Professional Documents
Culture Documents
8MAY1989
to produce observable effects that are inconsistent with any local hidden-variable theory. A new experi
mental test of local hidden-variable theories based on optical interference is proposed.
1
Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen argued that those
properties of a system not precisely specified by the
quantum theory may have well-defined values deter
mined by some additional variables in a more complete
2
theory. Bell later showed that all local hidden-variable
theories are inconsistent with the quantum-theory pre
dictions for the correlations between the spins or polar
izations of two distant particles, which have now been
verified in a number of experiments. It has been pointed
out, however, that violations of Bell's inequality need not
be limited 3 to spins or polarizations and that the existing
experiments are dependent upon various auxiliary as
sumptions. 4 As a result, there has been an interest in the
possibility of further experimental tests involving other
observables and larger spatial separations.
Ghosh and Mandel 5 have recently observed nonlocal
effects that correspond to interference between the prob
ability amplitudes for the two ways in which a pair of
photons can travel from two slits to two detectors. Un
fortunately, a test of Bell's inequality in those experi
ments would also require the use of polarizers. 6
This paper derives a new violation of Bell's inequality
that is dependent upon interference between the proba
bility amplitudes for a pair of photons to have been emit
ted at various times by an excited atom. The results
show that the quantum-mechanical uncertainty associat
ed with the usual wave-packet description of a particle is
inconsistent with any local hidden-variable theory. A
new experimental test based on optical interference is
proposed, with the interesting feature that the predicted
interference occurs for optical path differences much
larger than the usual (first-order) coherence length.
The inequality is based on the three-level system
shown in Fig. 1. At time t -o an atom is assumed to
have been excited into the upper state l{f1, which has a
relatively long lifetime 'l'1. After emission of a photon r1
with wavelength A.1, the atom will be in the intermediate
state l{f2, which has a relatively short lifetime r2 T1.
Thus a second photon r2 with wavelength A.2 will be
emitted very soon after yi, and a coincidence counting
experiment would show a very narrow peak with a width
- 't'2 The final state lfl3 is assumed to either have a very
long lifetime r3 or to be the ground state. In principle,
y1 and r2 could be any massless particles emitted by any
quantum system, since the results do not depend on their
FIG. I.
lifetime
2205
VOLUME62, NUMBER
19
L1
L2
M2
"'
FIG. 2.
;I
;I
;I
S2
'' M
2
''
8MAY1989
/' 2
,, ,
F2
L2
L1
Fi
Mi
"
"'
;I
s,
Photon coincidence measurements including interference between the amplitudes along the shorter paths, S1 and S2, and
r2l'lTr1 .
(I)
(3)
where H is the Hamiltonian of the system. At t =O the
particle field is in the vacuum state I 0), so that the prob
ability amplitude to detect a particle at position r is sub
sequently given by lfl(r,t) IO).
Although Eq. (3) can be explicitly solved using pertur
bation theory, all of the necessary properties of the field
can be deduced from well-known and experimentally
verified phenomena. For example, once the particles
have been emitted, they simply propagate at the speed of
light toward the detectors, so that
(2)
(6)
2206
(4)
where x is the distance from the source. In addition, the
fact that the coincidence rate is negligibly small for time
offsets much larger than r2 requires that
(5)
VOLUME62, NUMBER 19
8MAY1989
where use has been made of Eq. (4) and any phase shifts associated with the half-silvered mirrors have been included in
</J1 . Similarly,
l/f(r2,t)
==
(7)
The coincidence rate Re between D1 and D2 with the mirrors inserted can now be calculated from
(8)
where 7/t and 112 are the detection efficiencies of D1 and D2. Making use of Eqs. (5)-(7) gives
Re= ft 7/17/2(0 I [I/Id (ri,t)l/fd (r2,t)+ e -;9'e -;,21/fd Cr1 ,t -!l.T) l/fd Cr2,t - !l.T)J
x
(9)
For a time delay !l.T -r1 , the amplitude to detect a pair of particles at time t -!l.T will be very nearly equal in mag
nitude to the amplitude to detect a pair of particles at time t, and the two amplitudes will differ only by a constant
phase factor. This can be shown to be the case by writing the relevant part of the field operator at time t in the general
form
(IO)
where the coefficients Ckt,k2 are determined by Eq. (3) . Then
- "-'"-'Ck1 ,k2e
I/lo(r1 ,t - L.lAT) I/l o(r2,t - L.lAT)-
k1 k2
(11)
be rewritten as
Re - 4I Rocos
!l.E!l.T/h+<Pt+<P2
2
= t Rocos2(cpi-<PD,
(14)
Equation (14) shows that the relative phase of these
two amplitudes is coherent, which gives rise to interfer
ence in the coincidence rate despite the fact that the
difference in path lengths is larger than the usual (first
order) coherence length. Inserting Eq. (14) into Eq. (9)
gives
(16)
(13)
It is important to note that the uncertainty in m1+ m2 is
much less than the individual uncertainty in either ro1 or
m2, since the former is unaffected by the relatively short
lifetime of the intermediate state 1/12 For !l.T -r1 and
!l.T-r3, Eq. (13) gives !l.m!l.Tl and Eq. (II) reduces
to
<fJi= -(cp2+!l.E!l.T/h)/2.
(17)
2207
VOLUME
62,
NUMBER
19
2208
8MAY1989
(1935).
2J. S.
777
480,