1 / 35

Bell and Leggett- Garg inequalities in tests of local and macroscopic realism

Bell and Leggett- Garg inequalities in tests of local and macroscopic realism. Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics (MPQ) Garching / Munich, Germany. Johannes Kofler. University of Valencia, Spain 25 June 2013. Outlook. Quantum entanglement vs. local realism Bell’s inequality

caitir
Download Presentation

Bell and Leggett- Garg inequalities in tests of local and macroscopic realism

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. Bell and Leggett-Garginequalitiesin tests of local and macroscopic realism Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics (MPQ) Garching / Munich, Germany Johannes Kofler University of Valencia, Spain 25 June 2013

  2. Outlook • Quantum entanglement vs. local realism • Bell’s inequality • Loopholes • Entanglement swapping & teleportation • Macroscopic quantum superpositions vs. macrorealism • Leggett-Garg inequality • Quantum-to-classical transition • Witnessing non-classical evolutions in complex systems • Conclusion and outlook

  3. Local realism Classical world view: • Realism: properties of physical objects exist independent of whether or not they are observed by anyone • Locality:no physical influence can propagate faster than the speed of light External world Passive observers

  4. Bell’s inequality Realism Locality Alice Bob A = ±1 B = ±1 outcomes Local realism: A = A(a,,b,B) B = B(b,,a,A) settings a1,a2 b1,b2 A1 (B1+B2) + A2 (B1–B2) = ±2  variables Bell’s inequality* S := A1B1+ A1B2 + A2B1– A2B22 Quantum mechanics: using entangled quantum states, e.g. SQM = 22  2.83 |AB= (|HVAB + |VHAB) / 2 First experimental violation: 1972 Since then: tests with photons, atoms, superconducting qubits, … *J. S. Bell, Phys. 1, 195 (1964); J. F. Clauseret al., PRL 23, 880 (1969)

  5. Quantum entanglement Entangled state: |AB = (|AB + |AB) / 2 = (|AB + |AB) / 2 Alice Bob basis: result basis: result /:  /:  /:  /:  /:  /:  /:  /:  /:  /:  /:  /:  /:  /:  /:  /:  B2 A2 B1 A1 locally: random globally: perfect correlations Top picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SPDC_figure.png

  6. Entanglement and knowledge “Total knowledge of a composite system does not necessarily include maximal knowledge of all its parts, not even when these are fully separated from each other and at the moment are not influencing each other at all.” (1935) Erwin Schrödinger

  7. Loopholes • Why important? • - Quantum foundations • - Security of entanglement-based quantum cryptography Loopholes: maintain local realism despite Sexp > 2 • Three main loopholes: • Locality loophole • hidden communication between the parties • closing: hard for atoms, achieved for photons (19821,19982) • Freedom of choice • settings are correlated with hidden variables • closing: hard for atoms, achieved for photons (20103) • Fair sampling • measured ensemble is not representative • closing: achieved for atoms (20014) and photons (20135) E 1 A. Aspect et al., PRL 49, 1804 (1982) 2 G. Weihset al., PRL 81, 5039 (1998) 3 T. Scheidlet al., PNAS 107, 10908 (2010) 4 M. A. Rowe et al., Nature 409, 791 (2001) 5 M. Giustinaet al., Nature 497, 227 (2013)

  8. Ensuring locality & freedom of choice Sexp = 2.37  0.02 Tenerife b,B La Palma E,A E La Palma Tenerife Locality: Ais space-like sep.from band B Bis space-like sep.from aand A a p(A,B|a,b,) = p(A|a,)p(B|b,) Freedom of choice: aand bare random aand b are space-like sep. from E p(a,b|) = p(a,b) T. Scheidl, R. Ursin, J. K., T. Herbst, L. Ratschbacher, X. Ma, S. Ramelow, T. Jennewein, A. Zeilinger, PNAS 107, 10908 (2010)

  9. Ensuring fair sampling • Problem: detection efficiency could depend on settings • A = A(), B = B() • Superconducting transition edge sensors • Solution: • very good detectors • Eberhardinequality* • - undetected (“u”) events in derivation • - required detection efficiency  only 2/3 From Topics in Applied Physics 99, 63-150 (2005) • +1 • +1 Source • –1 • –1 • local realism * P. H. Eberhard, PRA 47, 747 (1993)

  10. First fair sampling of photons • local realism • quantum violation of local realism with fair sampling • Photon: only system for which all loop-holes are closed (not yet simultaneously) • Detection efficiency 75% • Violation by 70 standard deviations M. Giustina, A. Mech, S. Ramelow, B. Wittmann, J. K., Jörn Beyer, A. Lita, B. Calkins, T. Gerrits, S. W. Nam, R. Ursin, A. Zeilinger, Nature 497, 227 (2013)

  11. Large distances • How to distribute entanglement over large distances? • qu. cryptography between Vienna and Paris • distributed quantum computation • Two answers: • - glass fibers & quantum repeaters • - no fibers: free space • Quantum repeaters use entanglement swapping* Bell-state measurement (BSM): Entanglement swapping * M. Žukowski et al., PRL 71, 4287 (1993)

  12. Delayed-choice entanglement swapping Latermeasurement on photons 2 & 3 decides whether 1 & 4 were separable or entangled Naïve class. interpretation would require influences into the past Temporal order does not matter in qu. mechanics X. Ma, S. Zotter, J. K., R. Ursin, T. Jennewein, Č. Brukner, A. Zeilinger, Nature Phys. 8, 479 (2012)

  13. Quantum teleportation Towards a world-wide “quantum internet” X. Ma, T. Herbst, T. Scheidl, D. Wang, S. Kropatschek, W. Naylor, A. Mech, B. Wittmann, J. K., E. Anisimova, V. Makarov, T. Jennewein, R. Ursin, A. Zeilinger, Nature 489, 269 (2012)

  14. The next step ISS (350 to 400 km altitude)

  15. Contents • Quantum entanglement vs. local realism • Bell’s inequality • Loopholes • Entanglement swapping & teleportation • Macroscopic quantum superpositions vs. macrorealism • Leggett-Garg inequality • Quantum-to-classical transition • Witnessing non-classical evolutions in complex systems • Conclusion

  16. The double slit experiment Particles Waves Quanta Superposition: | = |left + |right Picture: http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/DoubleSlit.shtml

  17. Macroscopic superpositions With photons, electrons, neutrons, molecules etc. With cats? |cat left + |cat right ? 6910 AMU* When and how do physical systems stop to behave quantum mechanically and begin to behave classically (“measurement problem”)? * S. Gerlichet al., Nature Comm. 2, 263 (2011)

  18. Local realism vs. macrorealism Are “non-local” correlations possible? Are macroscopic superpositions possible? Quantum mechanics says “yes” (if you manage to defy decoherence) Quantum mechanics says “yes” (use entanglement) Local realism (e.g. classical physics) says “no” (only classical correlations) Macrorealism (e.g. classical physics, objective collapse models) says “no” (only classical temporal correlations) Bell test has given experimental answer in favor of quantum mechanics Leggett-Garg test can/will give experimental answer, community still split Practical relevance qu. computation, qu. cryptography Practical relevance witnessing temporal qu. coherence

  19. Macrorealism • Macrorealism per se: given a set of macroscopically distinct states, a macroscopic object is at any given time in a definite one of these states • Non-invasive measurability: measurements reveal the state without any effect on the state itself or on the subsequent dynamics • Leggett-Garg inequality (LGI) ±1 Q Q Q Q K := Q1Q2+ Q2Q3 + Q3Q4– Q1Q42 t0 t1 t2 t3 t4 time = non-invasiveness Bell: S := A1B1+ A1B2 + A2B1– A2B22 = locality • Quantum mechanics: KQM = 22  2.83 A. J. LeggettandA. Garg, PRL 54, 857 (1985)

  20. Quantum vs. classical Rotating spin ½ particle (eg. electron) Rotating classical spin vector (eg. gyroscope) Precession around an axis (via magnetic field or external force) Measurments along different axis ½ K > 2: violation of Leggett-Garg inequality K 2: no violation, classical time evolution 22 classical limit

  21. Sharp vs. coarse-grained measurements Spin j Coarse-grained measurement or decoherence Sharp measurement of spin z-component Q = –1 1 3 5 7 ... –j +j –j +j Q = +1 2 4 6 8 ... macroscopically distinct states classical limit Violation of Leggett-Garg inequality for arbitrarily large spins j Classical physics of a rotating classical spin vector J. K. and Č. Brukner, PRL 99, 180403 (2007)

  22. Superposition vs. mixture Sharp measurements Coarse-grained measurements or decoherence To see quantumness: need to resolve j1/2 levels & protect system from environment J. K. and Č. Brukner, PRL 101, 090403 (2008)

  23. Non-classical evolutions are complex Rotation in real space “classical” Oscillating Schrödinger cat “non-classical” rotation in Hilbert space Nelemen- tary spins ½ “+” “+” time time t t t t 1 single computation step per t all N rotations can be done simultaneously Nsequential steps per t J. K. and Č. Brukner, PRL 101, 090403 (2008)

  24. Relation quantum-classical

  25. Macroscopic candidates Heavy molecules1 (position) Superconducting devices2 (current) Atomic gases3 (spin) Nanomechanics4 (position, momentum) 1 S. Gerlichet al., Nature Comm. 2, 263 (2011) 3 B. Julsgaardet al., Nature 413, 400 (2001) 2M. W. Johnson et al., Nature 473, 194 (2011) 4 G. Cole et al., Nature Comm. 2, 231 (2011)

  26. Alternative to Leggett-Garg inequality • No-signaling in time (NSIT): “A measurement does not change the outcome statistics of a later measurement.”* A B t0 tA tB • MR  NSIT • Violation of NSIT witnesses non-classical time evolution • Advantages of NSIT compared to LGI: • - Only two measurement times (simpler witness) • - Violated for broader parameter regime (better witness) • LGI and NSIT are tools for witnessing temporal quantum coherence in complex systems (not necessarily having macroscopic superpositions) • Does quantum coherence give biological systems an evolutionary advantage? * J. K. and Č. Brukner, PRA 87, 052115 (2013)

  27. Candidates for quantum biology Photosynthesis: Light harvesting in the FMO complex Avian compass electronic excitation (by sunlight) in antenna is transferred to reaction center evidence for efficiency increase due to quantum coherent transport radical pair mechanism proposed reaction products depend on earth magnetic field M. Sarovaret al., Nature Phys. 6, 462 (2010) N. Lambert et al., Nature Phys. 9, 10 (2013)

  28. Conclusion and outlook • Local realism • - world view radically different from quantum mechanics • - violated experimentally (Bell tests) by qu. entanglement • - all loopholes are closed, but not yet simultaneously • - loopholes relevant for qu. cryptography • - long distance distribution of entanglement • Macrorealism • - related to the measurement problem (Schrödinger’s cat) • - quantum mechanics predicts violation • - quantum-to-classical transition • - Leggett-Garg inequality (LGI) not yet violated for macroscopic objects; several candidates • - no-signaling in time (NSIT) as an alternative • - LGI and NSIT: tools for witnessing quantum time evolution in mesoscopic systems including biological organisms

  29. Acknowledgments Caslav Brukner Ignacio Cirac Anton Zeilinger Maximilan Ebner Marissa Giustina Thomas Herbst Thomas Jennewein Michael Keller Mateusz Kotyrba Xiao-song Ma Alexandra Mech Sven Ramelow Thomas Scheidl Mandip Singh Rupert Ursin Bernhard Wittmann Stefan Zotter

  30. Appendix

  31. Einstein vs. Bohr Albert Einstein (1879–1955) Niels Bohr (1885–1962) What can be said about nature? What is nature?

  32. Interpretations Copenhagen interpretation quantum state (wave function) only describes probabilities objects do not possess all properties prior to and independent of measurements (violating realism) individual events are irreducibly random Bohmian mechanics quantum state is a real physical object and leads to an additional “force” particles move deterministically on trajectories position is a hidden variable & there is a non-local influence (violating locality) individual events are only subjectively random Many-worlds interpretation all possibilities are realized parallel worlds

  33. Entanglement from Bose-Einstein condensates First entanglement of massive particles in external degree of freedom (momentum) Picture: A. Perrin et al., PRL 99, 150405 (2007) J. K., M. Singh, M. Ebner, M. Keller, M. Kotyrba, A. Zeilinger, PRA 86, 032115 (2012)

  34. Locality vs. non-invasiveness How to enforce locality? How to enforce non-invasiveness? Ideal negative measurements Taking only those results where no interaction with the object took place Space-like separation Special relativity guarantees impossibility of physical influence –1 +1 ? ? –1 +1

  35. Stages towards violation of MR • Quantum interference between macroscopically distinct states (QIMDS) • does not necessarily establish the truth of quantum mechanics (QM) • Leggett’s three stages of experiments:* • “Stage 1. One conducts circumstantial tests to check whether the relevant macroscopic variable appears to be obeying the prescriptions of QM. • Stage 2. One looks for direct evidence for QIMDS, in contexts where it does not (necessarily) exclude macrorealism. • Stage 3. One conducts an experiment which is explicitly designed so that if the results specified by QM are observed, macrorealism is thereby excluded.” • However: step from stage 2 to 3 is straightforward via violation of NSIT * A. J. Leggett, J. Phys.: Cond. Mat. 14, R415 (2002)

More Related