Significant-Loophole-Free Test of Bell’s Theorem with Entangled Photons

Giustina, Marissa; Versteegh, Marijn A. M.; Wengerowsky, Soeren; Handsteiner, Johannes; Hochrainer, Armin; Phelan, K.; Steinlechner, Fabian; Kofler, Johannes; Larsson, Jan‐Åke; Abellán, Carlos; Amaya, Waldimar; Pruneri, Valerio; Mitchell, Morgan W.; Beyer, J.; Gerrits, Thomas; Lita, Adriana E.; Shalm, Lynden K.; Nam, Sae Woo; Scheidl, Thomas; Ursin, Rupert; Wittmann, Bernhard; Zeilinger, Anton

doi:10.1103/physrevlett.115.250401

Cited by 1,282 publications

(1,352 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

1,240

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…(63). This state almost looks like a standard example of an entangled state [107], but the radiation states χ 1 and χ N are in general nonorthogonal.…”

Section: The Special Case Of Symmetric Ccismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has only been overcome recently for entangled electron spins [62] and entangled photon pairs [63,64]. With all the specific attributes of photoelectron spin control, however, repeating such a success would be expremely difficult.…”

Section: Facing the Loopholesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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%

“…Rather, formally, proving the role of quantum mechanics requires that all classical descriptions and explanations be falsified, i.e., all classical models must be unable to reproduce the phenomenon. As a consequence, the rigorous certification of nonclassicality is a challenging task which has, for example, been the subject of intense efforts in quantum optics [49][50][51], quantum information [52][53][54][55][56][57][58], and, most notably, quantum foundations [59][60][61][62][63][64]. Studies of this type take the form of carefully crafted experimental protocols that close all loopholes that would prevent rigorous assertions about the degree to which quantum mechanics is necessary to describe the phenomenon-called here, and below, "quantumness".…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

“…(63). This state almost looks like a standard example of an entangled state [107], but the radiation states χ 1 and χ N are in general nonorthogonal.…”

Section: The Special Case Of Symmetric Ccismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Facing the Loopholesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Bell Inequality Test For Coherent Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

An Approach To “Quantumness” In Coherent Control

Scholak

Brumer

2017

Advances in Chemical Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 Bohm & Aharonov (1957) (Aspect et al 1982a, b;Clauser et al 1969;Clauser & Horne, 1974;Clauser & Shimony, 1978;Freedman & Clauser, 1972;Giustina et al 2015;Guerreiro et al 2012;Hensen et al 2015;Horne & Zeilinger, 1985;Kimble et al 1977;Weihs et al 1998;Zbinden et al 2001).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantum entanglement: facts and fiction – how wrong was Einstein after all?

Nordén

2016

Quart. Rev. Biophys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Einstein was wrong with his 1927 Solvay Conference claim that quantum mechanics is incomplete and incapable of describing diffraction of single particles. However, the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox of entangled pairs of particles remains lurking with its 'spooky action at a distance'. In molecules quantum entanglement can be viewed as basis of both chemical bonding and excitonic states. The latter are important in many biophysical contexts and involve coupling between subsystems in which virtual excitations lead to eigenstates of the total Hamiltonian, but not for the separate subsystems. The author questions whether atomic or photonic systems may be probed to prove that particles or photons may stay entangled over large distances and display the immediate communication with each other that so concerned Einstein. A dissociating hydrogen molecule is taken as a model of a zero-spin entangled system whose angular momenta are in principle possible to probe for this purpose. In practice, however, spins randomize as a result of interactions with surrounding fields and matter. Similarly, no experiment seems yet to provide unambiguous evidence of remaining entanglement between single photons at large separations in absence of mutual interaction, or about immediate (superluminal) communication. This forces us to reflect again on what Einstein really had in mind with the paradox, viz. a probabilistic interpretation of a wave function for an ensemble of identically prepared states, rather than as a statement about single particles. Such a prepared state of many particles would lack properties of quantum entanglement that make it so special, including the uncertainty upon which safe quantum communication is assumed to rest. An example is Zewail's experiment showing visible resonance in the dissociation of a coherently vibrating ensemble of NaI molecules apparently violating the uncertainty principle. Einstein was wrong about diffracting single photons where space-like anti-bunching observations have proven recently their non-local character and how observation in one point can remotely affect the outcome in other points. By contrast, long range photon entanglement with immediate, superluminal response is still an elusive, possibly partly misunderstood issue. The author proposes that photons may entangle over large distances only if some interaction exists via fields that cannot propagate faster than the speed of light. An experiment to settle this 'interaction hypothesis' is suggested.In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) presented a paradox, which seemed to imply a fundamental discrepancy between quantum and classical mechanics and which they meant proves that the former is not a 'complete theory' . Einstein (1936) elaborated on the theme with a more nuanced description later, in what sense he considers quantum mechanics (QM) incomplete. His concern that it is the way QM is applied to singular particulate systems rather than whether it is a correct theory, was my inspiration for revisiting these grounds a...

show abstract

Quantum Antenna Arrays

Liberal

Ziolkowski

2022

Antenna and Array Technologies for Future Wireless Ecosystems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Significant-Loophole-Free Test of Bell’s Theorem with Entangled Photons

Cited by 1,282 publications

References 37 publications

An Approach To “Quantumness” In Coherent Control

An Approach To “Quantumness” In Coherent Control

Quantum entanglement: facts and fiction – how wrong was Einstein after all?

Quantum Antenna Arrays

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About