Translation from English

Saturday, September 5, 2015

Sci American- Quantam Spookiness

Quantum "Spookiness" Passes Toughest Test Yet

A cunning experiment plugs loopholes in previous demonstrations of quantum "spookiness," a concept that galled Einstein
John Bell


John Bell devised a test to show that nature does not 'hide variables' as Einstein had proposed. Physicists have now conducted a virtually unassailable version of Bell's test.

Credit: CERN

More on this Topic

It’s a bad day both for Albert Einstein and for hackers. The most rigorous test of quantum theory ever carried out has confirmed that the ‘spooky action at a distance’ that the German physicist famously hated — in which manipulating one object instantaneously seems to affect another, far away one — is an inherent part of the quantum world.
The experiment, performed in the Netherlands, could be the final nail in the coffin for models of the atomic world that are more intuitive than standard quantum mechanics, say some physicists. It could also enable quantum engineers to develop a new suite of ultrasecure cryptographic devices.
“From a fundamental point of view, this is truly history-making,” says Nicolas Gisin, a quantum physicist at the University of Geneva in Switzerland.
Einstein’s annoyance
In quantum mechanics, objects can be in multiple states simultaneously: for example, an atom can be in two places, or spin in opposite directions, at once. Measuring an object forces it to snap into a well-defined state. Furthermore, the properties of different objects can become ‘entangled’, meaning that their states are linked: when a property of one such object is measured, the properties of all its entangled twins become set, too.
This idea galled Einstein because it seemed that this ghostly influence would be transmitted instantaneously between even vastly separated but entangled particles — implying that it could contravene the universal rule that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. He proposed that quantum particles do have set properties before they are measured, called hidden variables. And even though those variable cannot be access, he suggested that they pre-program entangled particles to behave in correlated ways.
In the 1960s, Irish physicist John Bell proposed a test that could discriminate between Einstein’s hidden variables and the spooky interpretation of quantum mechanics. He calculated that hidden variables can explain correlations only up to some maximum limit. If that level is exceeded, then Einstein’s model must be wrong.
The first Bell test was carried out in 1981, by Alain Aspect’s team at the Institute of Optics in Palaiseau, France. Many more have been performed since, always coming down on the side of spookiness — but each of those experiments has had loopholes that meant that physicists have never been able to fully close the door on Einstein’s view. Experiments that use entangled photons are prone to the ‘detection loophole’: not all photons produced in the experiment are detected, and sometimes as many as 80% are lost. Experimenters therefore have to assume that the properties of the photons they capture are representative of the entire set.
To get around the detection loophole, physicists often use particles that are easier to keep track of than photons, such as atoms. But it is tough to separate distant atoms apart without destroying their entanglement. This opens the ‘communication loophole’: if the entangled atoms are too close together, then, in principle, measurements made on one could affect the other without violating the speed-of-light limit.
Entanglement swapping
In the latest paper, which was submitted to the arXiv preprint repository on August 24 and has not yet been peer reviewed, a team led by Ronald Hanson of Delft University of Technology reports the first Bell experiment that closes both the detection and the communication loopholes. The team used a cunning technique called entanglement swapping to combine the benefits of using both light and matter. The researchers started with two unentangled electrons sitting in diamond crystals held in different labs on the Delft campus, 1.3 kilometers apart. Each electron was individually entangled with a photon, and both of those photons were then zipped to a third location. There, the two photons were entangled with each other — and this caused both their partner electrons to become entangled, too.
This did not work every time. In total, the team managed to generate 245 entangled pairs of electrons over the course of nine days. The team's measurements exceeded Bell’s bound, once again supporting the standard quantum view. Moreover, the experiment closed both loopholes at once: because the electrons were easy to monitor, the detection loophole was not an issue, and they were separated far enough apart to close the communication loophole, too.
“It is a truly ingenious and beautiful experiment,” says Anton Zeilinger, a physicist at the Vienna Centre for Quantum Science and Technology.
“I wouldn’t be surprised if in the next few years we see one of the authors of this paper, along with some of the older experiments, Aspect’s and others, named on a Nobel prize,” says Matthew Leifer, a quantum physicist at the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo for Theoretical Physics, Ontario. “It’s that exciting.”
A loophole-free Bell test also has crucial implications for quantum cryptography, says Leifer. Companies already sell systems that use quantum mechanics to block eavesdroppers. The systems produce entangled pairs of photons, sending one photon in each pair to the first user and the other photon to the second user. The two users then turn these photons into a cryptographic key that only they know. Because observing a quantum system disrupts its properties, if someone tries to eavesdrop on this process it will produce a noticeable effect, setting off an alarm.
The final chink
But loopholes, and the detection loophole in particular, leave the door open to sophisticated eavesdroppers. Through this loophole, malicious companies could sell devices that fool users into thinking that they are getting quantum-entangled particles, while they are instead being given keys that the company can use to spy on them. In 1991, quantum physicist Artur Ekert observed that integrating a Bell test into the cryptographic system also would ensure that the system uses a genuine quantum process. For this to be valid, however, the Bell test must be free of any loopholes that a hacker could exploit. The Delft experiment “is the final proof that quantum cryptography can be unconditionally secure”, Zeilinger says.
In practice, however, the entanglement-swapping idea will be hard to implement. The team took more than week to generate a few hundred entangled electron pairs, whereas generating a quantum key would require thousands of bits to be processed per minute, points out Gisin, who is a co-founder of the quantum cryptographic company ID Quantique in Geneva.
Zeilinger also notes that there remains one last, somewhat philosophical loophole, first identified by Bell himself: the possibility that hidden variables could somehow manipulate the experimenters’ choices of what properties to measure, tricking them into thinking quantum theory is correct.
Leifer is less troubled by this ‘freedom-of-choice loophole’, however. “It could be that there is some kind of superdeterminism, so that the choice of measurement settings was determined at the Big Bang,” he says. “We can never prove that is not the case, so I think it’s fair to say that most physicists don’t worry too much about this.”
This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on August 27, 2015.
Share this Article:

Comments

stargeneAugust 28, 2015, 10:46 PM
This sounds like an important step in establishing the reality of entanglement. I also get
the sense from following Leonard Susskind's online lectures and the recent colloquia
regarding the AMPS controversy about black hole event horizons, that entanglement
will be found to be profoundly important in the workings of the foundations of the
physical universe (or perhaps more likely, universes). 
However, I cannot think of any use of this wonderful property more boring and
pedestrian than improving encryption tech. I'm hoping that some scientist or
science writer will eventually lay out a richer menu of possibilities for us. What do
you say, Sciam?
Report as Abuse | 
 
Link to This
MichaeleAugust 29, 2015, 12:19 PM
The spooky action isn't so spooky after all...a real world explanation of the phenomena discussed above is here: http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0039v6.pdf
Report as Abuse | 
 
Link to This
Vic1248August 29, 2015, 1:36 PM
That's a very key subject. Meanwhile, I still believe that does not contradict Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity and the Speed of Light limit. The Speed of Light is a "local" entity, whereas "entanglement" has shown over and again to be "non-local
Report as Abuse | 
 
Link to This
David Lloyd-JonesAugust 30, 2015, 2:30 PM
Leonard Susskind thinks that Ulysses S. Grant is buried in Grant's tomb.
He makes ridiculous assertions about information, with footnotes. When you follow the number to another number you find a pointer to the entirety of Shannon's original paper, with no support for the claim that anything in Shannon support's his, Susskind's, original bogosity.
When Susskind footnotes t'Hooft for support elsewhere, I have on one occasion found that the document referred to did not exist. Charitably I think that t'Hooft may have agreed with Susskind some years earlier, sent Susskind a paragraph from a paper not yet, and not subsequently, written, and allowed Susskind to deceive himself into thinking his own ideas had more support than was the case.
In short, it seems to me we have here the strong possibility that an actively self-promoting professor of a trendy type of academese, a man who prides himself on being the well-remunerated tutor to wealthy seminar guru "Werner Erhard," may be unreliable. 
More generally, it seems to me that the importance of both atomic power and atomic weapons has brought so much money into all branches of nuclear physics that much nonsense has sprouted unculled. The late Richard Feynman's good remarks to the effect that "the trouble with crazy ideas is that they're not crazy enough" have been allowed to give protection to a great deal of half-baked nonsense.
One final point I think important to this whole discussion: the word "dimension" is thrown around promiscuously. To give an example of the difficulties this causes, we are told that ten- or eleven-dimensional "universes" have dimensions that are rolled up small. Hunh? How did the capacity to be rolled up small get to be a quality common to some or all dimensions? Can we roll up time? Or only, say, the Thursday part of that dimension?
The wisest comment I've seen lately on this whole fetid mess is E.O. Wilson, in his excellent book "Consilience." We don't have a problem of facts or experiment, he says, as I read him. We have a big problem of epistemology.
I also sympathise with the perennial plaint of Chinese philosophers through the ages, that what is needed is a Rectification of Names.
Both Wilson and the Chinese are to be admired for the modesty of their claims.
-dlj.
Report as Abuse | 
 
Link to This
ArnoldAugust 30, 2015, 9:57 PM
In the quantum world what makes an inderterminate object a derterminate subject is Observation....
Report as Abuse | 
 
Link to This
dcloseSeptember 1, 2015, 8:17 PM
Can an experimental physicist--not a theoretician--who reads this thread, provide a *physical* description of what "entangle" refers to? No question-begging theoretical premises, please. Just a straight-forward empirical description. If the term is pure metaphor, just say so. If it is a common phenomenon that exists in nature, that's fine, too. The verb, "to entangle," and its cognates are routinely used by science writers for the popular press, but I have no clue as to what it means, or even if it has any meaning at all for an experimental physicist.
Report as Abuse | 
 
Link to This
OnitrebSeptember 2, 2015, 1:30 PM
What dclose said.
HOW is a photon 'measured'? What 'property' is being measured? If one photon is 'measured' to be say UP, doesn't that simply mean that it was UP all along, and so was its entangled partner? If I cut an apple in half and seal each piece into separate containers, gave them to two different people, when the first person opens their container and sees the apple, they know the other person has the other half. This is my understanding of entanglement. Surely this is wrong. Else quantum physicists are nuts.
Report as Abuse | 
 
Link to This
verdaiSeptember 3, 2015, 2:14 PM
tho the measuring and the measured may be beyond our lay understanding, some mystery will remain in all. 
I s this freewill?
to be entangled is not really.
Report as Abuse | 
 
Link to This
GravityManSeptember 5, 2015, 1:02 PM
This is so fascinating! I know little about entanglement. Can someone tell me more about the nature of it? 
My questions are: 1) Does entanglement occur when a quantum condition change in a particle is matched by a complementary quantum condition change in another particle? 2) If so, does it have to be the original quantum condition change later reversed to cause the entangled particle to also change? 3) When the original quantum change is reversed do the particles lose their entanglement?
These may be stupid questions from someone ignorant about the details of entanglement. If so, I apologize for the rabbit trail.
GravityMan

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please leave a comment-- or suggestions, particularly of topics and places you'd like to see covered