An experimental test of non-local realism

Gröblacher, Simon; Paterek, Tomasz; Kaltenbaek, Rainer; Brukner, Časlav; Żukowski, Marek; Aspelmeyer, Markus; Zeilinger, Anton

doi:10.1038/nature05677

Cited by 390 publications

(523 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

507

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For Clearly this point of view did not contradict the operational point of view, which circumvents the natural (internal) process of detecting the photon. But additionally, the former considers the fact that an instrumental observation, measuring quantities, reflects a certain property as mentioned above [22,80], see sec II C last paragraph. The famous DSE shows the wave nature of the particles, the modern quantum optics experiments show the particulate nature of the radiation, and similarly in the KASE-type experiment we encounter the corpuscular property of LWP.…”

Section: The Tunneling Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to understand the tunneling in attosecond experiment?

Kullie

2018

Annals of Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The measurement of the tunneling time (T-time) in today's attosecond and strong field (low-frequency) experiments, despite its controversial discussion, offers a fruitful opportunity to understand time measurement and the time in quantum mechanics. In addition, as we will see in this work, a related controversial issue is the particulate nature of the radiation. Different models used to calculate the T-time will be discussed in this work in relation to my model of real T-time, Phys. Rev. 92, 052118 (2015), where an intriguing similarity to the Bohr-Einstein photon box Gedanken experiment was found. The tunneling process itself is still not well understood, but I am arguing that a scattering mechanism (by the laser wave packet) offers a possibility to understand the tunneling process in the tunneling region. This is related to the question about the corpuscular nature of light which is widely discussed in modern quantum optics experiments.Keywords: Attosecond physics, tunneling time and time measurement in attosecond experiments, timeenergy uncertainty relation, time and time-operator in quantum mechanics, Bohr-Einstein's photon box Gedanken experiment, multiphoton processing, Compton scattering, wave-particle duality. I. INTRODUCTIONThere is no doubt that the advent of 'attophysics' opens new perspectives in the study of time resolved phenomena in atomic and molecular physics [1][2][3][4][5] A similar controversial issue to the time issue (and the T-time and TEUR) is the wave-matter duality and the partic-

show abstract

Section: The Tunneling Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to understand the tunneling in attosecond experiment?

Kullie

2018

Annals of Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This model was recently brought into focus by the work of Gröblacher et al 7 . The basic assumption of Leggett's model is that locally everything happens as if each single quantum system would always be in a pure state.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing quantum correlations versus single-particle properties within Leggett’s model and beyond

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quantum theory predicts and experiments confirm that nature can produce correlations between distant events that are nonlocal in the sense of violating a Bell inequality 1 . Nevertheless, Bell's strong sentence 'Correlations cry out for explanations' (ref. 2) remains relevant. The maturing of quantum information science and the discovery of the power of non-local correlations, for example for cryptographic key distribution beyond the standard quantum key distribution schemes 3-5 , strengthen Bell's wish and make it even more timely. In 2003, Leggett proposed an alternative model for non-local correlations 6 that he proved to be incompatible with quantum predictions. We present here a new approach to this model, along with new inequalities for testing it. These inequalities can be derived in a very simple way, assuming only the non-negativity of probability distributions; they are also stronger than previously published and experimentally tested Leggett-type inequalities 6-9 . The simplest of the new inequalities is experimentally violated. Then we go beyond Leggett's model, and show that we cannot ascribe even partially defined individual properties to the components of a maximally entangled pair.Formally, a correlation is a conditional probability distribution P(α, β|a, b), where α, β are the outcomes observed by two partners, Alice and Bob, when they make measurements labelled by a and b, respectively. On the abstract level, a and b are merely inputs, freely and independently chosen by Alice and Bob. On a more physical level, Alice and Bob hold two subsystems of a quantum state; in the simple case of qubits, the inputs are naturally characterized by vectors on the Poincaré sphere, hence the notation a,b.How should we understand non-local correlations, in particular those corresponding to entangled quantum states? A natural approach consists in decomposing P(α, β|a, b) into a statistical mixture of hopefully simpler correlations:Bell's locality assumption is P l (α, β|a, b) = P A l (α|a)P B l (β|b), admittedly the simplest choice, but an inadequate one as it turns out: quantum correlations violate Bell's locality 1 . Setting out to explore other choices, it is natural to require first that the P l fulfil the so-called no-signalling condition, that is, that none of the correlations P l results from a communication between Alice and Bob. This can be guaranteed by ensuring spacelike separation between Alice and Bob. Non-signalling correlations happen without any time ordering: there is not a first event, let us say on Alice's side, that causes the second event via some spooky action at a distance. We may phrase it differently: nonsignalling correlations happen from outside space-time, in the sense that there is no story in space-time that tells us how they happen. This is the case in orthodox quantum physics, or in some illuminating toy models such as the non-local box of Popescu and Rohrlich (PR box) 10 . Mathematically, the no-signalling condition reads P l (α|a,b) = P l (α|a) and P l (β|a,b) = P l (β|b): Alice'...

show abstract

“…Numerous Bell test experiments have been conducted [49,[62][63][64][129][130][131][132], some with considerable violations of the inequality. Experiments usually implement tests based on the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality [57,125] that is an extension of Bell's original inequality.…”

Section: A Bell Inequality Test For Coherent Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Approach To “Quantumness” In Coherent Control

Scholak

Brumer

2017

Advances in Chemical Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Developments in the foundations of quantum mechanics have identified several attributes and tests associated with the "quantumness" of systems, including entanglement, nonlocality, quantum erasure, Bell test, etc.. Here we introduce and utilize these tools to examine the role of quantum coherence and nonclassical effects in 1 vs. N photon coherent phase control, a paradigm for an all-optical method for manipulating molecular dynamics. In addition, truly quantum control scenarios are introduced and examined. The approach adopted here serves as a template for studies of the role of quantum mechanics in other coherent control and optimal control scenarios.

show abstract

An experimental test of non-local realism

Cited by 390 publications

References 26 publications

How to understand the tunneling in attosecond experiment?

How to understand the tunneling in attosecond experiment?

Testing quantum correlations versus single-particle properties within Leggett’s model and beyond

An Approach To “Quantumness” In Coherent Control

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About