Q8 Lecture. State of Quantum Mechanics EPR Paradox Bell s Thm. Physics 201: Lecture 1, Pg 1

Similar documents
Quantum Entanglement. Chapter Introduction. 8.2 Entangled Two-Particle States

226 My God, He Plays Dice! Entanglement. Chapter This chapter on the web informationphilosopher.com/problems/entanglement

EPR Paradox Solved by Special Theory of Relativity

Causation and EPR. But, alas, this hypothesis is mathematically inconsistent with the results of the case b runs, those runs

Problems with/failures of QM

Honors 225 Physics Study Guide/Chapter Summaries for Final Exam; Roots Chapters 15-18

How does it work? QM describes the microscopic world in a way analogous to how classical mechanics (CM) describes the macroscopic world.

3/10/11. Which interpreta/on sounds most reasonable to you? PH300 Modern Physics SP11

4.1 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox

Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox and Bell s inequalities

Introduction to Bell s theorem: the theory that solidified quantum mechanics

EPR Paradox and Bell s Inequality

Modern Physics notes Spring 2007 Paul Fendley Lecture 27

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought-experiment and Bell s theorem

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought experiment and Bell s theorem

Physics 280 Quantum Mechanics Lecture III

Bell s Theorem 1964 Local realism is in conflict with quantum mechanics

Closing the Debates on Quantum Locality and Reality: EPR Theorem, Bell's Theorem, and Quantum Information from the Brown-Twiss Vantage

Bell s Theorem. Ben Dribus. June 8, Louisiana State University

We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.!

Hardy s Paradox. Chapter Introduction

6.896 Quantum Complexity Theory September 9, Lecture 2

EPR Paradox and Bell Inequalities

Physics and Faith 4. Rumors of a Designer Creator and Sustainer, Part III. The Ground of Physical Being in Quantum Physics

Bell s inequalities and their uses

The nature of Reality: Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument in QM

The Relativistic Quantum World

The Mysteries of Quantum Mechanics

Singlet State Correlations

about Quantum Physics Bill Poirier MVJS Mini-Conference Lawrence Hall of Science July 9, 2015

HSSP Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics 08/07/11 Lecture Notes

J = L + S. to this ket and normalize it. In this way we get expressions for all the kets

Cosmology Lecture 2 Mr. Kiledjian

1.1.1 Bell Inequality - Spin correlation

David Bohm s Hidden Variables

Intro to Quantum Physics

Lecture 4. QUANTUM MECHANICS FOR MULTIPLE QUBIT SYSTEMS

Has CHSH-inequality any relation to EPR-argument?

Chapter 24: A Brief Introduction to Quantum Theory

Entanglement. arnoldzwicky.org. Presented by: Joseph Chapman. Created by: Gina Lorenz with adapted PHYS403 content from Paul Kwiat, Brad Christensen

Quantum Computing. Part I. Thorsten Altenkirch

A proof of Bell s inequality in quantum mechanics using causal interactions

Violation of Bell Inequalities

The controlled-not (CNOT) gate exors the first qubit into the second qubit ( a,b. a,a + b mod 2 ). Thus it permutes the four basis states as follows:

Odd Things about Quantum Mechanics: Abandoning Determinism In Newtonian physics, Maxwell theory, Einstein's special or general relativity, if an initi

Quantum mechanics and reality

Quantum Mechanics: Stranger than we can imagine?

QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT AND ITS ASPECTS. Dileep Dhakal Masters of Science in Nanomolecular Sciences

Collapse versus correlations, EPR, Bell Inequalities, Cloning

What Does Quantum Mechanics Suggest About Our Perceptions of Reality?

Lecture 29 Relevant sections in text: 3.9

Bell s Theorem...What?! Entanglement and Other Puzzles

A Re-Evaluation of Schrodinger s Cat Paradox

10 Interpreting Quantum Mechanics

Quantum Computing. Vraj Parikh B.E.-G.H.Patel College of Engineering & Technology, Anand (Affiliated with GTU) Abstract HISTORY OF QUANTUM COMPUTING-

Need for new theory Stern-Gerlach Experiments. Analogy with mathematics of light Feynman s double slit thought experiment

Review of Quantum Mechanics, cont.

3 Bananaworld. 3.1 Einstein Podolsky Rosen bananas

Quantum Entanglement, Bell s Theorem, and Reality

EPR Paradox as Evidence for the Emergent Nature of Spacetime

Gedankenexperimente werden Wirklichkeit The strange features of quantum mechanics in the light of modern experiments

Laboratory 1: Entanglement & Bell s Inequalities

D. Bouwmeester et. al. Nature (1997) Joep Jongen. 21th june 2007

EPR paradox, Bell inequality, etc.

stranger than we can imagine Bell's theorem Limits on hidden variable accounts

Contextuality and the Kochen-Specker Theorem. Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics

Chapter 2: Quantum Entanglement

Evolving Views of Physics: Theological Implications?

Quantum Physics & Reality

NON HILBERTIAN QUANTUM MECHANICS ON THE FINITE GALOIS FIELD

For the seminar: Ausgewählte Probleme der Quantenmechanik Faculty of Physics, University of Vienna, WS 2011/2012 Christian Knobloch a

The Measurement Problem of Quantum Mechanics Click to edit Master title style. Wells Wulsin SASS 24 September 2008

INTRODUCTORY NOTES ON QUANTUM COMPUTATION

Solving the Einstein Podolsky Rosen puzzle: The origin of non-locality in Aspect-type experiments

Rutherford Model 1911

Lecture 8: Wave-Particle Duality. Lecture 8, p 2

INTRODUCTION TO QUANTUM COMPUTING

Unitary evolution: this axiom governs how the state of the quantum system evolves in time.

Physics is becoming too difficult for physicists. David Hilbert (mathematician)

A review on quantum teleportation based on: Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein- Podolsky-Rosen channels

Quantum Measurement and Bell s Theorem

ELEC4705 Fall Tom Smy. LECTURE 3 Fundamentals of Quantum Theory

Quantum Entanglement, Beyond Quantum Mechanics, and Why Quantum Mechanics

On the origin of probability in quantum mechanics

Global and local aspects of causality in quantum mechanics

2 Quantum Mechanics. 2.1 The Strange Lives of Electrons

PBR theorem and Einstein's quantum hole argument. Galina Weinstein

Holism and Non-separability Applied to Quantum Mechanics

THE DELAYED CHOICE QUANTUM EXPERIMENT

On the role of Decoherence in Bohmian Mechanics

Measuring Quantum Teleportation. Team 10: Pranav Rao, Minhui Zhu, Marcus Rosales, Marc Robbins, Shawn Rosofsky

Spacetime versus the Quantum

COPENHAGEN INTERPRETATION:

Comments on There is no axiomatic system for the. quantum theory. Noname manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) J.

Locality and the Hardy theorem

Quantum Computing. Thorsten Altenkirch

11/26/2018 Photons, Quasars and the Possibility of Free Will - Scientific American Blog Network. Observations

Timeline: Bohm (1951) EPR (1935) CHSH (1969) Bell (1964) Theory. Freedman Clauser (1972) Aspect (1982) Weihs (1998) Weinland (2001) Zeilinger (2010)

MACROREALISM, NONINVASIVENESS and WEAK MEASUREMENT

1 Measurements, Tensor Products, and Entanglement

Transcription:

Physics 56: Lecture Q8 Lecture State of Quantum Mechanics EPR Paradox Bell s Thm Physics 01: Lecture 1, Pg 1

Question Richard Feynman said, [the double-slit experiment] has in it the heart of quantum mechanics; in reality it contains the only mystery. Can you tell what mystery Feynman is talking about? Physics 01: Lecture 1, Pg

Quantum Mechanics Even physicists who accept QM disagree about how to interpret the rules Physics 01: Lecture 1, Pg 3

Quantum Indeterminacy Even if we know all there is to know (wavefunction) we cannot predict the result of a simple experiment to measure position Question: Suppose I measure the position of a particle to be at position x i. Where was it prior to the measurement? A. Realist: It was really at x i (QM is incomplete) B. Orthodox (Copenhagen Interpretation): The particle wasn t anywhere. The act of measurement forced the particle to take a stand. Physics 01: Lecture 1, Pg 4

Einstein and Objective Reality Einstein was never comfortable with quantum mechanics He felt that properties of physical objects have an objective reality independent of measurement In the orthodox interpretation, we cannot say a quanton measured to be spin up had that property before the measurement In fact, we can only know one spin component of the particle, because measurement of one component disturbs knowledge of the others Therefore Einstein thought QM was an incomplete description of reality Physics 01: Lecture 1, Pg 5

Two Views of Quantum Mechanics Realist: Quantum mechanics must be incomplete. There is such a thing as objective reality. Orthodox/Copenhagen: There is nothing wrong with quantum mechanics. Objective reality does not exist. Physics 01: Lecture 1, Pg 6

Locality Locality (rough version): Only things close to me can affect me Locality: No influence may travel faster than the speed of light Physics 01: Lecture 1, Pg 7

EPR Paradox (1935) Source of Spin 0 decays into an electron and positron To conserve spin one must have spin up one must have spin down (quantons are entangled) The state vector is some linear combination of z A z B z A z B Physics 01: Lecture 1, Pg 8

Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox If you measure spin up at A you are determined to have spin down at B Locality: A cannot affect B (at least not faster than light) The particle at B must have been spin down all along, it must be an element of reality And QM is just not good enough to predict this (incomplete) Physics 01: Lecture 1, Pg 9

EPR Paradox Einstein: Since we cannot have a non-local influence, the outcomes must be pre-determined by objectively real properties (hidden variables) that t each electron carries with it Einstein: Since quantum mechanics does not describe these properties it must be incomplete Problem: The results of the EPR paradox are the same regardless of your interpretation Physics 01: Lecture 1, Pg 10

Bell s Theorem Provided a way to differentiate between a local hidden variable theory (LHVT) and QM Bell s Theorem: No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics. There are specific measurements that can be made to distinguish between QM and LHVT Experiments can now show whether QM is wrong, or if the world is inherently non-local Physics 01: Lecture 1, Pg 11

Bell s Theorem Bell s Theorem: No physical theory of local hidden variables (LHVT) can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics. There are specific measurements that can be made to distinguish between QM and LHVT Experiments can now show whether QM is incomplete, or if the world is inherently non-local Physics 01: Lecture 1, Pg 1

Experiment Source of Spin 0 decays into an electron and positron Now experimenters measure the spin along one of three axis at random (a, b or c: 10 degrees apart) Each measurement will return red (R) or green light (G) We will look at the combination of measurements The Same: RR or GG 1 Different: RG or GR 3 R G G R Physics 01: Lecture 1, Pg 13

Instruction Sets For the local hidden variable ab theories es (LHVT) the results s of the experiments are already known when the particles leave the source. There are eight ways this could be. 1 3 R G G R Physics 01: Lecture 1, Pg 14

Clicker Question 1: Here eeae are the eeg eight possbeco possible combinations o sof spins sthat coud could result from our decay (if there are hidden variables). What should the three highlighted boxes read? (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) SSS DSS SDS SDD DDS Physics 01: Lecture 1, Pg 15

Clicker Question : Here are the eight possible combinations of spins that could result from our decay (if there are hidden variables). If we run the experiment with a large number of electrons what is the hidden variable probability of getting Same? (a) Pr(S) = 1 (b) Pr(S) = 5/9 (c) Pr(S) 5/9 (d) Pr(S) 5/9 (e) P(S) Pr(S) 5/9 Physics 01: Lecture 1, Pg 16

LHVT: Probabilities Bell inequalities No matter how one adjusts the populations p the results will be consistent with these inequalities Pr 4 D 9 Pr S 5 9 Physics 01: Lecture 1, Pg 17

Quantum Mechanics Now we can calculate the probabilities according to QM Two possibilities: The two axis are the same. The two axis are 10 degrees off of each other Physics 01: Lecture 1, Pg 18

Clicker Question 3: If the two axis are the same what results will we have? (a) (b) (c) The Same Different It Depends A = 0 B = 0 R G G R Physics 01: Lecture 1, Pg 19

Clicker Question 4: The detector at A is in the z-direction and the detector at B is 10 degrees off from this, suppose you measure spin up at A right before the measurement at B is made. What is the spin state vector at B before a measurement is made? ( a) cos sin ( b) sin cos 1 0 (c ) (d) 0 1 A = 0 B = 10 ẑ ˆ xˆ R G G R Physics 01: Lecture 1, Pg 0

Clicker Question 5: If the two axis are 10 degrees off of each other, what is the probability you will get a Different result? (a) ( c) sin cos 10 10 10 10 cos (b) sin cos 10 ( d) sin 10 A = 0 B = 10 cos sin sin cos R G G R Physics 01: Lecture 1, Pg 1

QM: Probabilities The angle between measurements will be 0 1/3 of the time and 10 /3 of the time Therefore QM makes the following predictions Pr Pr D S 1 3 sin 3 cos 3 10 10 1 1 These predictions are inconsistent with those of the LHVT It is now an experimental question Physics 01: Lecture 1, Pg

Results These type of experiments have been carried out and consistently agree with the predictions of quantum mechanics and thus seem to rule out a local hidden variable theory Quantum mechanics is inherently non-local This non-localities that are at the foundations of quantum information and quantum computing How can measuring A collapse the wave function at B? Doesn t this violate relativity? No. Because no information can be transmitted via this collapse Physics 01: Lecture 1, Pg 3

Clicker Question 6: Experiments have been carried out and consistently agree with the predictions of quantum mechanics and thus seem to rule out a local hidden variable theory. Does this mean the Copenhagen interpretation is correct? A. Yes B. No Physics 01: Lecture 1, Pg 4

Schrodinger s Cat Physics 01: Lecture 1, Pg 5

The Collapse Problem Ordinary: Wave function evolves in a leisurely fashion according to the S.E. TISE leads to the time-evolution e o rule Measurement: Wave function suddenly collapses around one point. Physics 01: Lecture 1, Pg 6

PCQ: Which do you personally think is the weirdest part of QM and why? (a) (b) (c) (d) It does not support objectively real quanton properties It requires possibly superluminal connections It has two incompatible time evolution rules There seems to be some kind of unexplained disconnect between microscopic and macroscopic physics Physics 01: Lecture 1, Pg 7

And Still Some Loose Ends Physics 01: Lecture 1, Pg 8