1 / 16

On the logical structure of Bell theorems

On the logical structure of Bell theorems. A. Broadbent, H. Carteret, A-A. Méthot, J. Walgate. ‘Loophole free’ nonlocality tests. Locality Loophole Bob’s output might be dynamically linked to Alice’s input. Detection Loophole

iliana-sharpe
Download Presentation

On the logical structure of Bell theorems

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. On the logical structure of Bell theorems A. Broadbent, H. Carteret, A-A. Méthot, J. Walgate

  2. ‘Loophole free’ nonlocality tests Locality Loophole Bob’s output might be dynamically linked to Alice’s input. Detection Loophole Failed measurements might result from a local conspiracy to imitate nonlocality. x y x y A B A B a b a b (a,b,x,y) (a,b,x,y)

  3. Recent work on ‘EPR-Bell Inequalities’ A. Cabello, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 060403 (2002) A. Cabello, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 210401 (2005) A. Cabello, Phys. Rev. A.72, 050101 (2005) C. Cinelli et al, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 240405 (2005) T. Yang et al, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 240406 (2005) A. Cabello, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 140406 (2006) M. Barbieri, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 140407 (2006) A. Cabello, Phys. Rev. A. 73, 022302 (2006)

  4. Recent work on ‘EPR-Bell Inequalities’ A. Cabello, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 060403 (2002) A. Cabello, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 210401 (2005) A. Cabello, Phys. Rev. A.72, 050101 (2005) C. Cinelli et al, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 240405 (2005) T. Yang et al, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 240406 (2005) A. Cabello, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 140406 (2006) M. Barbieri, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 140407 (2006) A. Cabello, Phys. Rev. A. 73, 022302 (2006)

  5. EPR Inequality A. Cabello, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 210401 (2005) Hyperentangled photon state: which is equivalent to: Measurements: Results: +1 or –1 for each qubit. e.g. “ +1, +1, –1 , +1 ”

  6. EPR Criterion A. Cabello, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 210401 (2005) “ ” EPR, (1935) Measurements: Results: If Alice measures ‘Z1 = +1’, then she knows with certainty, without in any way disturbing Bob’s system, that Bob would record ‘Z3 = +1’ were he to measure it. “

  7. ‘Nonlocality’ Game A. Cabello, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 210401 (2005) Hyperentangled photon state:

  8. ‘Nonlocality’ Game A. Cabello, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 210401 (2005) Hyperentangled photon state:

  9. ‘Nonlocality’ Game [1]A. Cabello, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 210401 (2005) +1,+1 ; +1, -1 -1, +1 ; -1, -1 Possible answers: Winning condition: “…no classical strategy allows the players to win in more than ¾ of the rounds.”[1] Any predetermined assignment of values +1 and –1 to these four equations yields: 1 = – 1, which is thought to be false.

  10. ‘Nonlocality’ Game A. Cabello, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 210401 (2005) +1,+1 ; +1, -1 -1, +1 ; -1, -1 Possible answers: Winning condition: How can this work? By breaking the supposed ‘EPR LER’ criterion. The criterion is worthless unless we test for it in the experiment. Alice outputs +1 , +1. Bob outputs +1 , +1…unless he is asked 4b , in which case he answers +1 , –1. Result: Alice and Bob always win.

  11. ‘Nonlocality’ Game A. Cabello, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 210401 (2005) +1,+1 ; +1, -1 -1, +1 ; -1, -1 Possible answers: Winning condition: λ1 , λ2 = +1,+1 λ1 , λ2 = +1,-1 λ1 , λ2 = -1,+1 λ1 , λ2 = -1,-1

  12. ‘Nonlocality’ Game A. Cabello, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 210401 (2005) +1,+1 ; +1, -1 -1, +1 ; -1, -1 Possible answers: Winning condition: Alice: λ1 , λ2 Bob: 1b.c , λ1λ2c2b.c , λ1c3b.c , λ1λ2c4b.c , - λ1c Result: Quantum mechanics! + coin toss =

  13. ‘EPR Bell Inequalities’ If Alice measures ‘Z2 = +1’, then she knows with certainty, without in any way disturbing Bob’s system, that Bob would record ‘Z4 = +1’ were he to measure it. Fair enough, perhaps, but this prediction must be tested, not assumed! So called ‘EPR Bell inequalities’ assume specific quantum behaviour without testing for it, because extra tests are experimentally expensive! Extra tests would yield a valid experiment, but would reduce the magnitude of the local / nonlocal difference.

  14. Logical structure of nonlocality proofs Locality Realism + x y Limits on (a,b,x,y) A B + Experiment breaks limits! a b (a,b,x,y) Locality Realism or

  15. Logical structure of ‘EPR Bell Inequalities’ Locality Locality Realism Realism Quantum Predictions + + + x y Limits on (a,b,x,y) A B + Experiment breaks limits! a b (a,b,x,y) Locality Locality Realism Realism Quantum Predictions or or or

  16. Conclusions • This is just one of a family of flawed nonlocality proofs in circulation. • Specific local models for specific experiments can be hard to find. But there is a very simple way to check a proof: the logic must be watertight: If any additional assumptions are made and not tested, a local model will exist. • This is true even when the additional assumptions are true! In this case, the additional noncontextuality assumptions are true. Yet making these assumptions allows trivially simply local models to pass the nonlocality test.

More Related