (namely, state tomography and the Bell measurements) confirm that the polarization DOF of the two photons (target qubits of the entangled quantum SWITCH) is in a separable state, while the path DOF (control qubits) is highly entangled.}
\subsection*{Section III. Proof of No-Go Theorem for Temporal Orders}
%{\blue I think that this paragraph should appear as first in the section.}
All previous experimental studies of causally non-separable processes \cite{NatCommun.6, Rubinoe1602589} were dependent on the validity of the quantum theory (\textit{i.e.}, they were \textit{theory-dependent}) and all physically realizable processes are known to satisfy all causal inequalities (see \textbf{Suppl. Material}) \cite{NewJournPhys.17.102001, 1367-2630-18-9-093020}.
The latter means, in the spirit of a local hidden variable approach, that experimental data taken from a given causally non-separable quantum process could be understood as arising in causal manner in an underlying generalized probabilistic theory (GPT).
%While this is also true for the current work,
In our current work, we relate a violation of a Bell's inequality to the violation of a no-go theorem for temporal orders, as proposed in Ref.~\cite{mag}. This results in a theory-independent proof of causal indefiniteness.
In this section, we provide a rigorous introduction to such no-go theorem for temporal orders.
%{\blue [I provide below elements of a GPT theory since referee 1 asks explicitly for it in comment 1.6. Although not all elements might appear necessary for the present discussion, their presence here make the paper self-contained and prepare the basis for the claims. Maybe some of the sentences could be moved into the main text where we introduce GPTs.]}
We will begin by giving a brief introduction to the basic elements of GPTs which are necessary for our no-go theorem. A more detailed discussion of the GPT framework can be found in Ref. \cite{GPT2, 1367-2630-13-6-063001, PhysRevA.75.032304}.
In a GPT, a system is described by a state $\omega$ that specifies outcome probabilities for all measurements that can be performed on it. A complete representation of the state is given by specifying the outcome probabilities of a so-called `fiducial set'. The smallest such set defines the number $d$ of degrees of freedom of the system. We restrict our consideration here to binary systems that have two perfectly distinguishable states and no more. For example, the fiducial set for a two-level system in quantum theory consists of the (three) probability outcomes of spin projections along $x$, $y$ and $z$. The state space is a compact and convex set $\Omega$ embedded in a vector space. The extremal states of $\Omega$ that cannot be decomposed as a convex mixture of other states are called `pure states'. An effect $e$ is defined as a linear functional on $\Omega$ that maps each state onto a probability, \textit{i.e.}, $e : \Omega \rightarrow [0, 1]$, where $e(\omega)$ is the probability to obtain an outcome on the state $\omega$. The linearity is required to preserve the convex structure of the state space.
A transformation $U$ is a linear map from a state to a state, \textit{i.e.}, $U: \Omega \rightarrow \Omega$. The transformation is linear for the same reason that probabilities have to be linear maps of states. The sequence of transformations $U_1$, ... , $U_n$, in which transformation $U_1$ `precedes' transformation $U_2$, which `precedes' $U_3$, \textit{etc.}, is represented by a composition of maps: $U_n \circ ... \circ U_1$. This defines a {\em definite order of transformations}, which we denote as $U_1 \preceq ... \preceq U_n$.
%{\blue [The next old paragraph addresses partially comment 3.6, but the third referee obviously requires further clarifications on the connection between this work and Ref. [16]. I have extended the text at some places to respect the referee's requirement. Still I do not think that the paragraph is rightly placed in the paper. This section should remain formal with a necessary interpretation of GPTs, but not about the relation to paper [16].] }
We will now introduce the no-go theorem for temporal orders, which was originally proposed in Ref. \cite{mag}.
%Bell's theorem for temporal order was introduced in Ref. \cite{mag}. There it was shown that a superposition of massive objects can effectively lead to `entanglement' in the temporal order between local operations, enabling the violation of a new type of inequality. The resource for the violation in this proposal is a `non-classical space-time' created by macroscopic superposition of large masses. Unfortunately, the physical demands of the proposal make that experiment infeasible.
%However, quantum control of the order of events can also be achieved without the use of gravitational interaction. This can be done, for example, in an extended quantum circuit model, wherein the order of applied quantum gates is coherently controlled by an ancillary system (the quantum SWITCH).
%In the gravitational scheme, the spatio-temporal distance of any pair of events in a space-time region is influenced by a superposition state of the mass, whereas in the linear optical implementation, quantum gates are directly applied to the system (\textit{e.g.}, photons) in an indefinite order.
%{\blue I continue below with the "formal" part on GPTs. I have modified the previous text.}
In the framework of a GPT, the state of a composite system shared between two parties S1 and S2 is given by $\omega_{1,2} \in \Omega_{1,2}$, where $\Omega_{1,2}$ is the state space of a composite system. The state of a composite system is given by a multiplet consisting of the {\em local states} $\omega_{1} \in \Omega_1$ and $\omega_{2} \in \Omega_2$ of individual systems, the \textit{correlation tensor} $\hat{T}$ and a potential \textit{global parameter} $\xi$ \cite{GPT1, GPT2, GPT3, 1367-2630-13-6-063001}:
\begin{equation}
\omega_{1,2}=\omega_{1,2}(\omega_{1},\omega_{2},\hat{T},\xi)
\label{eqn:omega_12}
\end{equation}The fact that subsystems are themselves systems implies that each has a well-defined reduced state $\omega_1$, $\omega_2$ which does not depend on which transformations and measurements are performed on the other subsystem; this is often referred to as `no-signaling'. We also assume that transformations and measurements performed on subsystems commute with each other, so that \textit{one} correlation tensor is enough to describe correlations between them. If this was not the case, we would need to introduce \textit{two} correlation tensors, one when S1 applies operations before S2, and the other when S2 performs operations before S1. Finally, the states in GPT need not to satisfy the \textit{local tomography} condition (stating that reduced states and correlation tensor completely describe the systems' state) but may include a global parameter $\xi$.
For the present case of binary systems, the components of state~(\ref{eqn:omega_12}) are given as
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\omega^{(i)}_1 &= p^{(i)} (o_1=1) - p^{(i)}(o_1=-1) ,\\
\omega^{(j)}_2 &= p^{(j)} (o_2=1) - p^{(j)}(o_2=-1) ,\\
T^{(i,j)} &= p^{(i,j)} (o_1 \, o_2=1) - p^{(i,j)}(o_1 \, o_2=-1) .
\end{align}\end{subequations}
Here, for example, $p^{(i)} (o_1=1)$ is the probability to obtain outcome $o_1 = 1$ when the $i$-th measurement is performed on the first subsystem and $p^{(i,j)}(o_1 \, o_2 = 1)$ is the joint probability to obtain correlated results (\textit{i.e.}, either $o_1 = o_2 = +1$ or $o_1 = o_2 = - 1$) when the $i$-th measurement is performed on the first subsystem and the $j$-th measurement on
the second one.
An effect $e_{1,2}$ that maps a state onto a probability for a pair of local measurements is given
by $e_{1,2} = e_{1,2} (r_1,r_2,r_1r^T_2)$, where $r^T$ denotes transposition of $r$ (Note that the global parameter does not contribute to the probability for a pair of local measurements). The probability to obtain effect $e_{12}$ in state prepared in state $\omega_{12}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
p(e_{12}|\omega_{12}) = \frac{1}{4} \left(1 + (\omega_1 \cdot e_1) + (\omega_2 \cdot e_2) + (e_2 \cdot \hat{T} e_1) \right),
\end{equation}where $(x \cdot y)$ is the Euclidean scalar product between two $d$-dimensional real vectors $x$ and $y$.
The product state is represented by $\omega_p= \omega_p(\eta_1, \eta_2, \eta_1\eta^T_2, \xi_p)$, where the correlation tensor is of a product form. If we perform a pair of local measurements on the arbitrary product state, the outcome probability factorizes into the product of the local outcome probabilities.
We next introduce a pair of {\em local (reversible) transformations} $(U_1,U_2) : \Omega_{12} \rightarrow \Omega_{12}$ as a linear map from the space of states of a composite system to itself:
\begin{equation}
(U_1,U_2)(\omega_{12} )= (U_1\omega_1,U_2\omega_2,U_1 \hat{T} U^T_2,\xi'),
\label{transfeq}
\end{equation}
where the global parameter $\xi'$ is changed under the transformations in general. Since testing our Bell inequality involves only local transformations and measurements, it is sufficient to specify effects for those measurements.
%Suppose, however, that the state $\omega_{1,2}$ is constituted by two substates, one governing the order of the operations which each party performs (\textit{control} state) and the other being the system on which the operations are actually applied (\textit{target} state). Here, the subscript $O$ indicates the subsystem which acts as a control and the subscript $T$ that acting as a target system.
%Furthermore, we define the notion of \textit{order of transformations} (both for local and non-local transformations). We say that transformation ${U}_{\text{A}}$ `precedes' transformation ${U}_{\text{B}}$, which `precedes' ${U}_{\text{C}}$, \textit{etc.}, when the composition of the transformations is written in the order:
%\begin{equation}
%\dots \, {U}_{\text{C}} \, {U}_{\text{B}} \, {U}_{\text{A}}.
%\end{equation}
In our experiment, $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$ themselves are states of composite systems each consisting of a `control' and a `target' subsystem. Hence, the entire system under investigation consists of four subsystems, a control and a target subsystem of S$1$ and a control and a target system of S$2$. The overall state is
\begin{equation}
\omega_{1,2,3,4}=\omega_{1,2,3,4} (\omega^T_1,\omega^C_1,\omega^T_2,\omega^C_2, ..., \hat{T}^{ij}, ..., \hat{T}^{ijk}, ..., \hat{T}^{1234}, \Xi)
\end{equation}where $C$ and $T$ refer to the terms `control' and `target' subsystem, $\hat{T}^{ij}$, $\hat{T}^{ijk}$ and $\hat{T}^{1234}$ are correlation (sub)tensors describing correlations between pairs $\{i,j\}$, triple $\{i,j,k\}$ and quadruple $\{1,2,3,4\}$ of subsystems, respectively, and $\Xi$ is the set of all global parameters.
%\begin{subequations}
%\begin{align}
%\label{eqn:omegaT_1}
%\omega_1 & \in \Omega_{1}^C \otimes \Omega_{1}^T \\
%\omega_2 & \in \Omega_{2}^C \otimes \Omega_{2}^T,
%\end{align}
%\end{subequations}
%where $C$ and $T$ refer to the terms `control' and `target' subsystem.\footnote{Since local measurements will only all operations will be performed either on subsystem $O$ or subsystem $T$ alone, a potential global parameter of the composite system can be omitted without loss of generality.}).
%Thus, the joint state $\omega_{1,2}$ of S1 and S2 has the form of Eq. (\ref{eqn:omega_12}) with the correlation tensor of the form
%\begin{equation}
%T = \begin{pmatrix}
%\hat{T}^{CC} & \hat{T}^{CT} \\
%\hat{T}^{TC} & \hat{T}^{TT}
%\end{pmatrix},
%\end{equation}
%where $\hat{T}^{ij}$ is correlation sub-tensor describing correlations between $i$, subsystem of S1, and $j$, subsystem of S2.
%Following assumption \textbf{1.}, only local operations on the control system $U_i = U_i^C \otimes \mathbb{1}^T_i$ or on the target system $U_i = \mathbb{1}^C_i \otimes U^T_i$ (where $i=1,2$) are considered here and any operation representing an interaction between the two systems (\textit{i.e.}, of the form $\sum_i c_i U^C_i \otimes U^T_i$) is excluded from this analysis.
The no-go theorem concerns the reduced state of the two target systems as given by
\begin{equation}
\omega^T_{1,2} = \omega^T_{1,2} (\omega^T_1, \omega^T_2, \hat{T}^{TT}, \xi^T)
\end{equation}
where $\omega^T_1$ and $\omega^T_2$ are states of the target systems of S1 and S2, $\hat{T}^{TT}$ is their correlation tensor and $\xi^T$ is the corresponding global parameter. %Upon local transformation on the control systems of S1 and S2, their target systems remain unchanged. In our experiment this is the operation on the path degrees of freedom, which is induced by the last beam splitters.
%According to assumtion \textbf{2.} the laboratory operations are represented by local operations on the target systems as given in Eq.~(\ref{transfeq}) or a convex mixture therefrom. %Since the amount of violation of Bell's inequalities is obtained by optimization over of local transformations, it is clear that laboratory operations cannot increase violation of Bell's inequalities.
Leveraging these definitions, we now present three assumptions, which are the fulcrum of our no-go theorem for a definite local causal order.
\newpage
%\begin{quote}
\begin{myframe}
\vspace{2mm}
%\textbf{1. Free-choice assumption (or measurement independence).} When investigating the behavior of a process in order to find out whether there is a set of underlying hidden variables $\lambda$ controlling it, some parameters must necessarily be maintained free, so to rule out the possibility that $\lambda$ has controlled the experiment settings.
%{\blue Sorry, the order is now mixed. We should change it either here or in the defintion.}
\textbf{1. The initial joint state of the target system $\omega_{1,2}^T$ does not violate a Bell inequality.}
Suppose that the two observers can each perform a measurement $\mathcal{O}_1$ and $\mathcal{O}_2$, respectively. We label $m_1$ and $m_2$ as the measurement choices of S1 and S2 and $o_1$ and $o_2$ as the corresponding outcomes. Under these conditions, we suppose that our input state $\omega^T_{1,2}$ can be described through a local hidden variables theory (\textit{i.e.}, in Bell's terms, a theory that satisfy `local causality'), and therefore it is associated to the probability distribution
\begin{equation}
p(o_1,o_2|m_1,m_2,\omega^T_{1,2}) = \int \rho(\lambda) \; p(o_1|m_1,\lambda,\omega^T_{1,2}) \; p(o_2|m_2,\lambda,\omega^T_{1,2}) \; d\lambda,
\label{eqn:p}
\end{equation}
where $\lambda$ is often referred to as a `hidden variable'. We implicitly assume the `freedom of choice' condition --- the assumption that the choices of the measurement settings are independent of $\lambda$ --- is fulfilled.
\vspace{2mm}
\textbf{2. The laboratory operations are represented by local transformations $U_i^T$ on the target systems. They do not increase the `amount' of violation of Bell inequalities on the target systems.}
This is satisfied in the considered class of GPTs by definition because the ``amount of violation of Bell inequalities'' is obtained by maximization over all local transformations of type~(\ref{transfeq}) (or convex mixtures therefrom) and our `laboratory operations' are assumed to be of such type. For concreteness, let us consider the \textit{Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality} \cite{PhysRevLett.23.880} --- a similar reasoning applies to different forms of Bell inequalities. Following the \textit{Peres-Horodecki criterion} \cite{PhysRevLett.84.2726, PhysRevLett.84.2722}, the maximal value of the CHSH inequality in quantum mechanics is given in terms of two largest absolute values of the correlation tensor singular values, say $t_1$ and $t_2$, as $\sqrt{t_1^2 + t_2^2}$. The singular-value elements cannot increase under local transformations (they are invariant under reversible local operations).
\vspace{2mm}
\textbf{3. The order of S1 and S2's operations on the target system is well defined.}
Suppose first that the orders of application of the local operations performed inside SWITCH S1 ${U}_{1_A}^T \preceq {U}_{1_B}^T \preceq \dots$ and those performed inside SWITCH S2 $\, {U}_{2_A}^T \preceq {U}_{2_B}^T \preceq \dots$ are fixed.
Since an ordered sequence of local transformations is still a local transformation, if a state undergoes such transformation on S1's and S2's sides, the amount of violation of Bell's inequalities cannot be increased (and in particular, the singular values of the correlation tensor cannot increase and with them also not violation of the CHSH inequality). The amount cannot be increased even if the order of operations is chosen with a given probability distribution due to convexity. The mutual order between S1's and S2's operations is irrelevant, since we have assumed the two classes of operations to commute.
\vspace{2mm}
\end{myframe}
%\end{quote}
\begin{theorem}
\textit{No states, set of transformations and measurements which obey assumptions \textbf{1.}-\textbf{3.} can result in violation of a Bell inequality.}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Following \textbf{2.}, suppose that the initial target state $\omega_{1,2}^T$ does not violate a Bell inequality. This means that Eq. (\ref{eqn:p}) is fulfilled.
Because of \textbf{3.}, operations in S1's and in S2's laboratories are applied in a definite order, say ${U}_{1_A}^T \preceq {U}_{1_B}^T \preceq \dots$ in S1's and ${U}_{2_A}^T \preceq {U}_{2_B}^T \preceq \dots$ in S2's side. The state evolves, therefore, under a composition of the local operations as
\begin{equation*}
\dots \; ({U}_{1_{\text{B}}}^T, {U}_{2_{\text{B}}}^T) \circ ({U}_{1_{\text{A}}}^T, {U}_{2_{\text{A}}}^T)(\omega^T_{1,2}).
\end{equation*}
Let us restrict ourselves to the case of only two transformations per SWITCH (${U}_{\text{A}}^T$ and ${U}_{\text{B}}^T$). After the pairs of operations are applied in order ${U}_{1_{\text{A}}}^T \preceq {U}_{1_{\text{B}}}^T$ and ${U}_{2_{\text{A}}}^T \preceq {U}_{2_{\text{B}}}^T$ on the two sides, the state becomes
\begin{equation}
\omega^T_{1,2}\,' = ({U}_{1_{\text{B}}}^T, {U}_{2_{\text{B}}}^T) \circ ({U}_{1_{\text{A}}}^T, {U}_{2_{\text{A}}}^T)(\omega^T_{1,2}) = \bigl({U}_{1_{\text{B}}}^T \circ {U}_{1_{\text{A}}}^T, {U}_{2_{\text{B}}}^T\circ {U}_{2_{\text{A}}}^T\bigr)(\omega^T_{1,2})
\end{equation}
which is still local due to \textbf{1.} - \textbf{2.}. Hence
\begin{equation}
p(o_1,o_2|m_1,m_2,\omega^T_{1,2}\,') = \int \rho(\lambda) \; p(o_1|m_1,\lambda,\omega^T_{1,2}\,') \cdot p(o_2|m_2,\lambda,\omega^T_{1,2}\,') \; d\lambda .
\end{equation} In general, the order of operations does not need to be fixed, but can be specified probabilistically by a further hidden variable $\nu$, whose different values correspond to different permutations of the order of operations. We obtain
\begin{equation}
p(o_1,o_2|m_1,m_2) = \iint \rho(\lambda,\nu) \; p(o_1|m_1,\lambda,\omega^T_{1,2}\,^{\nu}) \cdot p(o_2|m_2,\lambda,\omega^T_{1,2}\,^{\nu}) \; d\lambda d\nu,
\end{equation}
where $\rho(\lambda,\nu) $ is the joint probability distribution over the two types of variables and $\omega^T_{1,2}\,^{\nu}$ is the final state of the target systems upon application of the transformations in order $\nu$.
Hence we conclude that a local target state subjected to the action of a set of local operations applied in a predefined order can by no means lead to the violation of Bell inequalities, even if the order is chosen probabilistically in each run of the experiment. This concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Section IV. Relation between the present work and Ref \cite{mag}}
In Ref. \cite{mag}, the position of a massive object serves as a `control' quantum system and a quantum system (\textit{e.g.}, a photon) that is exchanged between Alice's and Bob's laboratory as a `target' system. By putting the massive object in a macroscopic superposition of two positions, one closer to Alice's and the other closer to Bob's position, one induces a relative time dilation between Alice's and Bob's laboratory. The superposition of massive objects can effectively lead to `entanglement' of the temporal order between local operations, enabling the violation of a Bell-type inequality. In the conceptual framework of general relativity, the resource for the violation is a `non-classical space-time' created by macroscopic superposition of large masses. In the second-quantized picture, the superposition can be seen as entanglement in the Fock basis, and the scheme enables one to `swap' this entanglement to the final entanglement of the target systems. Unfortunately, the physical demands of the proposal make that experiment infeasible.
However, quantum control of the order of events can also be achieved without the use of gravitational interaction. This can be done, for example, in an extended quantum circuit model, wherein the order of applied quantum gates is coherently controlled by an ancillary system (the quantum SWITCH).
The difference between the two scheme is that in the gravitational scheme, the spatio-temporal distance of {\em any} pair of events in a space-time region is influenced by a superposition state of the mass, whereas in the linear optical implementation, only the order of the gates applied on the propagating system (\textit{e.g.}, photons) is in an indefinite order.
\subsection*{Section V. Experimental Theory-Independent Proof of Assumption \textbf{1.}}
Recall that Assumption \textbf{1.} is that the initial target states does not violate a Bell's inequality. In the notation introduced above, the initial target state is $\omega_{1,2}^T$. Our demonstration of assumption \textbf{1.} presented here is based solely on experimental data and the framework of GPTs, and hence is theory independent. Our goal is to prove that the input state is a product state, and is thus local.
Let us denote the probabilities for measurement outcomes as measured on reduced states of the target system of S$1$ and S$2$ as $p(o_1|m_1, \omega^T_{1})$ and $p(o_2|m_2, \omega^T_{2})$, respectively.
%In a large series of measurements performed,
If the state is a local product state then the probability for joint outcomes, as measured on the composite system of the two target subsystems in the initial state $\omega^T_{1,2}$, is factorisable, \textit{i.e.}, it can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
p(o_1,o_2|m_1,m_2, \omega^T_{1,2})= p(o_1|m_1, \omega^T_{1}) \cdot p(o_2|m_2, \omega^T_{2}).
\end{equation}
We experimentally performed a large set of measurements on the input target states and checked for this property.
The measurements we made are tomographically complete, in quantum theory. In a GPT, this might not be the case, because the GPT system may have more degrees of freedom than a quantum system. Nevertheless, in principle by performing all possible local transformations and local measurements, one can demonstrate that in the \textit{subspace} in which the transformations and measurements of the final test of Bell's inequalities are performed, the effective state of the targets is a product state.
%Moreover, for self-dual GPTs \cite{GPT1, GPT2, GPT3, 1367-2630-13-6-063001} the normalization of the states implies that $\|\omega_1\|^2 + \|\omega_2\|^2 + \|T\|^2=3$. Since for the measured reduced states one has $\|\omega_i\| =1$ for $i=1,2$ (\textit{i.e.}, the states are pure) to a good approximation, one concludes that $\|T\|=1$. It can be shown that $||T|| = 1$ if and only if the state is a product state \cite{GPT3}, and hence the state cannot violate Bell's inequalities.
Tables \ref{tab:sep1} and \ref{tab:sep2} show the values of the probabilities $p(o_1,o_2|m_1,m_2, \omega^T_{1,2})$ (which, for brevity, is indicated as $p_{1,2}$ in the Tables) in the first four columns and the marginalized probability products $p(o_1|m_1, \omega^T_{1}) \cdot p(o_2|m_2, \omega^T_{2})$ (denoted as $p_{1} \cdot p_{2}$ in the Table) in the last four columns. It can be seen that the two sets of probabilities agree well. More quantitatively, let us define the \textit{root-mean-square} (RMS) distance between the two sets of probabilities as
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:dist}
\text{d} = \sqrt{\frac{1}{N} \sum_{o_1,o_2}^{} \sum_{m_1,m_2}^{} \Bigl(p(o_1,o_2|m_1,m_2, \omega^T_{1,2}) - p(o_1|m_1, \omega^T_{1}) \cdot p(o_2|m_2, \omega^T_{2})\Bigr)^2},
\end{equation}
where $N$ is the number of data points.
Evaluating this over our results, we obtain a RMS distance of $0.6 \cdot 10^{- 2} \pm 2.7 \cdot 10^{- 2}$, indicating that, within error, the two distributions are very close.
Thus we can conclude that assumption \textbf{2.} holds.
\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{\textbf{Comparison between the two-states probabilities $p(o_1,o_2|m_1,m_2, \omega^T_{1,2})$ and the products of marginalized single-state probabilities $p(o_1|m_1, \omega^T_{1}) \cdot p(o_2|m_2, \omega^T_{2})$ for the input target states. - Part I.} The compatibility between the two sets of probabilities shows the separability of the input target state $\omega_{1,2}^T$. The choice of the measurement bases is inspired by the bases commonly adopted for polarization measurements in classical optics. We indicate with `H' and `V' the states of horizontal and vertical polarization, with `D' and `A' the diagonal and anti-diagonal states, with `R' and `L' the circular polarization states right- and left-handed. The experimental error associated to each of these probabilities is $0.01$.}
\label{tab:sep1}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c||c|c|c|c||c|c|c|c}
Measur. Basis & $p_{1,2}$ & $p_{1,2^{\perp}}$ & $p_{1^{\perp},2}$ & $p_{1^{\perp},2^{\perp}}$ & $p_1 \cdot p_2$ & $p_{1} \cdot p_{2^{\perp}}$ & $p_{1^{\perp}} \cdot p_2$ & $p_{1^{\perp}} \cdot p_{2^{\perp}}$\\
\cline{1-9}
H, H & 0.97 & 0.03 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.97 & 0.03 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\
H, V & 0.01 & 0.99 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.01 & 0.99 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\
H, A & 0.58 & 0.41 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.59 & 0.41 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\
H, D & 0.42 & 0.58 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.42 & 0.58 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\
H, R & 0.39 & 0.61 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.39 & 0.61 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\
H, L & 0.61 & 0.38 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.62 & 0.38 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\
V, H & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.96 & 0.04 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.96 & 0.04 \\
V, V & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.03 & 0.97 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.03 & 0.97 \\
V, A & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.61 & 0.39 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.61 & 0.39 \\
V, D & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.38 & 0.61 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.38 & 0.61 \\
V, R & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.35 & 0.64 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.35 & 0.64 \\
V, L & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.64 & 0.36 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.64 & 0.36 \\
A, H & 0.39 & 0.01 & 0.53 & 0.02 & 0.41 & 0.01 & 0.54 & 0.02 \\
A, V & 0.01 & 0.37 & 0.02 & 0.54 & 0.02 & 0.39 & 0.02 & 0.54 \\
A, A & 0.24 & 0.16 & 0.34 & 0.21 & 0.26 & 0.16 & 0.34 & 0.21 \\
A, D & 0.18 & 0.22 & 0.21 & 0.33 & 0.18 & 0.24 & 0.23 & 0.31 \\
A, R & 0.16 & 0.25 & 0.18 & 0.35 & 0.16 & 0.27 & 0.19 & 0.34 \\
A, L & 0.26 & 0.14 & 0.36 & 0.19 & 0.27 & 0.14 & 0.36 & 0.19 \\
D, H & 0.55 & 0.02 & 0.45 & 0.02 & 0.53 & 0.02 & 0.45 & 0.02 \\
D, V & 0.01 & 0.57 & 0.02 & 0.45 & 0.01 & 0.54 & 0.01 & 0.46 \\
D, A & 0.32 & 0.26 & 0.29 & 0.18 & 0.32 & 0.24 & 0.28 & 0.20 \\
D, D & 0.23 & 0.35 & 0.18 & 0.29 & 0.22 & 0.34 & 0.18 & 0.29 \\
D, R & 0.21 & 0.37 & 0.16 & 0.31 & 0.19 & 0.37 & 0.16 & 0.31 \\
D, L & 0.35 & 0.22 & 0.32 & 0.17 & 0.34 & 0.20 & 0.31 & 0.18
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{\textbf{Comparison between the two-states probabilities $p(o_1,o_2|m_1,m_2, \omega^T_{1,2})$ and the products of marginalized single-state probabilities $p(o_1|m_1, \omega^T_{1}) \cdot p(o_2|m_2, \omega^T_{2})$ for the input target states. - Part II.} The compatibility between the two sets of probabilities shows the separability of the input target state $\omega_{1,2}^T$.}
\label{tab:sep2}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c||c|c|c|c||c|c|c|c}
Measur. Basis & $p_{1,2}$ & $p_{1,2^{\perp}}$ & $p_{1^{\perp},2}$ & $p_{1^{\perp},2^{\perp}}$ & $p_1 \cdot p_2$ & $p_{1} \cdot p_{2^{\perp}}$ & $p_{1^{\perp}} \cdot p_2$ & $p_{1^{\perp}} \cdot p_{2^{\perp}}$\\
\cline{1-9}
R, H & 0.65 & 0.02 & 0.33 & 0.01 & 0.64 & 0.02 & 0.33 & 0.01 \\
R, V & 0.01 & 0.66 & 0.01 & 0.30 & 0.02 & 0.66 & 0.01 & 0.31 \\
R, A & 0.39 & 0.27 & 0.22 & 0.13 & 0.40 & 0.26 & 0.21 & 0.14 \\
R, D & 0.29 & 0.39 & 0.12 & 0.19 & 0.28 & 0.40 & 0.13 & 0.19 \\
R, R & 0.27 & 0.41 & 0.11 & 0.20 & 0.26 & 0.42 & 0.12 & 0.19 \\
R, L & 0.41 & 0.25 & 0.22 & 0.12 & 0.41 & 0.24 & 0.22 & 0.13 \\
L, H & 0.32 & 0.01 & 0.63 & 0.04 & 0.32 & 0.02 & 0.63 & 0.03 \\
L, V & 0.01 & 0.32 & 0.03 & 0.64 & 0.01 & 0.32 & 0.02 & 0.65 \\
L, A & 0.18 & 0.14 & 0.42 & 0.27 & 0.19 & 0.13 & 0.41 & 0.28 \\
L, D & 0.14 & 0.21 & 0.23 & 0.41 & 0.13 & 0.22 & 0.24 & 0.40 \\
L, R & 0.12 & 0.23 & 0.22 & 0.43 & 0.12 & 0.23 & 0.22 & 0.43 \\
L, L & 0.21 & 0.12 & 0.44 & 0.24 & 0.21 & 0.12 & 0.43 & 0.25
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
%\subsection*{Section VI. Separability between control and target system for ordered application of the gates}
\subsection*{Section VI. Experimental Theory-Independent Proof of Assumption \textbf{(2b)}}
In this Section we wish to experimentally prove Assumption \textbf{(2b)}, which states that the laboratory operations do not couple (\textit{i.e.} generate non-classical correlations between) the control and the target systems, within a given party S$i$.
To do so, we first prepare the control and target state in a product state.
We then set the state of the control system to one wherein the local operations are applied in a definite order.
Note that this is a device-dependent step. Nevertheless, it can be described within GPTs, and hence is still theory-independent.
We then need to verify that the control and target systems are still in a product state after the SWITCH.
We do this using the same technique we used to verify that the target qubits began in an input state (\textit{\textbf{Methods - Section IV.}}).
Tables \ref{tab:RR} and \ref{tab:LL} report the values of the probabilities $p(o_C,o_T|m_C,m_T, \omega_{1})$ (which, for brevity, is indicated as $p_{C,T}$ in the Tables) compared with the marginalized probability products $p(o_C|m_C, \omega^C_{1}) \cdot p(o_T|m_T, \omega^T_{1})$ (denoted as $p_{C} \cdot p_{T}$ in the Tables).
For these measurements, because of challenges setting the basis to measure the path degree of freedom, we did not perform a tomographically-complete set of measurements. Instead, we measured the control system (encoded in the path) only in one basis ($\{\ket{+},\ket{-}\}$) and performed a complete set of measurements on the target system.
Nevertheless, using our knowledge of quantum mechanics and of our device, measurements in $\{\ket{+},\ket{-}\}$ basis result in the strongest correlations.
%By observing the outcome probabilities shown in \ref{tab:RR} and \ref{tab:LL}, one could argue, within quantum mechanics, that the output state is a separable state of the form $\ket{R}^T \otimes \left(\dfrac{\ket{0}^C + e^{i \phi} \ket{1}^C}{\sqrt{2}}\right)$ when the operations are applied in the pre-defined orders $\mathcal{A}(\omega) \preceq \mathcal{B}(\omega)$ or $\mathcal{B}(\omega) \preceq \mathcal{A}(\omega)$.
For the measurements we performed, the displayed output probabilities $p(o_C,o_T|m_C,m_T, \omega_{1})$ are very close to those correspondent to a separable state. This is indicated by the fact that the RMS distance (Eq. \ref{eqn:dist}) between these two sets of probabilities (the measured joint probabilities $p(o_C,o_T|m_C,m_T, \omega_{1})$ and that given by the product $p(o_C|m_C, \omega^C_{1}) \cdot p(o_T|m_T, \omega^T_{1})$) is $3.1 \cdot 10^{- 2} \pm 1.7 \cdot 10^{- 2} \pm 1.0 \cdot 10^{- 2}$ (where the first error is a statistical error while the second is a systematic error) when the control system is prepared in the state correspondent to $\ket{0}$, and $4.9 \cdot 10^{- 2} \pm 1.6 \cdot 10^{- 2} \pm 1.0 \cdot 10^{- 2}$ when the control system is prepared in the state correspondent to $\ket{1}$.
This thus confirms the validity of assumption \textbf{(2b)} in a theory-independent manner.
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{\textbf{Comparison between the two-states probabilities $p(o_C,o_T|m_C,m_T, \omega_{1})$ and the products of marginalized single-state probabilities $p(o_C|m_C, \omega^C_{1}) \cdot p(o_T|m_T, \omega^T_{1})$ for the control and the target states when applying the gates in the order $\mathcal{A}(\omega) \preceq \mathcal{B}(\omega)$.} The two sets of probabilities associated to the control and the target states in output are compatible within experimental errors.}
\label{tab:RR}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c||c|c|c|c||c|c|c|c}
Measur. Basis & $p_{C,T}$ & $p_{C,T^{\perp}}$ & $p_{C^{\perp},T}$ & $p_{C^{\perp},T^{\perp}}$ & $p_C \cdot p_T$ & $p_{C} \cdot p_{T^{\perp}}$ & $p_{C^{\perp}} \cdot p_T$ & $p_{C^{\perp}} \cdot p_{T^{\perp}}$\\
\cline{1-9}
H & 0.19 & 0.27 & 0.29 & 0.25 & 0.22 & 0.24 & 0.26 & 0.28 \\
V & 0.26 & 0.21 & 0.26 & 0.26 & 0.25 & 0.23 & 0.27 & 0.25 \\
D & 0.19 & 0.29 & 0.34 & 0.19 & 0.25 & 0.22 & 0.28 & 0.25 \\
R & 0.43 & 0.02 & 0.53 & 0.02 & 0.44 & 0.02 & 0.53 & 0.02 \\
L & 0.01 & 0.48 & 0.01 & 0.50 & 0.01 & 0.48 & 0.01 & 0.50
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{\textbf{Comparison between the two-states probabilities $p(o_C,o_T|m_C,m_T, \omega_{1})$ and the products of marginalized single-state probabilities $p(o_C|m_C, \omega^C_{1}) \cdot p(o_T|m_T, \omega^T_{1})$ for the control and the target states when applying the gates in the order $\mathcal{B}(\omega) \preceq \mathcal{A}(\omega)$.} The two sets of probabilities associated to the control and the target states in output are compatible within experimental errors.}
\label{tab:LL}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c||c|c|c|c||c|c|c|c}
Measur. Basis & $p_{C,T}$ & $p_{C,T^{\perp}}$ & $p_{C^{\perp},T}$ & $p_{C^{\perp},T^{\perp}}$ & $p_C \cdot p_T$ & $p_{C} \cdot p_{T^{\perp}}$ & $p_{C^{\perp}} \cdot p_T$ & $p_{C^{\perp}} \cdot p_{T^{\perp}}$\\
\cline{1-9}
H & 0.33 & 0.17 & 0.23 & 0.27 & 0.28 & 0.22 & 0.28 & 0.22 \\
V & 0.15 & 0.35 & 0.34 & 0.16 & 0.25 & 0.26 & 0.24 & 0.25 \\
R & 0.03 & 0.52 & 0.01 & 0.44 & 0.02 & 0.53 & 0.02 & 0.43 \\
L & 0.45 & 0.02 & 0.51 & 0.01 & 0.45 & 0.02 & 0.51 & 0.02 \\
D & 0.28 & 0.23 & 0.27 & 0.22 & 0.28 & 0.23 & 0.27 & 0.22
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
%\subsection*{Section V. Causal Witness}
%A causal witness is a set of measurements, whose outcome reports whether a given quantum process is causally ordered or not \cite{Rubinoe1602589}. More precisely, causal witnesses are designed to distinguish between causally separable (Eq. (\ref{eqn:convex_mixture}) ) and causally non-separable process matrices.
%For a given causally non-separable process matrix ${W}^\text{n-sep}$, there exists a Hermitian operator ${S}$, called a causal witness, such that
%\begin{equation}\label{eq:trSW}
%\tr({S} {W}^\text{n-sep}) < 0,
%\end{equation}
%but $\tr({S} {W}^\text{sep}) \geq 0$ for all causally separable process matrices ${W}^\text{sep}$ \cite{NewJournPhys.17.102001, 1367-2630-18-9-093020}. Such an operator is guaranteed to exist, because the convexity and closeness of the causally-separable process-matrices set ensures that there is always a hyperplane, which separates the set from a given causally non separable process ${W}^\text{n-sep}$ \cite{Convex.Analysis}.
%To design a witness appropriate to our experimental set-up, we must first decide against which kind of noise the witness should be optimized. Since the main source of error we expect to see in the experiment is misalignment of the interferometer, which can be adequately modelled as white noise, we decided to optimize the witness against it, corresponding to the `random robustness' witness described in Ref. \cite{NewJournPhys.17.102001}. More precisely, the random robustness is the least amount of white noise $r$ such that the witness can no longer detect the causal non-separability of the noisy process
%\begin{equation}
%W(r) = \frac{1}{1+r}(W^\text{n-sep} + r\mathbb{1}^\circ),
%\end{equation}
%where $\mathbb{1}^\circ$ is the `white noise' process, which can be considered as the process sending a maximally mixed states to each laboratory, independently of the local operations there performed, as defined in Ref. \cite{NewJournPhys.17.102001}.
%We also need to take into account limitations of the experimental set-up, which was not designed for measuring causal witnesses: the polarisation degree of freedom, which is target state, is restricted to start in the $\ket{H}$ state, Alice and Bob are restricted to applying only unitary operations at their stations (unlike in Ref. \cite{NatCommun.6}, where they can do measurements), and the measurement of the path degree of freedom, which is the control state, is restricted to the $\{\ket{+},\ket{-}\}$ basis. We are free, on the other hand, to prepare arbitrary initial states for the control system, arbitrary unitaries that can be made with a single half-wave plate for Alice, arbitrary unitaries that can be made with a half-wave plate and a quarter-wave plate for Bob, and perform arbitrary measurements on the polarisation degree of freedom. The result of the optimisation was a witness with random robustness of $0.3681$ that required us to measure $324$ settings.
%We realised through trial and error, however, that there existed an almost optimal witness with random robustness 0.3604 that only needed $288$ settings, so we measured this one instead.
%To obtain the coefficients of the witness, one has to run the SDP described in Ref. \cite{NewJournPhys.17.102001} together with the constraints that the control qubit is allowed to be in the states $\ket{+},\ket{-},\ket{+y}$, or $\ket{0}$, Alice applies a single HWP allowed to be in the angles $0,\pi/8$, or $\pi/4$, Bob applies a QWP followed by a HWP allowed to be in the angles $0,\pi/4,\pi/2,3\pi/4$ and $0,\pi/8$, respectively, and the target state is measured in the $X, Z$, and $Y$ bases. The full list of measurement settings and corresponding coefficient is available upon request from the authors.
\newpage
\section*{Supplementary Material}
\subsection*{Quantum SWITCH and Causal Inequalities}
The quantum SWITCH \cite{NatCommun.6, Rubinoe1602589} has been shown not to violate causal inequalities, making it impossible to use such violation as a theory-independent proof that causal order of operations in the SWITCH is indefinite. Here, we briefly re-examine such reasoning following Refs. \cite{NewJournPhys.17.102001, 1367-2630-18-9-093020}.
We introduce the $x$, $y$ and $z$ indices to refer, respectively, to the measurements choices of Alice, Bob and Charlie. We call $a$, $b$ and $c$ their respective measurement results. It is always possible to re-write $p(a,b,c|x,y,z)$ as
\begin{equation}
p(a,b,c|x,y,z) = p(c|a,b,x,y,z) p(a,b|x,y,z)
\end{equation}
It should be noticed that regardless of the causal order between operations in Alice's and Bob's laboratory, the operation in Charlie's laboratory always occurs after them. In other words, his operation is in the future light cone of both Alice's and Bob's operations. Thus, $a, b$ cannot depend on $z$, so
\begin{equation}
p(a,b|x,y,z) = p(a,b|x,y)
\end{equation}
As we previously observed, after tracing out in Charlie's laboratory in the SWITCH, the process matrix of Alice and Bob is causally separable. Hence, one can rewrite $p(a,b|x,y)$ in the form of a convex mixture, obtaining
\begin{equation}
p(a,b,c|x,y,z) = p(c|a,b,x,y,z) \bigl[\zeta \cdot p^{A \preceq B}(a,b|x,y)
+ (1-\zeta) \cdot p^{B \preceq A}(a,b|x,y)\bigr]
\end{equation}
We can combine the probabilities $p^{A \preceq B}(a,b|x,y)$ ($p^{B \preceq A}(a,b|x,y)$) and $p(c|a,b,x,y,z)$ as a product of the probability respecting the order $A \preceq B$ ($B \preceq A$) with the probability respecting the order $\lbrace A,B \rbrace \preceq C$
\begin{equation}
p(a,b,c|x,y,z) = \zeta \cdot p^{A \preceq B\preceq C}(a,b,c|x,y,z) + (1-\zeta) \cdot p^{B \preceq A\preceq C}(a,b,c|x,y,z)
\end{equation}
Therefore, the SWITCH is a process whose probabilities have a `causal model', \textit{i.e.}, it can always be understood as arising from events that are causally ordered or from a convex mixtures of causally ordered events. Hence, it satisfies all causal inequalities.
Causal witnesses, violation of Bell inequalities for temporal orders, and violation of causal inequalities build a hierarchy of the notion of `the lack of causality'. Let us clarify further what we mean by that. The weakest notion of the lack of causality is that of causal non-separability, which is formulated using quantum theory and hence is theory-dependent. A violation of a causal inequality is the strongest notion as it is formulated solely in terms of observable probabilities $p(a,b|x,y)$ without any assumption about the underlying theory --- it is therefore device-independent. Violation of the newly-proposed Bell inequalities for temporal order should be considered, in our view, a stronger proof of lack of causality than the measurement of a causal witness but a weaker proof than a violation of a causal inequality. The reason it is weaker than a causal inequality violation is that, although it too is formulated in terms of the probabilities $p(a,b|x,y,\omega)$, it also involves the notion of state $\omega$ (like in Eq. (15) of \textbf{\textit{Methods - Section III.}}) and the order of operations on it - this causes the proof to be device-dependent. However, it can be defined for any GPT and hence is theory-independent, and thus more general than the notion of a causal witness. Although the quantum SWITCH violates a weaker notion of causality, shaped for quantum theory, it cannot violate the stronger (device-independent) notion of a causal inequalities. The open question addressed in our work is: ``can we still use the quantum SWITCH to perform a theory-independent proof of indefinite causal orders?''. The answer is affirmative, and here we present an experimental demonstration of this.
% For your review copy (i.e., the file you initially send in for
% evaluation), you can use the {figure} environment and the
% \includegraphics command to stream your figures into the text, placing
% all figures at the end. For the final, revised manuscript for
% acceptance and production, however, PostScript or other graphics
% should not be streamed into your compliled file. Instead, set
% captions as simple paragraphs (with a \noindent tag), setting them
% off from the rest of the text with a \clearpage as shown below, and
% submit figures as separate files according to the Art Department's
% instructions.
\end{document}
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\bibitem{Bell1964}
J.~S. Bell, {\it Physics\/} {\bf 1}, 195 (1964).
\bibitem{RevModPhys.86.419}
N.~Brunner, D.~Cavalcanti, S.~Pironio, V.~Scarani, S.~Wehner, {\it Rev. Mod.
Phys.\/} {\bf 86}, 419 (2014).
\bibitem{PhysRevD.14.2543}
M.~Lamehi-Rachti, W.~Mittig, {\it Phys. Rev. D\/} {\bf 14}, 2543 (1976).
\bibitem{Nature.409.791}
M.~A. Rowe, {\it et~al.\/}, {\it Nature\/} {\bf 409}, 791 (2001).
\bibitem{Nature.526.682}
B.~Hensen, {\it et~al.\/}, {\it Nature\/} {\bf 526}, 682 (2015).
\bibitem{PhysRevLett.28.938}
S.~J. Freedman, J.~F. Clauser, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.\/} {\bf 28}, 938 (1972).
\bibitem{PhysRevLett.49.1804}
A.~Aspect, J.~Dalibard, G.~Roger, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.\/} {\bf 49}, 1804
(1982).
\bibitem{PhysRevLett.115.250402}
L.~K. Shalm, {\it et~al.\/}, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.\/} {\bf 115}, 250402 (2015).
\bibitem{PhysRevLett.115.250401}
M.~Giustina, {\it et~al.\/}, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.\/} {\bf 115}, 250401 (2015).
\bibitem{PhysRevLett.92.210403}
J.~C. Howell, R.~S. Bennink, S.~J. Bentley, R.~W. Boyd, {\it Phys. Rev.
Lett.\/} {\bf 92}, 210403 (2004).
\bibitem{PhysRevA.47.R2472}
P.~G. Kwiat, A.~M. Steinberg, R.~Y. Chiao, {\it Phys. Rev. A\/} {\bf 47}, R2472
(1993).
\bibitem{PhysRevLett.64.2495}
J.~G. Rarity, P.~R. Tapster, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.\/} {\bf 64}, 2495 (1990).
\bibitem{PhysRevA.88.022318}
G.~Chiribella, G.~M. D'Ariano, P.~Perinotti, B.~Valiron, {\it Phys. Rev. A\/}
{\bf 88}, 022318 (2013).
\bibitem{NatComm.3.012316}
O.~Oreshkov, F.~Costa, {\v C}.~Brukner, {\it Nat. Commun.\/} {\bf 3}, 1092
(2012).
\bibitem{NatPhys.10.259}
{\v C}.~Brukner, {\it Nat. Phys.\/} {\bf 10}, 259 (2014).
\bibitem{NewJournPhys.17.102001}
M.~Ara\'ujo, {\it et~al.\/}, {\it New Journal of Physics\/} {\bf 17}, 102001
(2015).
\bibitem{1367-2630-18-9-093020}
O.~Oreshkov, C.~Giarmatzi, {\it New Journal of Physics\/} {\bf 18}, 093020
(2016).
\bibitem{ScienRep.6.26018}
C.~Branciard, {\it Scientific Reports\/} {\bf 6}, 26018 (2016).
\bibitem{PhysRevA.86.040301}
G.~Chiribella, {\it Phys. Rev. A\/} {\bf 86}, 040301 (2012).
\bibitem{Rubinoe1602589}
G.~Rubino, {\it et~al.\/}, {\it Science Advances\/} {\bf 3} (2017).
\bibitem{NatCommun.6}
L.~M. Procopio, {\it et~al.\/}, {\it Nat. Commun.\/} {\bf 6} (2015).
\bibitem{1367-2630-18-1-013008}
C.~Branciard, M.~Ara\'ujo, A.~Feix, F.~Costa, {\v C}.~Brukner, {\it New Journal
of Physics\/} {\bf 18}, 013008 (2016).
\bibitem{mag}
M.~Zych, F.~Costa, I.~Pikovski, {\v C}.~Brukner, {\it \textup{Preprint at
arXiv:1708.00248 [quant-ph]}\/} .
\bibitem{GPT1}
L.~Hardy, {\it \textup{Preprint at arXiv:0912.4740 [quant-ph]}\/} .
\bibitem{GPT2}
L.~Hardy, {\it \textup{Preprint at arXiv:quant-ph/0101012}\/} .
\bibitem{GPT3}
B.~Dakic, {\v C}.~Brukner, {\it \textup{Preprint at arXiv:0911.0695
[quant-ph]}\/} .
\bibitem{1367-2630-13-6-063001}
L.~Masanes, M.~P. M\"uller, {\it New Journal of Physics\/} {\bf 13}, 063001
(2011).
\bibitem{Abbott2017genuinely}
A.~A. Abbott, J.~Wechs, F.~Costa, C.~Branciard, {\it {Quantum}\/} {\bf 1}, 39
(2017).
\bibitem{PhysRevLett.23.880}
J.~F. Clauser, M.~A. Horne, A.~Shimony, R.~A. Holt, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.\/}
{\bf 23}, 880 (1969).
\bibitem{PhysRevLett.113.250402}
M.~Ara\'ujo, F.~Costa, {\v C}.~Brukner, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.\/} {\bf 113},
250402 (2014).
\bibitem{PhysRevA.92.052326}
A.~Feix, M.~Ara\'ujo, {\v C}.~Brukner, {\it Phys. Rev. A\/} {\bf 92}, 052326
(2015).
\bibitem{PhysRevLett.117.100502}
P.~A. Gu\'erin, A.~Feix, M.~Ara\'ujo, {\v C}.~Brukner, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.\/}
{\bf 117}, 100502 (2016).
\bibitem{PhysRevA.75.032304}
J.~Barrett, {\it Phys. Rev. A\/} {\bf 75}, 032304 (2007).
\bibitem{PhysRevLett.84.2726}
R.~Simon, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.\/} {\bf 84}, 2726 (2000).
\bibitem{PhysRevLett.84.2722}
L.-M. Duan, G.~Giedke, J.~I. Cirac, P.~Zoller, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.\/} {\bf
84}, 2722 (2000).
\end{thebibliography}