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.
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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Platonic Love at a Distance:the EPR paradox revisitedarXiv:0909.0805
Howard Wiseman, Steve Jones, (Eric Cavalcanti), Dylan Saunders, and Geoff Pryde
Centre for Quantum Dynamics
Brisbane
Australia
II.Three types of quantum nonlocality.
Bob
beam-
splitter
Alice
Bob
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)
beam-
splitter
Alice
The [Copenhagen] Interpretation of ||2, I think, contradicts the postulates of relativity. (1927)
Bob
beam-
splitter
“empty
wave”
Alice
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)
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.
Einstein
Bohr
Note that an assumption of locality is still central (implicitly) in the EPR argument.
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 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 !
For all pure bipartite states, with perfect detection, the
following are equivalent:
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.
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)
Thus Bell-nonlocality EPR-steering non-separability
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:
These can arise from measuring a Pauli operator (e.g. ) on a qubit (= a spin-1/2 particle).
Bell-nonlocality(CHSH, 1969)
EPR-steering (CJWR, 2009)
Non-separability (entanglement witness, mid-90s)
* The first EPR-Steering inequality was derived by Reid (1989), as a more literal generalization of EPR.
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 onlyifp > 0.6595… [Acin+’06]
EPR-Steering exists if and only ifp > 1/2 [WJD’07]
Non-separabilityexistsif and only ifp > 1/3 [Werner’89]
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 distancein 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?)
Pretend that you recall the n=2 EPR-s inequality
Here we generalize to where Cn is a constant,
and { } is a set of n Pauli (spin) operators in directions {uk}.
How to arrange the spin directions to demonstrate EPR-steering, 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).
This makes the Cn in “easy” to calculate.
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.
Example state which demonstrates Bell-nonlocality and EPR-steering.
States with purityabove here violate the CHSH (n=2) Bell-inequality.
Example state which is “Bell-local” but which demonstratesEPR-steering.
C2
C3
C4
C6
C∞
This is measured to ≈ the purity p.
How close Alice got to Cn by trying to cheat, sending pure states to Bob.
separable states
States with puritybelow here violate no Bell-inequalities.
A loop-hole freeEPR-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 secure, and perhaps in other QIP tasks.