The Photon Identi Cation Loophole in EPRB Experiments
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Open Phys. 2017; 15:713–733 Research Article Open Access Hans De Raedt*, Kristel Michielsen, and Karl Hess The photon identication loophole in EPRB experiments: computer models with single-wing selection https://doi.org/10.1515/phys-2017-0085 1 Introduction Received August 1, 2017; accepted October 5, 2017 Abstract: Recent Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm experi- The debate between Einstein and Bohr, about the founda- ments [M. Giustina et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 250401 (2015); tions of quantum mechanics, resulted in a Gedanken- ex- L. K. Shalm et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 250402 (2015)] periment suggested by Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) [28] that claim to be loophole free are scrutinized. The com- that was later modied by Bohm (EPRB) [7]. The schemat- bination of a digital computer and discrete-event simula- ics of this experiment is shown in Figure 1 and involves two tion is used to construct a minimal but faithful model of wings and two measurement stations. EPR used the quan- the most perfected realization of these laboratory experi- tum mechanical predictions for possible outcomes of this ments. In contrast to prior simulations, all photon selec- experiment to show that quantum mechanics was incom- tions are strictly made, as they are in the actual experi- plete. ments, at the local station and no other “post-selection” is Many years later, John S. Bell derived an inequality for involved. The simulation results demonstrate that a man- the possible outcomes of EPRB experiments that he per- ifestly non-quantum model that identies photons in the ceived to be based only on the physics of Einstein’s rel- same local manner as in these experiments can produce ativity [6]. Bell’s inequality, as it was henceforth called, correlations that are in excellent agreement with those of seemed to contradict the quantum predictions for EPRB the quantum theoretical description of the corresponding experimental outcomes altogether [6]. thought experiment, in conict with Bell’s theorem which Experimental investigations, following Bell’s theoreti- states that this is impossible. The failure of Bell’s theo- cal suggestions, provided a large number of data that were rem is possible because of our recognition of the photon violating Bell-type inequalities and climaxed in the suspi- identication loophole. Such identication measurement- cion of a failure of Einstein’s physics and his basic under- procedures are necessarily included in all actual experi- standing of space and time [3, 12, 15, 57, 89]. ments but are not included in the theory of Bell and his Central to these discussions and questions are the cor- followers. relations of space-like separated detection events, some of which are interpreted as the observation of a pair of enti- Keywords: Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm experiments, ties such as photons. The problem of classifying events as Bell inequalities, discrete-event simulation, foundations the observation of a “photon” or of something else is not of quantum mechanics as simple as in the case of say, billiard balls. The particle PACS: 03.65.Ud, 03.65.Ta, 02.70.-c identication problem is, in fact, key for the understand- ing of the epistemology of correlations between events. What do we know about such correlations of space- like separated events? Popular presentations of Bell’s work typically involve two isolated agents (Alice, Bob) at sepa- *Corresponding Author: Hans De Raedt: Zernike Institute for rated measurement stations (Tenerife, La Palma), who just Advanced Materials, University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 4, NL- collect data of local measurements. But how does Alice 9747AG Groningen, The Netherlands, E-mail: [email protected] know that she is dealing with a particle of a pair of which Kristel Michielsen: Institute for Advanced Simulation, Jülich Su- Bob investigates the other particle? She is supposed to be percomputing Centre, Forschungszentrum Jülich, D-52425 Jülich RWTH Aachen University, D-52056 Aachen, Germany, E-mail: totally isolated from Bob’s wing of the experiment in order [email protected] to fulll Einstein’s separation and locality principle! The Karl Hess: Center for Advanced Study, University of Illinois, Ur- answer is that neither Alice nor Bob know they deal with bana, Illinois, USA Email: [email protected] Open Access. © 2017 H. De Raedt et al., published by De Gruyter Open. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License. 714 Ë Hans De Raedt, Kristel Michielsen, and Karl Hess a a D 1 2 D +,1 +,2 S D D -,1 -,2 Figure 1: Diagram of the EPRB thought experiment. The source S, activated at times labeled by n = 1, 2, ... , N, sends a photon to the observation station R1 and another photon to the observation station R2. Depending on the settings of these observation stations repre- sented by unit vectors a1 and a2, the signal going to the left (right) triggers the counters D+,1 or D−,1 (D+,2 or D−,2). correlated pairs if their stations are completely separated of the physical reality of the experiments in both wings. It from each other and have no space-time knowledge of the is important to note that these data must involve measure- other wing ever. ments in both stations and are necessarily inuencing the In his papers on the EPRB experiment, Bell did not ad- possible knowledge of the correlations of the single mea- dress this fundamental question but considered correlated surements in these stations. In the case of atomic or sub- pairs as given, without any trace of the tools of measure- atomic measurements the measurement equipment does ment and of space-time concepts that are both necessary to not only inuence the single outcomes as Bohr has taught accomplish the identication of events. He then claimed to us, but correlated measurement equipment (such as syn- have discovered a conict between his theoretical descrip- chronized clocks or instruments that determine thresh- tion and the quantum theoretical description of the EPRB olds) also inuence the knowledge of correlations of these thought experiment [6]. As a consequence of this discov- single outcomes. It is this extension of the Copenhagen ery, much research was devoted to view that leads to a loophole in Bell’s Theorem, the pho- ton identication loophole. The violations of Bell-type in- (i) the actual derivation of Bell-type inequalities from equalities described in this paper are based on this loop- Einstein’s framework of physics (particularly his sep- hole. aration principle that derives from the speed of light Bell and followers envisage that the correlations may in vacuum (c being the limit of all speeds) and Kol- be measured in the laboratory in complete separation and, mogorov’s probability theory [59], therefore, physical models of the Bell opponents must only (ii) designing and performing laboratory experiments use the measurements of two completely separated wings that provide data that are in conict with the Bell- operated by Alice and Bob who know nothing of each type inequalities, other. As just explained, correlations of spatially separated (iii) constructing mathematical-physical models, at times events can only be conceived by involving the human- supported by computer simulations that entirely invented space-time system in order to demonstrate the comply with Einstein’s and Einstein’s separation pairing, the knowledge that measurements of particles be- principle, that do not rely on concepts of quantum long together. Therefore, correlations can only be deter- theory, and are nevertheless in conict with the Bell’s mined in a consistent way under the umbrella of a given theorem. space-time system that encompasses the two or more mea- surement stations. This space-time system that all experi- menters subscribe to enables us to ban spooky inuences Bell’s theory, and the theories of all his followers, includ- out of science, particularly for the EPR experiments that ing Wigner, do not deal with the identication of the corre- Einstein constructed for the purpose to show this fact. lated particles and assume that they are known automat- We maintain that it is highly non-trivial to identify ically, so to speak per at. But the knowledge of pairing (correlated) photons by experimental methods and that requires additional data or additional channels of infor- this identication involves, at least in some way, a space- mation. These additional data may be measurement times, time system, a system developed by the human mind and certain thresholds for detection and many other elements The photon identication loophole Ë 715 agreed upon by all experimenters and evaluators of the Section 4 discusses the relevance of counterfactual Bell-type experiments. In fact, the identication of particle deniteness (CFD) in relation to the derivation of Bell-type pairs requires certain knowledge of the space-time prop- inequalities and hence also for computer simulation mod- erties of all the experimental equipment involved. This els that yield data that are in conict with these inequali- knowledge must necessarily extend to measurement sta- ties. In Section 5, we introduce a CFD-compliant computer tions far from each other and is, therefore, “non-local”. Of simulation model of the recent EPRB experiments [34, 85]. course, this non-local knowledge does not imply that there We discuss the correspondence of the essential elements are non-local physical inuences on the data measured in of the latter with those of the simulation model but refrain the two wings. In EPRB experiments [34, 38, 85, 89], great from plunging into the details of the algorithm itself. care is taken to rule out the possibility that the observed Section 6 gives a simple, rigorous proof that oper- correlations are due to physical inuences that travel with ationally but not conceptually, photon identication in velocities not exceeding the speed of light in vacuum.