You are on page 1of 9

Outline

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox Bohms refinement The CHSH Bell inequality Measuring the CHSH Bell parameter in the lab Further suggested reading: experiments, loopholes

Bells inequalities and quantum optics


Kevin Resch Institute for Quantum Computing Dept. of Physics & Astronomy University of Waterloo
USEQIP June 2009 1

USEQIP June 2009

EPR

EPR

USEQIP June 2009

USEQIP June 2009

EPR
They showed that the two-particle state: Z i(x 1 x 2 + x 0 )p ~ (x1 , x2 ) = e dp

EPRs argument
If we separate the two particles far apart, then a measurement on particle 1 cannot disturb particle 2 If we randomly decide at the last moment to measure the position of particle 1 (and find outcome x0 ), then we know with certainty the position of particle 2, x0 + x0 Thus the position of particle 2 is an element of physical reality

has perfect correlations in both position and momentum. It is a simultaneous eigenstate of the operators
x1 x2

and

p1 + p2

USEQIP June 2009

USEQIP June 2009

EPRs argument
We could also have randomly decided at the last moment to measure the momentum of particle 1 (and find outcome, p0 ) then we would have known with certainty the momentum of particle 2, Thus the position of particle 2 is also an element of physical reality

EPRs argument
But this is a contradiction with quantum mechanics, since the uncertainty principle says that a quantum state cannot have both a well-defined position and momentum simultaneously. Therefore, EPR argued, quantum mechanics must be an incomplete theory. A more complete theory would be able to describe both the position and momentum of the particles.
7 USEQIP June 2009 8

p0

USEQIP June 2009

Bohm and Aharonovs refinement


Converted the EPR argument to spin degrees of freedom, Sx and Sz Pairs of spin operators obey commutation relations: Using Robertsons inequality

Bohm and Aharonovs refinement


We see:

~2 (Sx ) (Sz ) hSy i2 (+cyc.) 4


2 2

[Sx , Sz ] = i~Sy (+cyc.)


2 2

(A) (B )

2 1 h[A, B ]i 2i

For spin-1/2 particles, a consequence of this set of uncertainty relations is that it is not possible for both

Sx = 0

and

Sz = 0

D.Bohm and Y. Aharonov, Phys. Rev. 108, 1070 (1957). USEQIP June 2009 9 H.P. Robertson, Phys. Rev. 34, 163 (1929).

USEQIP June 2009

10

Bohm and Aharonovs refinement


Now we can repeat the EPR argument with the singlet state: 1 | i = (| i| i | i| i) 2 Noting that,

Bells inequality
contrary to the EPR argument, Bells [paper] is not about quantum mechanics. Rather it is a general proof, independent of any specific physical theory, that there is an upper limit to the correlation of distant events, if one just assumes the validity of local causes. This principle (also called Einstein locality) asserts that events occurring in a given spacetime region are independent of external parameters that may be controlled, at the same moment, by agents located in distant spacetime regions. --Asher Peres, from Quantum Theory: concepts and methods:
USEQIP June 2009 12

1 | i = (| + xi| xi | xi| + xi) 2 To avoid potential pitfalls of dealing with x and p, we focus on spin/qubits
USEQIP June 2009 11

Bells inequality (CHSH)


The setup for a Bell experiment

Bells inequality (CHSH)


Measurement outcomes are correlated if A and B measure the same thing i.e, both +1 or both -1. The measurement outcomes are anti-correlated if they measure different things. We define the degree of correlation, E

E = hAB i = P++ + P P+ P+

J. Bell, Physics 1, 195 (1964) USEQIP June 13 J. Clauser, M.A. Horne, A. 2009 Shimony, R.A. Holt, PRL 23, 880 (1969)

USEQIP June 2009

14

Bells inequality (CHSH)


We define a hidden variable, . This is some property of the physical system that we cant necessarily measure. We assume that there is some normalized probability distribution over these hidden variables, f() Z d f ( ) = 1

Bells inequality (CHSH)


Bell, and CHSH, imposed locality by assuming that the correlation, for measurement settings a and b, could be written: Z E (a, b) = df ()A(a, )B (b, )

The outcome at A, A(a,), depends only on the setting at a and the hidden variable LOCALITY
USEQIP June 2009 16

USEQIP June 2009

15

Bells inequality (CHSH)


Furthermore, they assumed that the measurement simply revealed the preexisting value of +1 or -1 REALITY Under these assumptions, one of

Bells inequality (CHSH)


We can now write the identity

A(a, ) [B (b, ) + B (b0 , )] +A(a0 , ) [B (b, ) B (b0 , )] = 2


If we average over our probability distribution f (), we are essentially averaging a bunch of +2s and -2s, so Z
USEQIP June 2009

B (b, ) + B (b0 , ) B (b, ) B (b0 , )


must be 0, the other +2 or -2
USEQIP June 2009 17

df (){A(a, ) [B (b, ) + B (b0 , )] +A(a0 , ) [B (b, ) B (b0 , )]} 2


18

Bells inequality (CHSH)


This expression can be simplified using our definition of the correlation

Quantum mechanics and CHSH


A general basis for our spin-1/2 particle can be defined along a direction, n
z n

|E (a, b) + E (a, b0 ) + E (a0 , b) E (a0 , b0 )| 2


This is the CHSH Bell inequality
x

n
y

sin cos x + sin sin y + cos z

USEQIP June 2009

19

USEQIP June 2009

20

Quantum mechanics and CHSH


A general basis for our spin-1/2 particle can be defined along a direction, n | + ni = cos ei 2 | i + sin ei 2 | i 2 2 | ni = sin ei 2 | i cos ei 2 | i 2 2

Quantum mechanics and CHSH


Again, consider the singlet state of two spin-1/2 particles: 1 | i = (| i| i | i| i) 2 This state is special, since it has the same form in any basis: 1 | i = (| + ni| ni | ni| + ni) 2
21 USEQIP June 2009 22

USEQIP June 2009

Quantum mechanics and CHSH


If we make spin measurements along directions a , and b , the singlet will exhibit the correlation,

Quantum mechanics and CHSH


We restrict ourselves to states on the x-z plane (i.e., = 0 ), then determines the setting and E (a, b) = cos(a b )

(prove this)

E ( a, b) = a b

USEQIP June 2009

23

USEQIP June 2009

24

Quantum mechanics and CHSH

Quantum mechanics and CHSH


The CHSH Bell inequality gives

If we choose:

|E (a, b) + E (a, b0 ) + E (a0 , b) E (a0 , b0 )| 0 /2 /4 /4

a a 0 b b 0

= = = =

For the settings weve chosen, the LHS is 2 2 which is clearly larger than 2. Quantum mechanics cannot be described by a local realistic theory

USEQIP June 2009

25

USEQIP June 2009

26

Testing Bells inequalities in the lab


Elements of an optical Bell experiment:

Testing Bells inequalities in the lab


Instead of spin-1/2, we will be using photon polarization,

| i |H i | i |V i
There is a subtlety. Orthogonal spins are 180 degrees apart whereas orthogonal (linear) photon polarizations are 90 degrees apart. All angles divided by two to go from Bloch sphere to real space

USEQIP June 2009

27

USEQIP June 2009

28

Testing Bells inequalities in the lab


Down-conversion as a source of entanglement blue photon

Testing Bells inequalities in the lab

two red photons

(2)

| i = cos |HH i + sin e |V V i


USEQIP June 2009

1 | i = (|HV i |V H i) 2 *the state can be aligned using the


HWP, bat ears and a QWP
USEQIP June 2009 30 29

P.G. Kwiat et al., PRA 60, R773 (1999).

Testing Bells inequalities in the lab


Measuring polarization
H V Calcite beam displacer

Testing Bells inequalities in the lab

Plate polarizer

Plate polarizer

Plate polarizer

P | + i

= =

| + ih+ |
USEQIP June 2009

cos |H i + sin |V i
31

| + ih+|

| i

P = | ih |

USEQIP June the 2009angle dont take

*the negative sign indicates orthogonality, literally!

sin |H i cos |V i
32

Testing Bells inequalities in the lab


After the polarizers

Testing Bells inequalities in the lab


a) Raw counts (counting time = s) Setting 2 (H= deg) Setting 1 (H= deg) 0 90 45 135 b) Correlations 22.5 112.5 67.5 157.5 E(0,22.5)
E(45,22.5) E(45,67.5) E(0,67.5)

Counting card and software Single-photon counting APDs Coincidence logic (window 4-5 ns)

c) Measured Bell parameter


S = E (0, 22.5) + E (45, 22.5) + E (45, 67.5) E (0, 67.5)

S S (Poisson stat.) Num. violation


34

USEQIP June 2009

33

USEQIP June 2009

Testing Bells inequalities in the lab

Loopholes, Suggested reading


Bell inequalities theory J. Bell, Physics 1, 195 (1964) J. Clauser, M.A. Horne, A. Shimony, R.A. Holt, PRL 23, 880 (1969) Bell inequalities early experiments S.J. Freedman and J.F. Clauser, PRL 28, 938 (1972) A. Aspect, P. Grangier, and G.Roger, PRL 47, 460 (1981); A. Aspect, J. Dalibard, and G. Roger, PRL 49, 1804 (1982) Closing detection and locality loopholes (separately) M.A. Rowe et al., Nature 409, 791 (2001) Early work: Aspect (1982). Definitive test: G. Weihs, PRL 81, 5039 (1998)

USEQIP June 2009

35

USEQIP June 2009

36

You might also like