1 / 24

Quantum Entanglement and Bell’s Inequalities

Quantum Entanglement and Bell’s Inequalities. Kristin M. Beck and Jacob E. Mainzer. Demonstrating quantum entanglement of photons via the violation of Bell’s Inequality. Outline. Relevant Physics Concepts Experimental Setup and Procedure Relationship between Setup and Physical Concepts

brownlisa
Download Presentation

Quantum Entanglement and Bell’s Inequalities

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. Quantum Entanglement and Bell’s Inequalities Kristin M. Beck and Jacob E. Mainzer Demonstrating quantum entanglement of photons via the violation of Bell’s Inequality

  2. Outline Relevant Physics Concepts Experimental Setup and Procedure Relationship between Setup and Physical Concepts Results Conclusions

  3. Physical Concepts Quantum Entanglement between two particles Particles’ wave functions cannot be separated Measurement of one particle affects the state of the other No classical model of this behavior In this lab, polarization states of two photons were entangled

  4. Physical Concepts Bell’s Inequality Classical relationship Used to discern quantum effects from classical effects In this lab, violation of a Bell’s Inequality is used to show no hidden variables (EPR paradox)

  5. Experimental Setup Beam Stop APD APD BBO crystals Quartz Plate Laser Mirror Blue Filter

  6. Laser Quartz Plate Mirror BBO Crystals Experimental Setup

  7. Interference Filters APD Beam Stop APD Polarizers Experimental Setup

  8. Experimental Setup BBO (Beta Barium Borate) Crystal Negative uniaxial nonlinear crystal Spontaneous parametric down-conversion 2λ λ |VV APD APD |H 2λ Laser

  9. Video (Click to Play) Downconverted Light Cone from 2mm thick BBO Type I crystal

  10. Experimental Setup Entangled State |Vs Vi + |HsHi Dual BBO crystal Setup |H |V BBO crystals |H Cone |V Cone |H + |V Phase difference between down-converted photons

  11. Experimental Setup Quartz Plate Birefringent material Introduces a phase difference between two polarization components Eliminates phase difference introduced by BBO crystals APD APD Laser

  12. Experimental Setup Polarizers Select a particular polarization state Block other photon polarizations Used to measure photon polarization with APDs APD APD Laser

  13. Experimental Setup APDs Single-photon counting avalanche photodiodes Dual APDs record coincidence photon count (26 ns) PerkinElmer SPCM-AQR APD APD Laser

  14. How does our setup relate to the key physical concepts? What we expect to observe by moving the polarizers Coincidence count related to polarizer angles α and β by cos2(α – β) because of entanglement Measurement at one polarizer affects measurement at the other polarizer A 0o-90o polarizer setup should yield a minimum coincidence count

  15. Observations/Data

  16. Observations/Data

  17. How does our setup relate to the key physical concepts? Application of Bell’s Inequality Calculating S, average polarization correlation between pairs of particles Classically, by Bell’s Inequality, |S| ≤ 2 |S| > 2 evidence for quantum entanglement Calculated by measuring coincidence counts (N) for various polarizer angles

  18. Observations/Data Calculations resulted in 18 statistically significant values of S above 2.0 2.518 +/- 0.057 2.516 +/- 0.064 2.506 +/- 0.058 2.501 +/- 0.063 2.485 +/- 0.059 2.482 +/- 0.063 2.473 +/- 0.062 2.472 +/- 0.060 2.386 +/- 0.060 2.374 +/- 0.061 2.366 +/- 0.066 2.352 +/- 0.065 2.333 +/- 0.065 2.324 +/- 0.064 2.316 +/- 0.063 2.314 +/- 0.137 2.303 +/- 0.063 2.096 +/- 0.061

  19. Error Our calculation for σS is: Sources of experimental error : (1) Errors in aligning polarizers, each 1 degree of error (2) accidental coincidences (Nacc = tNaNb/Tmeasure) 10/9/08 :: 14.47813 Tmeasure = 1s 10/14/08 :: 76.66656 Tmeasure = 5s 10/16/08 :: 91.93551 Tmeasure = 5s (3) human error in selecting the proper counts to record

  20. Conclusion Quantum entanglement was demonstrated by a cos2(α – β) coincidence count dependence Additionally, we verified quantum behavior by calculating Bell’s Inequality and showing that it violated the classical limit |S| ≤ 2

  21. References D. Dehlinger and M.W. Mitchell, “ Entangled photons, nonlocality, and Bell inequalities in the undergraduate laboratory”, Am. J. Phys, 70, 903 (2002). J. Eberly, “Bell inequalities and quantum mechanics”, Amer. J. Phys., 70 (3), 286, March (2002).S. Lukishova. 2008. Entanglement and Bell’s Inequalities. OPT253. University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.

  22. Acknowledgements Dr. Lukishova Anand Jha 243W Staff: Prof Howell, Steve Bloch

  23. Questions?

  24. Bell’s Inequalities & HVT Presently Loopholes in setup: Detector Static polarizers QUEST = QUantumEntanglement in Space ExperimenTs (ESA) A. Zeilinger. Oct. 20, 2008. “Photonic Entanglement and Quantum Information” Plenary Talk at OSA FiO/DLS XXIV 2008, Rochester, NY.

More Related