DOCSLIB.ORG

Bell's Inequality Violation on MATLAB

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bell's Inequality Violation on MATLAB Bell’s Inequality Violation on MATLAB Somi Yun, Fakhar Zaman, Junaid ur Rehman, and Hyundong Shin Department of Electronic Engineering, Kyung Hee University, Korea Email: [email protected] Abstract—Bell’s inequality provides a framework to objectively A A A A decide the locality of a system. In this article, we demonstrate the violation of Bell’s inequality on IBM quantum devices and + = ≥ Matlab. Our main objective in Matlab simulations is to charac- terize the robustness of Bell’s inequality under different types B C B C B C B C of noise models. We find parameter thresholds for depolarizing and amplitude damping channels below which violation of Bell’s inequality can be ensured for the maximally entangled states. Fig. 1: A visual proof of Bell’s inequality : P (A; ∼ B) + P (B; ∼ C) ≥ P (A; ∼ C) using Venn diagram. I. INTRODUCTION Quantum mechanics and theory of relativity are two im- portant pillars of modern physics. At the early stages of characteristics are called entangled states which are the basis development of quantum mechanics, many researchers argued of quantum mechanics. that the quantum mechanics is either incomplete (phenomenon In this paper, we demonstrate the violation of Bell’s inequal- of hidden variables) or incorrect. Einstein and his colleagues ity on a simulator created through MATLAB App Designer (famously called EPR) argued for the incompleteness of quan- which models the gate-level noise of IBM quantum device tum mechanics based on the principle of locality. On the other with depolarizing and amplitude damping channels. We adjust hand, Bohr defended the integrity of quantum mechanics by modelling parameters p and η which represent the levels of stating nonlocality as a feature of quantum mechanics [1]. quantum noise and find the limits of each parameters for Bell’s According to locality, two particles that are spatially distant inequality violated. We also show violation of Bell’s inequality cannot directly affect each other. In order for one particle to on IBM quantum device and validate the results of simulator. affect another, the space between the two must be mediated. Conversely, in nonlocality, two distant particles can construct II. VIOLATION OF BELL’S INEQUALITY one quantum state and are influenced by actions on each other. Although both sides came up with plausible arguments, but EPR and Bohr’s debate unfolded only through thought The Bell’s inequality experimentally describes the theory of experiments and logic did not escape the realm of abstract local hidden variables and quantum mechanics as follows: philosophical debate. In the real world, there is no way to examine thought experiments. Later, Bell proposed physical P (A; ∼ B) + P (B; ∼ C) ≥ P (A; ∼ C) (1) experiments to check the validity of thought experiments being argued. Bell hypothesized that Einstein’s theory of hidden Fig. 1 shows the Venn diagram of Bell’s inequality. However, variables was correct under local realism with locality as the quantum entangled states can not be explained by the the basic premise. He proposed an inequality which must be classical structure that follows the principle of locality [5], satisfied for the local systems but could be easily violated [6]. The singlet state jφi is the most representative example for nonlocal systems [2], [3]. The theory of local hidden of violating Bell’s inequality where jφi is defined as follows: variables—each object has unique attributes, but we simply cannot explain them because we do not know the hidden vari- 1 jφi = p (j01i − j10i): (2) ables which is one way of interpreting quantum mechanics. 2 The knowledge of hidden variables makes it possible to predict physical quantities as in classical physics. From Fig. 2, A is a spin up event along z-axis, B is the event In quantum mechanics, Bell’s inequality is violated due of spin up along 45◦ from z-axis and C is the event of spin to two landmark features of quantum physics–– nonlocality up along x-axis. Thus P (A; ∼ B) is probability of particle- and coherence. Quantum coherence is based on the idea that 1 in event A and particle-1 is not in event B, P (B; ∼ C) is particles such as electrons are described by a wave function probability of particle-1 in event B and particle-1 is not in [4]. If wave-like property of a particle is split in two, then the event C and P (A; ∼ C) is probability of particle-1 in event two waves may coherently interfere with each other in such A and particle-1 is not in event C [7], respectively. Since the a way as to form a correlated composite state. Among the initial state is singlet the probability that particle-1 is in event quantum states, special states having coherence and nonlocal B (resp. C) is same as particle-2 is not in event B (resp. C). A Singlet state Bell test B 0 H Z H | i 45◦ 45◦ 0 X Rz(π/4) H C | i (a) P (A; ∼ B) 0 H Z Rz(π/4) H | i Fig. 2: Spin directions of event A, B and C . 0 X Rz(π/2) H | i To demonstrate the violation of Bell’s inequality, we apply (b) P (B; ∼ C) measurements (projection operators) to calculate the probabil- ities as follows 0 H Z H | i P (A; ∼ B) = hφj ΠA ⊗ ΠB jφi 1 1 (3) 0 X Rz(π/2) H = − p | i 4 4 2 P (B; ∼ C) = hφj ΠB ⊗ ΠC jφi (c) P (A; ∼ C) 1 1 (4) = − p Fig. 3: Circuits of violation of Bell’s inequality that can 4 4 2 be divided into two parts: preparation of the singlet state P (A; ∼ C) = hφj ΠA ⊗ ΠC jφi as the initial state and the Bell test. (a) P (A; ∼ B) is the 1 (5) = ; probability of finding 00 in the circuit (a) measurement result, 2 (b) P (B; ∼ C) is the probability of finding 00 in the circuit where (b) measurement result, (c) P (A; ∼ C) is the probability of finding 00 in the circuit (c) measurement result. 1 Π = (1 + Z) (6) A 2 1 1 ΠB = 1 + p (X + Z) (7) A. Gate Models 2 2 1 Quantum noise can be characterized by different quantum Π = (1 + X) ; (8) C 2 channels, e.g., depolarizing and amplitude damping channel [8]. Depolarizing channel maps a state ρ onto a convex and X (Z) denotes single qubit Pauli x (z) operator. From combination of ρ and the maximally mixed state: equation (3)-(5) 1 1 N (ρ) = (1 − p) ρ + pπ; (10) P (A; ∼ B) + P (B; ∼ C) = − p D 2 2 2 (9) where p is the depolarizing noise parameter and π denotes the P (A; ∼ C) : maximally mixed state, respectively. However, the results of Therefore, it violates the Bell’s inequality. IBM quantum implementation suggest the noise of nonunital nature. Therefore, we additionally apply amplitude damping III. BELL’S INEQUALITY VIOLATION ON MATLAB channel to characterize errors of non ideal gates. Fig. 3 shows the schematic of MATLAB App Designer to The amplitude damping channel is a channel which pro- demonstrate the violation of Bell’s inequality. Initially, we duces the asymmetric decay of the excited state j1i to the ground state j0i with probability η. The action of the channel prepare the singlet state by using ideal gates. We use Rz gates to determine the spin direction particle-1 and particle-2 on the two-qubit input state ρ is followed by performing the Hadamard gate H and performing 1 1 measurement in computational basis where R is the rotation X X y z NA (ρ) = (Ki ⊗ Kj) ρ (Ki ⊗ Kj) ; (11) matrix around z-axis. In practical, either the Bell’s inequality j=0 i=0 is violated or not depends on the noise level in quantum gates. In order to adjust gate error rates, we use MATLAB App where η is the damping parameter and the Kraus operators Designer to simulate the non ideal gates and create circuits. K0 and K1 for the one-qubit amplitude damping channel are 1:0 TABLE I: Gate errors 0:8 S1 Nonideal gate Modeling parameter 0:6 IBM 0:4 S2 Pauli-Z p = 0.008 p Probability 0:2 Pauli-X = 0.162 CNOT p = 0.0167 0:0 00 01 10 11 Rz p = 0.02172 H p = 0.00244, η = 0.05776 State (a) P (A; ∼ B) 1:0 η 0:8 S1 0:6 IBM 0:4 S2 Probability 0:2 0:0 00 01 10 11 0.03414 State 0.21 (b) P (B; ∼ C) p2 O 1:0 0:8 S1 IBM 0:6 0.1591 0:4 S2 Probability 0:2 p1 0:0 00 01 10 11 Fig. 5: The tetrahedron region of Bell’s inequality violation. State (c) P (A; ∼ C) noise level in R gates, respectively. We find the tetrahedron Fig. 4: Measurement statistics from MATLAB App Designer z region of Bell’s inequality violation (see Fig. 5) where the four and IBM quantum device. S is the simulation with the 1 corners of the tetrahedron are (0,0,0), (0.1591,0,0), (0,0.21,0) noiseless singlet state and the noisy Bell test. S is the 2 and (0,0,0.03414), respectively. Fig. 5 shows the parameter simulation with the noisy singlet state and the noisy Bell test space for the noise models we use. The tetrahedron shown which works similar to IBM. here is an approximate depiction for the parameters’ range for the violation of Bell’s inequality.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Arxiv:1206.1084V3 [Quant-Ph] 3 May 2019
    Overview of Bohmian Mechanics Xavier Oriolsa and Jordi Mompartb∗ aDepartament d'Enginyeria Electr`onica, Universitat Aut`onomade Barcelona, 08193, Bellaterra, SPAIN bDepartament de F´ısica, Universitat Aut`onomade Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, SPAIN This chapter provides a fully comprehensive overview of the Bohmian formulation of quantum phenomena. It starts with a historical review of the difficulties found by Louis de Broglie, David Bohm and John Bell to convince the scientific community about the validity and utility of Bohmian mechanics. Then, a formal explanation of Bohmian mechanics for non-relativistic single-particle quantum systems is presented. The generalization to many-particle systems, where correlations play an important role, is also explained. After that, the measurement process in Bohmian mechanics is discussed. It is emphasized that Bohmian mechanics exactly reproduces the mean value and temporal and spatial correlations obtained from the standard, i.e., `orthodox', formulation. The ontological characteristics of the Bohmian theory provide a description of measurements in a natural way, without the need of introducing stochastic operators for the wavefunction collapse. Several solved problems are presented at the end of the chapter giving additional mathematical support to some particular issues. A detailed description of computational algorithms to obtain Bohmian trajectories from the numerical solution of the Schr¨odingeror the Hamilton{Jacobi equations are presented in an appendix. The motivation of this chapter is twofold.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1607.01025V2
    Observables, gravitational dressing, and obstructions to locality and subsystems William Donnelly∗ and Steven B. Giddings† Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 Quantum field theory – our basic framework for describing all nongravitational physics – conflicts with general relativity: the latter precludes the standard definition of the former’s essential principle of locality, in terms of commuting local observables. We examine this conflict more carefully, by investigating implications of gauge (diffeomorphism) invariance for observables in gravity. We prove a dressing theorem, showing that any operator with nonzero Poincar´echarges, and in particular any compactly supported operator, in flat-spacetime quantum field theory must be gravitationally dressed once coupled to gravity, i.e. it must depend on the metric at arbitrarily long distances, and we put lower bounds on this nonlocal dependence. This departure from standard locality occurs in the most severe way possible: in perturbation theory about flat spacetime, at leading order in Newton’s constant. The physical observables in a gravitational theory therefore do not organize themselves into local commuting subalgebras: the principle of locality must apparently be reformulated or abandoned, and in fact we lack a clear definition of the coarser and more basic notion of a quantum subsystem of the Universe. We discuss relational approaches to locality based on diffeomorphism-invariant nonlocal operators, and reinforce arguments that any such locality is state-dependent and approximate. We also find limitations to the utility of bilocal diffeomorphism- invariant operators that are considered in cosmological contexts. An appendix provides a concise review of the canonical covariant formalism for gravity, instrumental in the discussion of Poincar´e charges and their associated long-range fields.
    [Show full text]
  • A Non-Technical Explanation of the Bell Inequality Eliminated by EPR Analysis Eliminated by Bell A
    Ghostly action at a distance: a non-technical explanation of the Bell inequality Mark G. Alford Physics Department, Washington University, Saint Louis, MO 63130, USA (Dated: 16 Jan 2016) We give a simple non-mathematical explanation of Bell's inequality. Using the inequality, we show how the results of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) experiments violate the principle of strong locality, also known as local causality. This indicates, given some reasonable-sounding assumptions, that some sort of faster-than-light influence is present in nature. We discuss the implications, emphasizing the relationship between EPR and the Principle of Relativity, the distinction between causal influences and signals, and the tension between EPR and determinism. I. INTRODUCTION II. OVERVIEW To make it clear how EPR experiments falsify the prin- The recent announcement of a \loophole-free" observa- ciple of strong locality, we now give an overview of the tion of violation of the Bell inequality [1] has brought re- logical context (Fig. 1). For pedagogical purposes it is newed attention to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) natural to present the analysis of the experimental re- family of experiments in which such violation is observed. sults in two stages, which we will call the \EPR analy- The violation of the Bell inequality is often described as sis", and the \Bell analysis" although historically they falsifying the combination of \locality" and \realism". were not presented in exactly this form [4, 5]; indeed, However, we will follow the approach of other authors both stages are combined in Bell's 1976 paper [2]. including Bell [2{4] who emphasize that the EPR results We will concentrate on Bohm's variant of EPR, the violate a single principle, strong locality.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Noise and Quantum Measurement
    Quantum noise and quantum measurement Aashish A. Clerk Department of Physics, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 2T8 1 Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Quantum noise spectral densities: some essential features 2 2.1 Classical noise basics 2 2.2 Quantum noise spectral densities 3 2.3 Brief example: current noise of a quantum point contact 9 2.4 Heisenberg inequality on detector quantum noise 10 3 Quantum limit on QND qubit detection 16 3.1 Measurement rate and dephasing rate 16 3.2 Efficiency ratio 18 3.3 Example: QPC detector 20 3.4 Significance of the quantum limit on QND qubit detection 23 3.5 QND quantum limit beyond linear response 23 4 Quantum limit on linear amplification: the op-amp mode 24 4.1 Weak continuous position detection 24 4.2 A possible correlation-based loophole? 26 4.3 Power gain 27 4.4 Simplifications for a detector with ideal quantum noise and large power gain 30 4.5 Derivation of the quantum limit 30 4.6 Noise temperature 33 4.7 Quantum limit on an \op-amp" style voltage amplifier 33 5 Quantum limit on a linear-amplifier: scattering mode 38 5.1 Caves-Haus formulation of the scattering-mode quantum limit 38 5.2 Bosonic Scattering Description of a Two-Port Amplifier 41 References 50 1 Introduction The fact that quantum mechanics can place restrictions on our ability to make measurements is something we all encounter in our first quantum mechanics class. One is typically presented with the example of the Heisenberg microscope (Heisenberg, 1930), where the position of a particle is measured by scattering light off it.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Noise Properties of Non-Ideal Optical Amplifiers and Attenuators
    Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience Quantum noise properties of non-ideal optical amplifiers and attenuators This article has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text article. 2011 J. Opt. 13 125201 (http://iopscience.iop.org/2040-8986/13/12/125201) View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more Download details: IP Address: 128.151.240.150 The article was downloaded on 27/08/2012 at 22:19 Please note that terms and conditions apply. IOP PUBLISHING JOURNAL OF OPTICS J. Opt. 13 (2011) 125201 (7pp) doi:10.1088/2040-8978/13/12/125201 Quantum noise properties of non-ideal optical amplifiers and attenuators Zhimin Shi1, Ksenia Dolgaleva1,2 and Robert W Boyd1,3 1 The Institute of Optics, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627, USA 2 Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada 3 Department of Physics and School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, K1N 6N5, Canada E-mail: [email protected] Received 17 August 2011, accepted for publication 10 October 2011 Published 24 November 2011 Online at stacks.iop.org/JOpt/13/125201 Abstract We generalize the standard quantum model (Caves 1982 Phys. Rev. D 26 1817) of the noise properties of ideal linear amplifiers to include the possibility of non-ideal behavior. We find that under many conditions the non-ideal behavior can be described simply by assuming that the internal noise source that describes the quantum noise of the amplifier is not in its ground state.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond the Shot-Noise and Diffraction Limit
    Quantum plasmonic sensing: beyond the shot-noise and diffraction limit Changhyoup Lee,∗,y,z Frederik Dieleman,{ Jinhyoung Lee,y Carsten Rockstuhl,z,x Stefan A. Maier,{ and Mark Tame∗,k,? yDepartment of Physics, Hanyang University, Seoul, 133-791, South Korea zInstitute of Theoretical Solid State Physics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany {EXSS, The Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College London, Prince Consort Road, SW7 2BW, United Kingdom xInstitute of Nanotechnology, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany kUniversity of KwaZulu-Natal, School of Chemistry and Physics, Durban 4001, South Africa ?National Institute for Theoretical Physics (NITheP), KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] Abstract Photonic sensors have many applications in a range of physical settings, from mea- suring mechanical pressure in manufacturing to detecting protein concentration in biomedical samples. A variety of sensing approaches exist, and plasmonic systems in particular have received much attention due to their ability to confine light below the diffraction limit, greatly enhancing sensitivity. Recently, quantum techniques have been identified that can outperform classical sensing methods and achieve sensitiv- ity below the so-called shot-noise limit. Despite this significant potential, the use of 1 definite photon number states in lossy plasmonic systems for further improving sens- ing capabilities is not well studied. Here, we investigate the sensing performance of a plasmonic interferometer that simultaneously exploits the quantum nature of light and its electromagnetic field confinement. We show that, despite the presence of loss, specialised quantum resources can provide improved sensitivity and resolution beyond the shot-noise limit within a compact plasmonic device operating below the diffraction limit.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Noise
    C.W. Gardiner Quantum Noise With 32 Figures Springer -Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York London Paris Tokyo Hong Kong Barcelona Budapest Contents 1. A Historical Introduction 1 1.1 Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle 1 1.1.1 The Equation of Motion and Repeated Measurements 3 1.2 The Spectrum of Quantum Noise 4 1.3 Emission and Absorption of Light 7 1.4 Consistency Requirements for Quantum Noise Theory 10 1.4.1 Consistency with Statistical Mechanics 10 1.4.2 Consistency with Quantum Mechanics 11 1.5 Quantum Stochastic Processes and the Master Equation 13 1.5.1 The Two Level Atom in a Thermal Radiation Field 14 1.5.2 Relationship to the Pauli Master Equation 18 2. Quantum Statistics 21 2.1 The Density Operator 21 2.1.1 Density Operator Properties 22 2.1.2 Von Neumann's Equation 24 2.2 Quantum Theory of Measurement 24 2.2.1 Precise Measurements 25 2.2.2 Imprecise Measurements 25 2.2.3 The Quantum Bayes Theorem 27 2.2.4 More General Kinds of Measurements 29 2.2.5 Measurements and the Density Operator 31 2.3 Multitime Measurements 33 2.3.1 Sequences of Measurements 33 2.3.2 Expression as a Correlation Function 34 2.3.3 General Correlation Functions 34 2.4 Quantum Statistical Mechanics 35 2.4.1 Entropy 35 2.4.2 Thermodynamic Equilibrium 36 2.4.3 The Bose Einstein Distribution 38 2.5 System and Heat Bath - 39 2.5.1 Density Operators for "System" and "Heat Bath" 39 2.5.2 Mutual Influence of "System" and "Bath" 41 XIV Contents 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Noise Spectroscopy
    Quantum Noise Spectroscopy Dartmouth College and Griffith University researchers have devised a new way to "sense" and control external noise in quantum computing. Quantum computing may revolutionize information processing by providing a means to solve problems too complex for traditional computers, with applications in code breaking, materials science and physics, but figuring out how to engineer such a machine remains elusive. [8] While physicists are continually looking for ways to unify the theory of relativity, which describes large-scale phenomena, with quantum theory, which describes small-scale phenomena, computer scientists are searching for technologies to build the quantum computer using Quantum Information. The accelerating electrons explain not only the Maxwell Equations and the Special Relativity, but the Heisenberg Uncertainty Relation, the Wave-Particle Duality and the electron’s spin also, building the Bridge between the Classical and Quantum Theories. The Planck Distribution Law of the electromagnetic oscillators explains the electron/proton mass rate and the Weak and Strong Interactions by the diffraction patterns. The Weak Interaction changes the diffraction patterns by moving the electric charge from one side to the other side of the diffraction pattern, which violates the CP and Time reversal symmetry. The diffraction patterns and the locality of the self-maintaining electromagnetic potential explains also the Quantum Entanglement, giving it as a natural part of the Relativistic Quantum Theory and making possible
    [Show full text]
  • The Emergence of Classical Dynamics in a Quantum World
    The Emergence of Classical Dynamics in a Quantum World Tanmoy Bhattacharya, Salman Habib, and Kurt Jacobs ver since the advent of quantum mechanics in the mid 1920s, it has been clear that the atoms composing matter Edo not obey Newton’s laws. Instead, their behavior is described by the Schrödinger equation. Surprisingly though, until recently, no clear explanation was given for why everyday objects, which are merely collections of atoms, are observed to obey Newton’s laws. It seemed that, if quantum mechanics explains all the properties of atoms accurately, everyday objects should obey quantum mechanics. As noted in the box to the right, this reasoning led a few scientists to believe in a distinct macro- scopic, or “big and complicated,” world in which quantum mechanics fails and classical mechanics takes over although there has never been experimental evidence for such a failure. Even those who insisted that Newtonian mechanics would somehow emerge from the underlying quantum mechanics as the system became increasingly macroscopic were hindered by the lack of adequate experimental tools. In the last decade, however, this quantum-to-classical transition has become accessible to experimental study and quantitative description, and the resulting insights are the subject of this article. 110 Los Alamos Science Number 27 2002 A Historical Perspective The demands imposed by quantum mechanics on the the façade of ensemble statistics could no longer hide disciplines of epistemology and ontology have occupied the reality of the counterclassical nature of quantum the greatest minds. Unlike the theory of relativity, the other mechanics. In particular, a vast array of quantum fea- great idea that shaped physical notions at the same time, tures, such as interference, came to be seen as everyday quantum mechanics does far more than modify Newton’s occurrences in these experiments.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Limits on Measurement
    Quantum Limits on Measurement Rob Schoelkopf Applied Physics Yale University Gurus: Michel Devoret, Steve Girvin, Aash Clerk And many discussions with D. Prober, K. Lehnert, D. Esteve, L. Kouwenhoven, B. Yurke, L. Levitov, K. Likharev, … Thanks for slides: L. Kouwenhoven, K. Schwab, K. Lehnert,… Noise and Quantum Measurement 1 R. Schoelkopf Overview of Lectures Lecture 1: Equilibrium and Non-equilibrium Quantum Noise in Circuits Reference: “Quantum Fluctuations in Electrical Circuits,” M. Devoret Les Houches notes Lecture 2: Quantum Spectrometers of Electrical Noise Reference: “Qubits as Spectrometers of Quantum Noise,” R. Schoelkopf et al., cond-mat/0210247 Lecture 3: Quantum Limits on Measurement References: “Amplifying Quantum Signals with the Single-Electron Transistor,” M. Devoret and RS, Nature 2000. “Quantum-limited Measurement and Information in Mesoscopic Detectors,” A.Clerk, S. Girvin, D. Stone PRB 2003. And see also upcoming RMP by Clerk, Girvin, Devoret, & RS Noise and Quantum Measurement 2 R. Schoelkopf Outline of Lecture 3 • Quantum measurement basics: The Heisenberg microscope No noiseless amplification / No wasted information • General linear QND measurement of a qubit • Circuit QED nondemolition measurement of a qubit Quantum limit? Experiments on dephasing and photon shot noise • Voltage amplifiers: Classical treatment and effective circuit SET as a voltage amplifier MEMS experiments – Schwab, Lehnert Noise and Quantum Measurement 3 R. Schoelkopf Heisenberg Microscope ∆p Measure position of free particle: ∆x ∆x = imprecision of msmt. wavelength of probe photon: λ = hc / Eγ ∆p = backaction due to msmt. momentum “kick” due to photon: ∆pE= / c hc E ∆x∆p = ∼ h E c Only an issue if: 1) try to observe both x,p or 2) try to repeat measurements of x Uncertainty principle: ∆x∆p ≥ /2 Noise and Quantum Measurement 4 R.
    [Show full text]
  • A Quantum Noise Approach to Quantum NEMS
    A Quantum Noise Approach to Quantum NEMS Aashish Clerk McGill University S. Bennett (graduate student) Collaborators: K. Schwab, S. Girvin, A. Armour, M. Blencowe • Quantum noise as a route to understanding quantum NEMS… Quantum NEMS: Interesting Issues • How does the conductor affect the oscillator? • Non-trivial dissipative quantum mechanics… the oscillator sees a non-Gaussian, non-equilibrium “bath” ! Systematic way of describing non-equilibrium systems as effective equilibrium baths • Non-equilibrium cooling • strong-feedback “lasing” instabilities,… Quantum NEMS: Interesting Issues • How does the oscillator affect the conductor? • Possibility for quantum limited position detection… opens door to doing quantum control ! Rigorous bound on quantum noise of a detector ! Reaching the quantum limit requires a conductor (detector) with ideal quantum noise properties Non-equilibrium baths? F Problem: the “bath” produced by the conductor is non-equilibrium and non-Gaussian! However: for several systems, theory shows that the conductor acts as an effective equilibrium bath! Point contact: Mozyrsky & Martin, 02; Smirnov, Mourokh & Horing, 03; !cond A.C. & Girvin, 04 Normal-metal SET: Armour & Blencowe, 04 kBTeff " eVDS Quantum dot: Mozyrsky, Martin & Hastings, 04 • Generic way of seeing this? • What in general determines Teff? Effective bath descriptions • If oscillator-conductor coupling is weak, we can rigorously derive a Langevin equation! damping kernel random force • Langevin equation determined by the quantum noise of the conductor: n~F
    [Show full text]
  • Key Points for Understanding of Unruh and Hawking Effects
    Key points for understanding of Unruh and Hawking effects Peter Slavov∗ Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”, Theoretical Physics Department, August 25, 2021 Abstract The present paper stress on the distinction between the two idealizations – eternal (pri- mordial) black hole and a black hole formed in a process of gravitation collapse. Such a distinction is an essential condition for a better understanding of the relation between Unruh effect and Hawking effect. The fundamental character of the discussions inside requires a preferred orientation to results of the local QFT in curved space-time. 1 Introduction The meeting between the quantum physics and a space-time horizon is one of the most untrivial things in the physics. A serious challenge to common sense, a test about how we understand the basic physical concepts and notions like space-time, causality, locality, dynamics, evolution, quantization, temperature, information, entropy, energy, mass, particle. In early years of General Relativity (GR) black hole (BH) has been an exotic feature of causality structure of the space-time. After obtaining Kerr’s solution of Einstein–Hilbert’s equations in 1963, the development of BH physics starts growing up as a separate discipline in gravitational science fruitful for many new results. The Golden Age of this area of research was a highest pilotage in theoretical and mathematical physics. It consist of a few number of important theorems coming after a deep study of gravity solutions with symmetries and also of a brilliant (skillfully) defined system of basic notions leading to outstanding physical results (4 lows of BH mechanics [BCH1973] and Smarr’s formula [S1973]) despite (regardless of) the difficulties in the physical interpretation and the conflict with common sense.
    [Show full text]