WringingJohnBell Clark 17feb10

Wringing John Bell
 vocabulary
 the EPR paradox
 Bell’s theorem
 Bell’s assumptions
 what does it mean?
Guy Blaylock Clark University 2/17/10

Blaylock - Clark University 2/17/10
Characteristics of a
Garden Variety Classical Scientific
Theory
locality – actions at one location do not immediately have
any effect at a separate location.
(counter)factual definiteness – any measurable quality of a
physical system has a single well-defined value when it is
measured (factual) or before it is measured (counterfactual).
determinism – complete knowledge of the current state of a
physical system is sufficient to determine the future state of
the system.

EPR à la Bohm (almost)
Consider a pair of photons produced with the same polarization.
Measure the polarization of one. The polarization of the other must
always turn out to be the same (“twin state”).
There are several sources that do this: 1. atoms

2. downconverters
3. subatomic decays/annihilation
QM describes this as:

1
down conversion twin  VV +HH 
crystal 2
polaroid filter


EPR logic
• One could determine the polarization
of photon 2 simply by looking at
photon 1, without disturbing photon 2.
Similarly, one could determine the
polarization of photon 1 without
disturbing it.
• If one can determine certain parameters (such as polarizations in
Bohm’s EPR) without interfering with the system, those parameters
must be ‘real’.
• If a theory is to be considered complete, it should predict all real
parameters, including the polarizations in Bohm’s EPR experiment.
• QM does not predict the polarizations.
QM is not complete!

OriginalEPR
statement
caveat of EPR
“…one would not arrive at our conclusion if … [the values

of the second system] depend upon the process of
measurement carried out on the first system”
“No reasonable definition of reality

could be expected to permit this.”

newspapers
Why can’t the photons just be
generated with some definite
polarization, like two
newspapers sent to different
places?

Bell’s Theorem
1964 - John S. Bell publishes
“ON THE EINSTEIN PODOLSKY
ROSEN PARADOX”
Physics 1 (1964) p.195-200.
Reprinted in Speakable and Unspeakable in QM
Exploring the correlations between different measurements leads to

new constraints based on common sense (Bell inequalities).
e.g. What if we measured polarizations at arbitrary angles 1, 2?
QM makes predictions about the correlations of polarizations that
are different from the predictions of ‘common sense’ theories!
QM prediction
What should we expect from Quantum Mechanics?
What is the probability of getting the same

measurement (i.e. both transmitted or both
absorbed)?
Prob( M1(1) = M2(2) ) = cos2(2 - 1) 1
2
down conversion
crystal


Amplitude filtering
For a wave
impinging Acos(
on a filter
at an
arbitrary
angle…
…the amplitude that passes through is Acos ( 
The probability that a photon passes through is cos2 (.

Common Sense
What should we expect from Common Sense?
This is where Bell comes in.

Prob( M1() = M2() ) is 100% coincidence
Arbitrary angle
A series of photon pairs will show a sequence of both being
absorbed, or both transmitted, never one absorbed and one
transmitted.
F : A T T A A T A T A T T T A T A A A A T A T T A T
F : A T T A A T A T A T T T A T A A A A T A T T A T
Prob( M1() = M2() ) = 0% coincidence
For between 0 and 90o,

the coincidence is between 100% and 0%
In particular, let  be some angle such that

Prob( M1() = M2() ) = 75% coincidence; mismatch 25%
Common
Apply this Sense
“common sense” Prediction
to several different cases:
 avg mismatch 25%

F : A T T T A T A T A A T A A T T A T A T A T T T T
 avg mismatch 25%

F : A A A A A T A T T T T T A T A T T A T A T A T T
Bell’s Inequality
 avg mismatch  50%

QM for 30/60o
QM disagrees!
For = 30o, coincidence is 75%,
mismatch 25%
(Remember cos2(30o) = 0.75)
For 
QM says the coincidence should be:
cos2(30o + 30o) = cos2(60o) = 25%
mismatch = 75%, certainly not less than 50%

Experiment vindicates QM
1972 -- John Clauser (Berkeley) performs a Bell measurement
using mercury vapor atoms that produce twin state photons.
QM wins but the experiment does not rule out slower than light
speed interactions.
1982 -- Alain Aspect performs an experiment with extremely
fast acousto-optical switches to demonstrate faster-than-light
effects.
1997 -- Nicolas Gisin uses Swiss telecom network optical fiber
and a downconverter to demonstrate quantum effects over a
distance of 7 miles.
…and many more.

Why
Why is
is Bell’s
Bell’sinequality
inequalityviolated?
violated?
 avg mismatch 25%
 avg mismatch 25%

Assume that rotating F2 from  to

does not affect what happens at F1. locality!
 avg mismatch  50%
…the other assumption
1. The two photons always yield the same polarization.
 easily verified by experiment
2. There exists an angle , such that mismatch = 25%.
3. The mismatch for  is the same as for
 (i.e. rotational symmetry)
4. The mismatch rate between and  is still 25% even
when we don’t make the measurement for 
Counterfactual definiteness (CFD).

Conclusions
• The universe is nonlocal or non-CFD, or both.

• There are interpretations of QM that follow each.
• BTW, if a theory is local it must also be

deterministic. (deduce from EPR expt.)
• Whatever you decide, the world is

WringingJohnBell Clark 17feb10

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

WringingJohnBell Clark 17feb10

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Wringing John Bell

Guy Blaylock Clark University 2/17/10

Blaylock - Clark University 2/17/10

There are several sources that do this: 1. atoms

QM describes this as:

Blaylock - Clark University 2/17/10

Blaylock - Clark University 2/17/10

“…one would not arrive at our conclusion if … [the values

“No reasonable definition of reality

Blaylock - Clark University 2/17/10

Blaylock - Clark University 2/17/10

Exploring the correlations between different measurements leads to

What is the probability of getting the same

Prob( M1(1) = M2(2) ) = cos2(2 - 1) 1

Blaylock - Clark University 2/17/10

…the amplitude that passes through is Acos ( 

The probability that a photon passes through is cos2 (.

Blaylock - Clark University 2/17/10

This is where Bell comes in.

Blaylock - Clark University 2/17/10

Prob( M1() = M2() ) = 0% coincidence

For between 0 and 90o,

In particular, let  be some angle such that

 avg mismatch 25%

 avg mismatch 25%

 avg mismatch  50%

Blaylock - Clark University 2/17/10

…and many more.

Blaylock - Clark University 2/17/10

 avg mismatch 25%

Assume that rotating F2 from  to

Blaylock - Clark University 2/17/10

• The universe is nonlocal or non-CFD, or both.

• BTW, if a theory is local it must also be

Blaylock - Clark University 2/17/10

S-ar putea să vă placă și