* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Document
Quantum machine learning wikipedia , lookup
Orchestrated objective reduction wikipedia , lookup
Wave function wikipedia , lookup
Relativistic quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Double-slit experiment wikipedia , lookup
Quantum group wikipedia , lookup
Path integral formulation wikipedia , lookup
History of quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
Canonical quantization wikipedia , lookup
Symmetry in quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Ensemble interpretation wikipedia , lookup
Many-worlds interpretation wikipedia , lookup
Density matrix wikipedia , lookup
Wave–particle duality wikipedia , lookup
Theoretical and experimental justification for the Schrödinger equation wikipedia , lookup
Matter wave wikipedia , lookup
Measurement in quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Erwin Schrödinger wikipedia , lookup
Quantum state wikipedia , lookup
Interpretations of quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Copenhagen interpretation wikipedia , lookup
Bell test experiments wikipedia , lookup
Quantum key distribution wikipedia , lookup
Bohr–Einstein debates wikipedia , lookup
Hidden variable theory wikipedia , lookup
Quantum entanglement wikipedia , lookup
Bell's theorem wikipedia , lookup
Platonic Love at a Distance: the EPR paradox revisited arXiv:0909.0805 Howard Wiseman, Steve Jones, (Eric Cavalcanti), Dylan Saunders, and Geoff Pryde Centre for Quantum Dynamics Brisbane Australia Outline of this talk I. A cartoon history of quantum nonlocality (Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Bell). II. Three types of quantum nonlocality. III. Experimental metaphysics. IV. Conclusions. I. A Cartoon History of Quantum Nonlocality I(a) Einstein’s objection to the Copenhagen Interpretation: Nonlocality Bob beamsplitter Alice I(a) Einstein’s objection to the Copenhagen Interpretation: Nonlocality Bob beamsplitter Alice The [measurement] at the position of the reflected packet thus exerts a kind of action (reduction of the wave packet) at the distant point occupied by the transmitted packet, and one sees that this action is propagated with a velocity greater than that of light. (1930) The [Copenhagen] Interpretation of ||2, I think, contradicts the postulates of relativity. (1927) Einstein’s (obvious) conclusion: Quantum Mechanics is incomplete. It seems to me that this difficulty cannot be overcome unless the description of the process in terms of the Schrödinger wave is supplemented by some detailed specification of the localization of the particle during its propagation. (1927) Bob “empty wave” • Alice sees the particle because it really is in beamher wave packet. splitter • Bob doesn’t because it’s not in his. Alice • There is no action at a distance here. I(b) Einstein, Podolsky & Rosen (1935) • • Einstein’s 1927 argument for the incompleteness of the QM used a single-particle scenario. Its weakness is that it relies on the long-range coherence of the wavefunction. For experiments, this would require additional testing and/or assumptions. This “weakness” is overcome in the 1935 EPR argument. Bohr Einstein Consider two well-separated particles in a state such that pA=pB and qA=-qB. Then without disturbing Bob’s particle, Alice can find out pB by measuring pA, or qB by measuring qA. But no quantum state has definite values for both pB and qB. Therefore the quantum state is not a complete description for Bob’s particle. Note that an assumption of locality is still central (implicitly) in the EPR argument. I(c) Schrödinger: Steering (1935) I have a cute name for these correlated pure states: Entanglement. I also have a cute name for the nonlocal EPR-effect: Steering. And I’ve generalized the idea to allow Alice not just two, but arbitrarily many different measurements, so she can remotely prepare arbitrarily many different sorts of pure states for Bob. To me, the generality of steering suggests that this nonlocality is not due to the incompleteness of QM. Rather, I think this nonlocality is an unavoidable consequence of QM. Instead, I suspect QM will break down for distant entangled systems. Schrödinger’s Car? 9 I(d) Bell-Nonlocality (1964, 1981) Schrödinger was right about nonlocality being inherent to QM. By considering a specific example of measurements on entangled states I showed that QM can’t be “completed” as Einstein envisaged. That is, no local hidden variable theory can explain the predicted correlations between Bob’s and Alice’s results. Alain Aspect And, unfortunately for Schrödinger and Einstein, our experiments have proven that QM is correct in its predictions for two distant entangled systems. The world is nonlocal ! II. Three Types of Quantum Nonlocality II(a) Three Notions of Nonlocality • 1935 EPR correlations = steering “…as a consequence of two different measurements performed upon the first system, the [distant] second system may be left in states with two different [types of] wavefunctions.” • 1935 Schrödinger’s entanglement = nonseparability. “Maximal knowledge of a total system does not necessarily include total knowledge of all its parts, not even when these are fully separated from each other.” • 1964 Bell nonlocality “In a theory in which parameters … determine the results of individual measurements, … there must be a mechanism whereby the setting of one measurement device can influence the reading of another instrument, however remote.” II(b) Nonlocality for Mixed States For all pure bipartite states, with perfect detection, the following are equivalent: 1. The state is nonseparable (cannot be prepared locally) 2. The state can be used to demonstrate EPR-steering 3. The state can be used to demonstrate Bell-nonlocality. For mixed bipartite states, Werner (1989) showed that (1) and (3) are not equivalent; (3) is strictly stronger than (1). What about (2)? Is (1)(2)? Is (2)(3)? Or neither? To answer this we need a rigorous definition of steering. II(c) Operational Definitions For a given bipartite state, and given measurement strategies for Alice and Bob, we can define when the statistics of Alice’s and Bob’s measurement results demonstrate these forms of nonlocality. (HMW, Jones & Doherty, PRL’07) • They demonstrate Bell-nonlocality iff their results could not have arisen from correlations between a random local hidden variable (LHV) for Alice and the same for Bob. • They demonstrate EPR-steering by Alice iff their results could not have arisen from correlations between a random LHV for Alice and a random pure state which Bob measures. • They demonstrate non-separability iff their results could not have arisen from correlations between a random pure state which Alice measures and the same for Bob. Thus Bell-nonlocality EPR-steering non-separability II(d) Three Types of Inequality From these conditions, we can derive inequalities that must be violated to demonstrate the three types of nonlocality. (Cavalcanti, Jones, HMW and Reid, PRA 80, 032112 (2009) )* Consider two pairs of binary measurements: A, A,B, B {1,1} These can arise from measuring a Pauli operator (e.g. ˆ X ) on a qubit (= a spin-1/2 particle). Bell-nonlocality (CHSH, 1969) AB AB AB AB 2 EPR-steering (CJWR, 2009) ˆ XB A ˆ ZB 2 A Non-separability (entanglement witness, mid-90s) ˆ XA ˆ XB ˆ ZA ˆ ZB 1 * The first EPR-Steering inequality was derived by Reid (1989), as a more literal generalization of EPR. II(e) Three Classes of States By considering all possible inequalities, we proved that the three classes of states are distinct (WJD’07). Bell-nonlocal states steerable states non-separable states e.g. for Werner states of two qubits with purity 0<p<1, Bell-nonlocality exists only if p > 0.6595… [Acin+’06] EPR-Steering exists if and only if p > 1/2 [WJD’07] Non-separability exists if and only if p > 1/3 [Werner’89] III. Experimental Metaphysics III(a) Abner Shimony As Heisenberg said, with bipartite states, it can be that measurement at one point “exerts a kind of action … at the distant point”. But it is not the kind of action at a distance in Newtonian gravity, for example --- even the violation of a Bell-inequality does not mean that Alice can send a signal to Bob. But it shows a connection between the two parties stronger than that of a common cause. In 1984 I called this passion at a distance. EPR-Steering implies a still-weaker sort of connection, which I suggest could be called Platonic love at a distance. (Entanglement might be sympathy at a distance?) III(b) Testing nonlocality: the power of n Consider again mixed Werner states of two qubits with purity p. Let n be the number of different measurement settings used by Alice and Bob. • for n=2, Bell-nonlocality exists if p > 0.707 [CHSH’69] • for n=465, Bell-nonlocality exists if p > 0. 7056 [Vertesi’08] • for n=∞, Bell-nonlocality exists only if p > 0.6595 [Acin+’06] How about for EPR-steering? Traditionally (i.e. following EPR) one considers only n=2. • for n=2, EPR-steering exists if p > 0.707 [CJWR’09] • for n=∞, EPR-steering exists if and only if p > 0.5 [WJD’07] New EPR-Steering Inequalities ˆ XB A ˆ ZB 2 Pretend that you recall the n=2 EPR-s inequality A 1 n ˆ kB Cn where C is a constant, Here we generalize to Ak n n k1 ˆ kB } is a set of n Pauli (spin) operators in directions {uk}. and { The Punch-line How to arrange the spin directions to demonstrate EPRsteering, a.k.a. Platonic love at a distance? Bob’s measurement directions are the vertices with: n = 2 (square), 3 (octahedron), 4 (cube), 6 (icosahedron) and 10 (dodecahedron). n 1 B This makes the Cn in “easy” to calculate. ˆ A k k Cn n k1 How Cn is calculated (and observed) Recall that Alice may be trying to cheat, by randomly choosing a pure state from some ensemble, sending it to Bob, and then reporting Ak based on that state to maximize the correlation Sn. • • • The maximum Sn that Alice can achieve by trying to cheat is the bound Cn which must be exceeded to show steering by definition. Interestingly, the arrangement of pure states in Alices’ “optimal trying-to-cheat ensemble” varies with n. For n = 2, 3, 4, the optimal pure states are face-centres (as in quantum random access codes). For n = 6, 10, they are vertices. III(c) Experiment • • The Controlled-Z gate creates a state ≈ a polarization singlet. The azimuthal angle between the two Hanle wedge depolarizers (DP) controls the amount of depolarization, creating Werner states of any desired purity p. [Puentes et al Opt. Lett. 31, 2057 (2006)] Experimental Results: It works! States with purity above here violate the CHSH (n=2) Bell-inequality. Example state which demonstrates Bell-nonlocality and EPR-steering. C2 C3 C4 This is measured to ≈ the purity p. States with purity below here violate no Bellinequalities. Example state which is “Belllocal” but which demonstrates EPR-steering. separable states C6 C∞ How close Alice got to Cn by trying to cheat, sending pure states to Bob. IV. Conclusions • Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen developed their thought-experiment to demonstrate the nonlocality of the collapse in the Copenhagen interpretation. • Schrödinger called it “steering”, but thought it could only be avoided if QM itself was wrong. (It’s not.) • We have (finally, in 2007!) given a formal definition for EPR-steering, and proven that it is a form of nonlocality strictly intermediate between Bellnonlocality and entanglement. • Unlike the case of Bell-nonlocality, increasing the number of measurement settings n per side beyond two dramatically increases the robustness of the EPR-steering phenomenon to noise (i.e. mixture). • We have demonstrated this experimentally using settings based on Platonic solids with n=2, 3, 4, & 6. IV(b) Ongoing and Future Work 1. EPR-steering has been demonstrated experimentally before in a number of systems. But some of these experiments lack a rigorous theoretical treatment. 2. Nobody has done a loop-hole free Bell-nonlocality test, simultaneously closing the – Detection efficiency loop-hole – Space-like-separation loop-hole. A loop-hole free EPR-steering test should be easier. 3. We showed (WJD’07) that EPR-steering can be defined as a quantum information task with partial lack of trust between parties. We believe it can also be used to make quantum key distribution more