Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox Bohms refinement The CHSH Bell inequality Measuring the CHSH Bell parameter in the lab Further suggested reading: experiments, loopholes
EPR
EPR
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
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
(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).
10
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
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)
14
The outcome at A, A(a,), depends only on the setting at a and the hidden variable LOCALITY
USEQIP June 2009 16
15
n
y
19
20
(prove this)
E ( a, b) = a b
23
24
If we choose:
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
25
26
| 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
27
28
(2)
Plate polarizer
Plate polarizer
Plate polarizer
P | + i
= =
| + ih+ |
USEQIP June 2009
cos |H i + sin |V i
31
| + ih+|
| i
P = | ih |
sin |H i cos |V i
32
Counting card and software Single-photon counting APDs Coincidence logic (window 4-5 ns)
33
35
36