Violation of local realism with freedom of choice Faculty of Physics, University of Vienna, Austria Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information Austrian Academy of Sciences APS March Meeting Dallas, March 23rd 2011 Johannes Kofler , Thomas Scheidl, Rupert Ursin, Sven Ramelow, Xiao-song Ma, Thomas Herbst, Lothar Ratschbacher, Alessandro Fedrizzi, Nathan Langford, Thomas Jennewein, and Anton Zeilinger
Violation of local realism with freedom of choice. Faculty of Physics, University of Vienna, Austria. Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information Austrian Academy of Sciences. Johannes Kofler , Thomas Scheidl , Rupert Ursin , Sven Ramelow, - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Violation of local realismwith freedom of choice
Faculty of Physics,University of Vienna, Austria
Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum InformationAustrian Academy of Sciences
APS March MeetingDallas, March 23rd 2011
Johannes Kofler, Thomas Scheidl, Rupert Ursin, Sven Ramelow,Xiao-song Ma, Thomas Herbst, Lothar Ratschbacher, Alessandro Fedrizzi,
Nathan Langford, Thomas Jennewein, and Anton Zeilinger
Quantum mechanics and realism
Bohr and Einstein, 1925
1927 Kopenhagen interpretation(Bohr, Heisenberg)
1932 von Neumann’s (wrong) proof of non-possibility of hidden variables
1935 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox1952 De Broglie-Bohm (nonlocal)
hidden variable theory1964 Bell‘s theorem on local hidden
variables1972 First successful Bell test
(Freedman & Clauser)
Introduction
[J. S. Bell, Physics 1, 195 (1964)]
[J. S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, p. 243 (2004)]
λ
Bell’s Assumptions
Realism + Locality + Freedom of Choice Bell‘s Inequality
The original Bell paper (1964) implicitly assumes freedom of choice:
A(a,b,B,λ)
locality (outcome and setting independence)
(λ|a,b) A(a,λ) B(b,λ) – (λ|a,c) A(a,λ) B(c,λ)
freedom of choice
explicitly:
implicitly:
Bell’s Theorem
Locality loophole:There may be a communication from the setting or outcome on one side to the outcome on the other sideClosed by Aspect et al., PRL 49, 1804 (1982) & Weihs et al., PRL 81, 5039 (1998)
Fair-sampling loophole:The measured events stem from an unrepresentative subensembleClosed by Rowe et al., Nature 409, 791 (2001)
Freedom-of-choice loophole:The setting choices may be correlated with the hidden variablesClosed by Scheidl et al., PNAS 107, 10908 (2010) [this talk]
Loopholes
(SI) active setting choice + space-like separation of A (B) and b (a)(OI) space-like separation of A and B
x
t
E
A B
a b
Special relativity: no physical signal can travel faster than light space-like separated events cannot influence each other
Space-Time Requirements
(SI) active setting choice + space-like separation of A (B) and b (a)(OI) space-like separation of A and B
x
t
E
A B
a b
(FC) random setting choices + space-like separation of a,b and E
Special relativity: no physical signal can travel faster than light space-like separated events cannot influence each other
Space-Time Requirements
144 km
Geography
144 kmB
TenerifeLa Palma
A
x
t
Ea
b
Locality:
A is space-like separated from B (OI) and b (SI)
B is space-like separated from A (OI) and a (SI)
Freedom of choice:
a and b are random and
space-like separated from E
Space-Time Diagram
144 km
Source6 km fiber channelAlice
144 km free-space link
Tenerife
NOT
QRNG
1.2 km RF linkOGS
La Palma
144 km free-space link
BobQRNG
Geographic Details
Experimental Setup
Polarizer settings a, b 0°, 22.5° 0, 67.5° 45°, 22.5° 45°, 67.5°
Coincidence rate detected: 8 HzMeasurement time: 2400 s Number of total coinc. detected: 19200
Experimental Results
Important Remarks
• In a fully deterministic world, neither the locality nor the freedom-of-choice loophole can be closed:
Setting choices would be predetermined and could not be space-like separated from the outcome at the other side (locality) or the particle pair emission (freedom-of-choice).
• Thus, we need to assume stochastic local realism:
There, setting choices can be created randomly at specific points in space-time.
• We have to consistently argue within local realism:
The QRNG is the best candidate for producing stochastic settings.
• We violated Bell’s inequality closing two loopholes in one experiment:
First experiment to address and close (within reasonable assumptions) the freedom-of-choice loophole
Simultaneously closed the locality loophole
• Now all three major loopholes – locality, fair-sampling, freedom-of-choice – have been closed individually
• A loophole-free Bell test is still missing Einstein and Bohr, 1930
Summary and Outlook
Rupert Ursin Sven Ramelow Xiao-Song Ma Thomas Herbst
Lothar Ratschbacher Alessandro Fedrizzi Nathan Langford Thomas Jennewein Anton Zeilinger