Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Historical Perspective
4 February 2013
Physics 135b, Winter 2013
Is the moon there
when nobody looks?
Reality and the quantum theory
Einstein maintained that quantum metaphysics entails spooky actions
at a distance; experiments have now shown that what bothered Einstein
is not a debatable point but the observed behavior of the real world.
N. David Mermin
Quantum mechanics is magic1 ition expects to be there. in part of space A; it should also be
Einstein didn't like this. He wanted independent of whether or not any
In May 1935, Albert Einstein, Boris things out there to have properties, measurement at all is carried out
Podolsky and Nathan Rosen published2 whether or not they were measured4: in space A. If one adheres to this
an argument that quantum mechanics We often discussed his notions on program, one can hardly consider
fails to provide a complete description objective reality. I recall that dur- the quantum-theoretical descrip-
of physical reality. Today, 50 years ing one walk Einstein suddenly tion as a complete representation
later, the EPR paper and the theoreti- stopped, turned to me and asked of the physically real. If one tries
cal and experimental work it inspired whether I really believed that the to do so in spite of this, one has to
remain remarkable for the vivid illus- moon exists only when I look at it. assume that the physically real in
tration they provide of one of the most The EPR paper describes a situation B suffers a sudden change as a
bizarre aspects of the world revealed to ingeniously contrived to force the quan- result of a measurement in A. My
us by the quantum theory. tum theory into asserting that proper- instinct for physics bristles at this.
Einstein's talent for saying memora- ties in a space-time region B are the Or, in March 1947,
ble things did him a disservice when he result of an act of measurement in I cannot seriously believe in [the
declared "God does not play dice," for it another space-time region A, so far quantum theory] because it cannot
has been held ever since that the basis from B that there is no possibility of the be reconciled with the idea that
for his opposition to quantum mechan- measurement in A exerting an influ- physics should represent a reality
ics was the claim that a fundamental ence on region B by any known dynami- in time and space, free from spooky
understanding of the world can only be cal mechanism. Under these condi- actions at a distance.
statistical. But the EPR paper, his tions, Einstein maintained that the The "spooky actions at a distance"
most powerful attack on the quantum properties in A must have existed all (spukhafte Fernwirkungen) are the ac-
theory, focuses on quite a different along. quisition of a definite value of a proper-
aspect: the doctrine that physical prop- ty by the system in region B by virtue of
erties have in general no objective Spooky actions at a distance the measurement carried out in region
reality independent of the act of obser- Many of his simplest and most explic- A. The EPR paper presents a wave-
vation. As Pascual Jordan put it3 it statements of this position can be function that describes two correlated
Observations not only disturb found in Einstein's correspondence particles, localized in regions A and B,
what has to be measured, they with Max Born.5 Throughout the book far apart. In this particular two-parti-
produce it. . . . We compel [the elec- (which sometimes reads like a Nabokov cle state one can learn (in the sense of
tron] to assume a definite posi- novel), Born, pained by Einstein's dis- being able to predict with certainty the
tion. . . . We ourselves produce the taste for the statistical character of the
results of measurement. quantum theory, repeatedly fails, both David Mermin is director of the Laboratory of
Jordan's statement is something of a in his letters and in his later commen- Atomic and Solid State Physics at Cornell
truism for contemporary physicists. tary on the correspondence, to under- University. A solid-state theorist, he has
Underlying it, we have all been stand what is really bothering Ein- recently come up with some quasithoughts
taught, is the disruption of what is stein. Einstein tries over and over about quasicrystals. He is known to PHYSICS
being measured by the act of measure- again, without success, to make himself TODAY readers as the person who made
ment, made unavoidable by the exis- clear. In March 1948, for example, he "boojum" an internationally accepted scienti-
tence of the quantum of action, which writes: fic term. With N. W. Ashcroft, he is about to
generally makes it impossible even in start updating the world's funniest solid-state
That which really exists in B physics text. He says he is bothered by Bell's
principle to construct probes that can should . . . not depend on what theorem, but may have rocks in his head
yield the information classical intu- kind of measurement is carried out anyway.
38 PHYSICS TODAY / APRIL 1985 0031-9228 / 85 / 0400 38-10/$0,1.Q0 © 1985American Institute of Physios
Downloaded 04 Jan 2013 to 131.215.225.9. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://www.physicstoday.org/about_us/terms
I.8 CAN QUANTUM-MECHANICALDESCRIPTIONOF V ( r 1 ,1 2 ) :
PHYSICAL REALITY BE CONSIDEREDCOMPLETE?
where
9 '(x') =
BontsPoporsry,ANDNnrHnNRosBN
ArseRrErxsrErN,
This *, however ir
operator
p=(
correspondingto tl
momentumof the se
hand, if .B is the coc
it has for eigenfunct
trr(f,r
In a complete theory there is an element corresponding quantum mechanics is not complete or (2) these two
t o e a c h e l e m e n to f r e a l i t y . A s u f f i c i e n tc o n d i t i o n f o r t h e q u an t i t i e sc a nn o t h a v es i r n u l t a n e o urse a l i ty . C o n s i d e r a t i o n
r e a l i t yo f a p h y s i c a q
l u a n t i t f i s t h e p o s s i b i l i t yo f p r e d i c t i n g of the problem of making predictionsconcerninga system
correspondingto
it with certainty, without disturbing the system. ln o . nt h e b a s i so f m e a s u r e n r e n tnsr a d eo n a n o t h e rs y s t e mt h a t 6(rr-r) is thewell-i
q u a n t u m m e c h a n i c si n t h e c a s eo f t w o p h y s i c a lq u a n t i t i e s h a d .p r e v i o u s l yi n t e r a c t e dw i r h i t l e a d st o t h e r e s u l tt h a t i f Eq. ( 8) in t his case
d e s c r i b e db y n o n - c o m n r u t i n go p e r a t o r s ,t h e k n o w l e d g eo f ( l ) i s f a l s et h e n ( 2 ) i s a l s o f a l s e .O n e i s t h u s l e d t o c o n c l u d e
o n e p r e c l u d e st h e k n o w l e d g eo f t h e o t h e r . T h e n e i t h e r . ( l ) t h a t t h e d e s c r i p t i o no f r e a l i t y a s g i v e n b y a w a v e f u n c t i o n
t h e d e s c r i p t i o no f r e a l i t . vg i v e n b y t h e w a v e f u n c t i o n i n . ; is not conrplete. V(rr, re):
where
l. ; Whatever the meaning assigned to the term
complele, the following requirement for a com- P* (:
) A NY _ serious consideration of a physical ,p,(xr) :
I s t 2 t i th )
,( \ thedry must take into account the dis- plete theory seems to be a necessary nery J*
I elemenl of the physical reality must houeo counter-
( tinction betweenthe -obiectiverealitv. which is
port in the physical lheory. \\ie shall call this the
{ independentof any theory, and the physical
i conceptswith which the theory operates.These condition of completeness.The second question This g", however,
conceptsare intended to correspondwith the is thus easily answered,as soon as we are able to operator
objectivereality, and by meansof theseconcepts decide what are the elements of the physical
we picture this reality to ourselves. reality.
judge The elementsof the physical reality cannot corresponding to tl:
In attempting to the successof a
coordinate o[ the sec
physicaltheory, we may ask ourselvestwo ques- be determined by o priori philosophicalcon-
tions: (1) "Is the theory correct?"and (2) "Is siderations,but must be found by an appealto PQ-
the descriptiongiven by the theory complete?" results of experimentsand measurements. A
It is only in the casein which positiveanswers comprehensive definitionof reality is, however, we have shown that
may be given to both of thesequestions,that the unnecessary for our purpose.We shall be satisfied 9* and 9, to be eigr
conceptsof the theory may be said to be satis- with the followingcritericn,which we regardas muting operators,
factory. The correctness of the theory is judged reasonable.If , uilh,oul in ony uay disturbing quantities.
by the degreeof agreementbetween the con- syslem, wc con predicl wilh certainty (i.e., wilh Returning now tc
clusionsof the theory and human experience. probobi,lityequol to unily) the aolue of o physical' plated in Eqs. (7) a
This experience, which aloneenablesus to make quontity, then there existson elementof physicol. and g, are indeed e
inferencesabout reality, in physics takes the reality corresponding lo this physicalquontity. lt commuting operatorl
form of experimentand measurement.It is the seemsto us that this criterion.while far from the eigenvaluespr al
secondquestionthat we wish to considerhere,as exhaustingall possibleways of recognizinga measuring either .4 r
appliedto quantum mechanics. physicalreality, at least providesus with one predict with certaint
sight this assumption is entirely reasonable, for infinite series (7) is reduced to a single term
the information obtainable from a wave function ,l,rk)ur@).
seems to correspond exactly to what can be The set of functi onsa^(rr) i s determi nedby
measured without altering the state of the t h e c h o i c eo f t h e p h y s i c aql u a n t i t yA . l f , i n s t e a d
' thi s,
system. We shall show, however, that this as- of w e had chosenanotherquanti ty,say I,
sumption, together with the criterion of reality havi ngthe ei genval ues br, bz,D r, ' ' ' and ei gen-
given above, leads to a contradiction. functi onsur(rr), r,z(rr), aa(rr), w e shoul d
haveobtai ned,i nsteadof E q. (7), the expansi on
2.
V (r,, * r): i ,p.(r:)un(rr), -(8)
eho -,i*64, a
For this purpose let us suppose that we have r-l <- .r 4.{f...-i' ba&b
two systems, I and II, which we permit to inter-
where s,'s are the new coefficients.If now the
aqt from the time l=0 to l=7, after which time
q u a n t i t y B i s m e a s u r e cal n d i s f c l u n dt o h a v e t h e
we supposethat there is no longer any interaction
v a l u e 0 , , w e c o n c l u d et h a t a f t e r t h e m e a s u r e m e n t
between the two parts. We suppose further that
the first system is left irr the state given by u,(rr)
the states of the two systems before l:0 were
and the second system is left in the state given
known. We can. then calculate with the help of
by p,(rr).
Schrddinger's equation the state of the combined
We see therefore that, as a consequenceof two
system I+II at any subsequent time; in par-
different measurements performed upon the first
ticular, for any l>7. Let us designate the cor- system, the second system may be left in states
responding wave function by !V. We cannot, rwith two different wave functions. On the other
however, calculate the state in which either one hand. since at the time o[ measurementthe two
of the two systems is left aftdr the interaction, systems no longer interact, no real change can
This, according to quantum mechanics,can be tike place in the second system in consequence
done onlytwith the help of further measurements, of anything that may be done to the 6rst system.
by a process known as the reduction o! the woae This is, of course,merely a statement of what is
pochet. Let us consider the essentials of this meant by the absenceof an interaction between
process. the two systems. Thus, fu$ possible to ossjgtptllo
'some
L e t a r , a z ,& s , . . . b e t h e e i g e n v a l u e os f dfuryfit wouefunclions.(in our eNample p1 and
physical quantity .4 pertaining to system I and p,) t_othe samee{\(the second system after
zr(rr), uz(x), u3(fir), t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g t h e i n t e r a c t i o nr v i t h t h e f i r s t ) .
eigenlunctions,where rr stands fclr the variables Now, it may hapllen that the two wave func-
used to describe the 6rst system. Then V, con. t i o n s , 9 * a n d g r , a r g e i g e n f u n c t i o n so f t w o n o n -
sidered as a function of ff1,cdo be expressedas commuting operators corresponding to some
physical quantities P and Q, respectively.That
e."* ',,tl+lt 1' _
+ !t,(r1, f,z)= |n(xiu^(x), (7) this may actually be the case can best be shown
F, by an example. Let us suppose that the two
systems are two particles, and that
where rz stands for the variables used to describe
the secondsystem. Here f.(rs) are to be regarded A@
'+l
i.Lf, rf.) *
r
Jtl,+pr)
I ' 8 PHYSICAL REALITY 141
/
IN OF f- disturbingthe secondsystem,either the value
V(rt, xr): ,l*')' o(x')d|, ( r1 ) of the quantity P (that is po) or the valueof the
;TE? J*t
quantity Q (that is g,). In accordance
where with our
g , ( X z ): g - t 2 t i t h(): t - e uP
). ( t 2 ) criterion of reality, in the first case we mus!
EN congidE_llhe qugntitv-P jrs beine an elementof
This po however is the eigenfunction of the reality, in the secondcasethe quantity
Q is an
operator ilrenrentof reaIty.. tsut, ulg_hlve seen,ptll
element
P=(h/2ri)0/dxz, ( 1 3 ) wave functions *r and
wave_functionlt! and s,
9, bglong
belong to the,samq
the,same
re{ity.
corresponding to the eigenvalue - p of the Previously we proved that either (1) the
momentum of the second particle. On the other quantum-mechanical descriptionof reality given
hand, if B is the coordinate of the first particle, by the wave function is not completeor (2) when
it has for eigenfunctions the operators correspondingto two physical
quantitiesdo not commute the two quantities
,lete or (2) these two, t',(rr) : d(rr -.r), (l 4 )
cannothave simultaneous reality.Starting then{f
s reality. Consideration
ns concerninga system corresponding to the eigenvalue r, where with the assumption that the wave function! E
r-
on another system 6 ( r t - r ) i s t h e w e l l - k n o w n D i r a c d e l t a - f u n c t i o n . doesgive a completedescriptionof the physicalI
ads to the result that i Eq. (8) in this case becomes reality, we arrived at the conclusion that two '
: is thus led to concl physical quantities,with noncommutingoper-
ven by a wave function', ators, can have simultaneousreality. Thus theb'
v(r,, .r, : , ( 1 5 ) negationof (1) leadsto the negationof the only
f:p,(xz)a,(xt)dr,fot?.
where o other alternative (2). We are thus forced to
signed to the term
rement for a
t t' Xo- concludethat the quantum-mechanical descrip-
ecessary one: anryi p,(xz) : f* s't itht:-',::il- tion of physicalreality given by wavi functions
J* is not complete.
must lnae o counler-,
One could object to this conclusionon the
e shall call this the. : h 6 ( x- rr+ f,g). (16)
groundsthat our criterion of reality is not suf-
he second question
This s,, however,is the eigenfunctionof the fi'cientlyrestrictive.Indeed,one would not arrive
)n as we are able to at our conclusionif one insistedthat two or more
operator
ts of the physical ( 1 7 ) physical quantities can be regardedas simul-
Q=x,
taneouselementsof reality only whenlhey con be
ical reality cannot corresponding to the eigenvaluer**o of the simullaneouslymcasuredor predictel.-On this
philosophical con- coordinateof the secondparticle.Since point of view, sinceeitherone or the other, but
rd by an appeal to
PQ-QP=h/Zd, (18) not both simultaneously, of the quantitiesP
measurements. A !,and Q can be predicted,they are not simultane-
'eality we have shown thai it is in generalpossiblefor ously real. This makes the reality of P and Q
is, however,
ile shall be satisfied p1 and 9, to be eigenfunctionsof two noncom- dependupon the processof measurementc?rrr?d
which we regard as muting operators, correspondingto physical out on the first system,which doesnot disturb
y way disturbing o quantities. the secondsystem in any way. No reasonable
cerlointy (i.e., utilh Returning now to the gerreralcase contem- definition of reality could be expectedto permit
aalue of a physicol plated in Eqs. (7) and (8), we assumethat 9r this.
element of physical and ,p, arc.indeedeigenfunctions of some non- While we have thus shown that the wave
'\lsical guantity. lt commutingoperutorsP and Q, coiresponding to functiondoesnot providea completedescription
on, while far from the eigenvalues 2r and 0,, respectively. Thus, by of the physicalreality,we left openthe question
s of recognizing a measuringeitherA or B we are in a positionto of whetheror not sucha descriptionexists.We .
rvides us with one prtidictwith certainty,and without in any way believe,however,that such a theory is possible.
-4 l..Xr;r...rirr,J . As to n'hat a
I
F physicaltheory
o.
't decidedfinaliy r
.y.o--9
t u r.:.irr.] r.r rn ) neverthelesssug
f,ln'*tt-''
of reality, rvhicl
! l, a,'4 ,.lrq.lq
(2) If, rvithc
t
certainty (i.e., '
quantity, then
physicalquanti'
The authors
recognized in ot
restricted onese
criterionalone,
results.
''I The useof tl
assumptions,u'.
i authors, but rrl
(3) The rvo:
16. The Paradoxof Einstein, Rosen,4nd Podolsky. fn an article in separatelyexist
the PhysicalReview,t Einstein,Rosen,and Podolskyraisea seriouscriti- (4) Every o
cism of the validity of the generally'accepted interpretationof quantum definedmathem
theory. This objectionis raisedin the form of a paracioxto rvhichthey We shall"te.
are Ied on the basisof their analysisof a certain hypotheticalexperiment, order to permit
which we shall discussin detail later. Their criticism has, in fact, been authors, but in
shownto be unjustified[] and basedon assumptionsconcerningthe nature appliedat the c'
of matter which implicitly eontradict the quantum theory at the outset. Ilo\r', let us
Nevertheless,theseimplicit assumptionsseem,at f;rst sight, so natural that all relevan
and inevitable that a careful study of the points which the authors 1v&vefunotion,
raised affords deep and penetrating insight into the differencebetween differ hy at rnos
classicaland quantum conceptsof the nature of matter. quanl,umstate.
The authors first undertook to definecriteria for a completephysical reality rvasto sl
theory is untcnr
a completedesc
J Phys.Rca.,47r777 (L935). of reality") ex
(l N. Botrr,Phys,Rev,48r696 (1935);W, H. Furry, Phys.Rev.49,393,476 (1936). proved, then or
ArA \a ef'-'
t This criterior
Podolsky do not r
reality ahvays has
Originallypublishedai sections15-19,Chapter22 of QuantumTheory,David Bohm, pp. 6t l-23, that this counterp,
.t See Chap. 9,
EnglewoodCliffs (195l).
Prenticc-Hall,
⎧ ↑↓ − ↓↑ ⎫
⎪ 1,2 1,2
⎪
⎪ ↑↓ + ↓↑ ⎪⎪
⎪ 1,2 1,2
Belli 1,2 = ⎨ ⎬
⎪ ↑↑ 1,2
+ ↓↓ 1,2 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
, i,ili,ti-.*i;
iil.'ii+r I-
. ;:j:;l::
'l:!';:";n,i.
.rlrf;j:,i
⎪ ↑↑ − ↓↓ 1,2 ⎪
'
"::,,.r
⎩ ⎭
.' i.r.-
1,2
NI.2 EPRPARADOX 361
,e value. This Theee are
. of atom No. 1
9o : u+(1)u+(2) *, = u1(1)u-(2)
nt of the same
rthesis,the two h : u-(1)u-(2) 9a : u-(1)u+(2)
f measuring a,n where za and u- are the one-particlespin wave functions representing,
rut in any wa,y respectively,a spin h/2 and - h/2, and the argument (l) or (2) refers,
I an element of respectively,to the particlewhich has this spin. Norv 9. and parepresent
rve measuredc, the two possiblesituations in rvhieh each particle has a definite z com-
s an element of ponent of the spin in a direction rvhich is oppositeto that of the other.
ris is true, how- The wave function for a system of total spin zero is the following linear
neaf
r I
Jr
icle No. 2 even combinationof 9. and *a (seeChap. 17, Sec.9): ,t
ace. For since L( l(
I
+
"*i^7!d
>f measurement 4.L I *?cDotJes 0o:ft<*,-fii
et us remember
t the apparatus
AJ"-i7-Il
^JT)-
The particular sign with which 9. and {a $e combined is of cmcial
ht, and thus to
importancein determining the combinedspin, for if they are combined
nponent in any
n'ith a * sign, one obtains an angular momentum of ll (but with a ?r;to
,hed without iu
vnlue of the z componentof the angular momentum). We denote this
criterion (2) of
result below:
r must exist in
ition of all three gt = fa) ? (27)
pecify, at most, hw,*
recision,we are It is clear, then, that the total angular momentum is an interference
r not provide a property of 9, and 9a. On the other hand, the only statesin which each
hesecondatom. particle has a definite spin oppositeto.that'of the other are represented
look for & new either by 9. or by 9a separately. Thus, in any state in which the value
on w&srpossible. of a, for each particle is definite, the total angular momentum must be
y ERP involves indefinite. Vice versa,rvhen'everthe total angularmomentum is definite,
hat the world is then neither atom can correctlybe regardedas having a definitevalue of u ⎧ ↑↓ − ↓↑ ⎫
fined t'elements its own spin, for if it did, there could be no interferengebetweenf. and ⎪ 1,2
⎪
1,2
lifferent picture
9a, and it is just this interference which is required to prodrrcea definite ⎪ ↑↓ + ↓↑ ⎪⎪
' ⎪ 1,2 1,2
. This picture total angular momentum.' !t Belli 1,2 = ⎨ ⎬
on of the hypo- Besidesleading to a definite value of the combined spin, however, ⎪ ↑↑ 1,2
+ ↓↓ 1,2 ⎪
k of the theory. definite phaserelationsbetweenf, and 9ahave additionalphysicalmean- ⎪ ⎪
rg to Quantum ing, for they also imply that if the samecomionent of the spin of each ⎪ ↑↑ − ↓↓ 1,2 ⎪
,hat the present atom is measured,the resultswill be correlated. Such correlationscan
⎩ 1,2 ⎭
Einstein, Rosen be demonstrated,for example,in a processin which the z componentof
to be described the spin of eachatom is measuredby allowingeachatom to passthrough
a separateStern-Gerlach apparatus(seeFig. 1). For the sakeof,simpl,;^-
lour basic w&ve ity, rve can supposethat both spins are measuredat the same time,
re constructed.r although no results rvill dependsignificantly on this assumption. The
by multiplyingthe Hamiltonianat the time of measurement is then [seeeqs.(10a)and (f0b)J:
:pend on tbe sD&ce
lV : p(Ko * z'gc!o)ot,
* p(JCo* ztB!o)o2,,
11'l +
,
a (.1(,: . il_,:) ,i i' .l+t t i\
rnt;
enA r I
/
<t polar,%il ceTatt4;otr S
aF ,/
J
.rG t
- '
4,
>
2
PHYSTCAL REVIEW VOLUME 17, NUMBER T , AN UAR Y l. lell
;l
ty*
tf
:i
contaminations. Tbe active Cus wagpackedin a smallil capsulcC
I'
Letters to the Editor 8-mm diameterand 8-mm lcngtb. Thi annihilationradiatioue1 iF
collimatedby a lead block 6X6X6 in. tith s l-in.channel drilld
through the cent€r of the block, such thrt thc spread of the bcaq
UBLICATION o! bricl reports of hnportanl discoacricsin was found to be lessthail'3o.The aluii&um scatteren wercI iq
i;
plrysicsmay bcsccurd by ddressing lhcm lo lhis dcperlmal. in dia,meterand f-in. tong. Tley *erc dcsigntd to abrorb eba
i The closingdalafor thisdepartmailis foc wceksprim lo lhc datc o! 40 percent of the annihilatiort"fadiatirtri'l€ntthwisc and to lioit {
t issue.No prooJwill besentlo thc oulhors.Thc Board of Edilors doa '6i
I the'multiph ir:atterinf ih€ aUiaUon ircfit er 90o tob
! nol hold itse$ rcsponsiblcjm thc opinions c*prasd by lhc corre- than 15 percent. The crystal of the @unFr subten& rn angle
.,T {
spondails.Communications shouldnol cxccd 6ffi uords in lcnglh. 43o at the point in the tieiai rhaii 20 ptrcent of the incidot
rl
t,
' a ;
radiation has beenabsorbed:that is, et thc ibrcrption r.idpoilt
lll r of the scatterer. The me1n scattCring lnglc is very closc to t?,
the predictedmaximumof anisotntpy.Under thescconditiou, $;
i{,, The Angular Correlationnf Scattered
scatteredradiation tekin as the iourtting diftcrencedetectedb;
the scintillation counttr rith and without thc scatterer in pbo
6s3ih ilation Radiation*
rt;,
.11
jr C. S. V/u ero l. Snarxov
is three times the over-all background.
In taking the coincidince niea3utefithtt, one detector waslq
'dCtrctor
I'ufin Physics Labordtorict Yoth.Nao Yorh fired in poaition, and tbc sccond ras briented to foq
di:
Iril
: I'
!:J:*r"ri.\r;i;,tr.Nc., different positions with iiinuth dificnincct (p) of 0", 9f, lf,
,dt r, and 270nbetweenthe dctittor iuis. AJiEr ine-t,the scconddettctl
'li'
ilr{l :
I S earty as 1946,J. A. Wheelertproposedan experimentto
,( r verify a predictionof pair theory, that the two quanta was kept 6.ted and thc i*t 6nt r6t{ttd. The total petiodd
i1; emitted in the annihilationof a position-electron pair, with zero
measurementlastedabout 30 continuctuihouB. On accountoftL
high coincidenccratt obctrvad (tle tfie toincidchcerata forfr
relative angular momentum, are polarized at ryh!_g!glgg_!9,
perpendiorlat poaition et thl btginnini rfrs 6f the order of ffl
each other. This suRgestion involvescoincidence measuremcntg
per minute), thc autisticel d*iitioiia etc much impmfd r
ot-ih-'ffiitering oiloth the anhihilation photons at various
compared to the rc3ulB from G-M couhtln. The asyranctl
aaimuths.l'he detailedtheoreticalinvestigationswere reported
ratio from our best nrn is
by Pryceand lVardr and by Snyder, Pasternack,and Hornbostel.t
The predictedmarimum asymmetryratio of coincidence counts Coinddencl counting tete (.11.)
r2'04+0'0E'
iii ,: when tle two countersare at right anglesto each other to coin- f€
lflri cidencecountswhen the countersare co-planaris as large as 2.85
and occursat a scatteringangleof tl=82". Bleuler and Bradtr
where*0.06 is tbc pfobfblt incatrcrior. Thc calnrlatederyi
l{ili usedtwo end-windowG-M countersas detectorsand observedan
metry ratio for our gtadttricd lrffracihclrt ii 2.00.Th
asymmetryratio not inconsistentwith the theory. Nevertheless, the agreement is vcry satisfcctorfiFilftha rvorkfubeingph$C
the margin of error associatedwith their resultsis so large that a
to ett€nd thc invcstigttjdnstd rliifd'idcd gpomctrical conditic'
detailedcomparisonbetweenthe theory and experimentsis made We wish td erprus our eppreciation to Professon I. I
l,jiii rather difficult. In the meantime,Hannar perforn,edsimilar
Dunning, W. W. Hrvcirs, Jr., and t. t, Rrinriter for theird
'tncourig;neot, Wc rbd,{ish to rhrnl tl
and found stant iritercst and
ftlii experiments with moreefrcientcounterarrangements
the asymmetry ratio observedto be consistently srnallcr than
cyclotron$oup for pttpdnB thi Cq.. souici ind thc U. S.AE
l!*ri tJrosepredicted.Therefore,it appearedto be highly desirableto wbich aidedmateriellyin tlc pcrloitiiiacg6f thir rescarc'h. .
rffiii
'ij;;1,
reinvestigatethis problem by using more efrcjeut dctectorsand
more favorableconditions.
The recentlydevelopedscintillationcounterhas beenproved
to be a reliableand highlye6cientgamma-raydetector.With this
. Partielly supportcd by thc AFC.
t J. A Wheeler, Ann. New Yorh Acrd. Sd. {t, 2t9 (1946).
t M. H. L. Pryce ard J. C. Wa.-. Nrtun 16o,435 (terz1.
r Snyder. Paltern cL eqd Ho.abctcl. Phyr. Rcv.6t, {{o (194t).
I E. Bleuler and H. L. 8redt. Phyr. Rev. 73. l39t (l9lt).
I R. C. Hanrra, Nature f62. 332 (t94t).
i . : lli l improved efficiency,which is around ten times tbat of G-M
r |
": counters,there will be an increasein the coincidence..counting
i l ; ,J .
r l r t ' r l
rate of one bundredtimes. In our experiments,two RCA 5819
i
photo-multipliertubesand two anthracenecrystals tXlXl in.
dl
lini
i,'l
rvereused.Tbe efficiencyfor the annihilation radiation obtained
with tbesc anthracenecrystals is seven to eight percent which
comparesfavorably with the calculatedvalue. The geometrical The OpticalDetectionof dadiofrequency
ir ll ;i l I arrangementis schematicallyshownin Fig. 1. Resonance
: l,'if;l' ' r
' ' ll' The positronsourceCus was activated by deuteronbombard' M. t{. L PiYcr
ment on a coppcr target in the Columbiacyclotron. The electro. Ckrcndor Labqatory, Otfqd, Lnlbnd
plating methodwas employedto separateCu activity from other Octobcr31, l9i9
o | 2 3. ! 3'
I -"[
,|
",iotctq-
( ::11.i*..
)tuf:ttcs,-/
\
of non-localinteractionsbetrveenspatiallyseparatedparticles.Pcll wasthus
e.ristence L".). rs .
ledto ask rvhetherthe peculiarnon-localityexhibitedby thesemodelsis a generic
irr "cteristicof hidden-variablestheoriesthat agreewith the statisticalpredictions Aoa./".)
h*te-l
va-fr.rb( e-
%eo"ie !
A.t= tl
-')' i)0stulated confusion.
- , ^, - qJc</ c J1ttA .1r"1 a -> ,"dl c.A,\e-
t[ - r T wnc
ctJ(4't
/ J ^
fortuCLe-
Turf:c le 2-
-
,_
t'
"
''
, -o " ei = . t (
fgl /-r , L'o-,rA .-n^<.Lt, ir.l
1888 "tr. o*ea,i'\o,t (+rocJ F Clauserand A Shinmy
1
\
thercstrltl(I'@.Sincethequantum.lncchanicalstatc\|,.docsnot U s i n ge t l r t , t t t
t---;------l::_.
t!' ' dctermrncthe rcsultof an individualmcasurcment, this fact (via EPIt's argument)
. ',rr0oJn.:f sttggests that there existsa more completcspecification this
of tlre state in rvh-ich
nG e r^1..)l' dctcrminismis nunifcst. fu. .l.note tiiit ,toi. by the rirrgltsmil'), although ir
Inequalirv
le-' r'.;01'-;. .( may rvellhavemanvdimensions, discreteand/orcontinuoutporir, and diffcrentparE ' B e l l ' s t
t\ 'l
of. it interactingrvith cithcr apparatus,etc. Presumablythe quantum stateY' ist irtcrlu
. 1 F . 1. - { ,\ sirrrPl.
' , c q ! . 1- r relatcdpartialspecificationofihis't't.l@ie.terministichidclen.
yegAblgt-t hp ty -g!-gly-e hsisal$eo tr whi .h p or tsl. r OE* irGn.lo lnd inetpr;ili
.t t-E,+ ee9j i a n g l cr i ( 7 ;
t/s :l€$,Jot tti'tigbthdbjelgblgsstqrrailun-*ssl;,rlrs-_r
,lr{iyt hayc{.fia'rc o"lues.
4 Let A bc thcspace of thc.Gt.s trior anenscmbrecompris.,t of a ueryiorg.nunrbe?
: l*,*.ltn, of thc observed systems.We nrakeno restrictic,ns ast; rvhattypeoi ,pi.. thisis, For thcsc..li
vQefebl'? nor to its dirncnsionality,nor do rvcrequirclinearityfor np"roiitnsrviihit, butof
'$.c.ri''-]
courscrvererluircthat a set of Borelsubscts of A be dcfincd,so that irrobabilitv il
measutcs cnnbc clcfincduponit. Wereprescnt thedistribution functionforthestato 't
l:
Iii
(i
JThat is, onccthc statetr is specificcl
f
t upon i and f. Any reasonable
and thc particlcshavcscparatcd,
.4 candepcndonly uponI and d but not 6. Likcwisem.nsui"mentsof B clcpcnd
mcasurcrncntsof
onh'
physicaltheory that is realisticand deterministicand lit t le r ', r lr r c
that dcniesthe existcnceof action-at-a-distancg
3.2. I"rreu
AnY :tr'
Irr the
8' :, '1
\
\\
'
E v e n l -r e o d y ' d e l e c t o r s 'n
S p i n( 1 1' u p ' d e t e c t o r
A ^ =. 1 r .! i.nt
- $
detectortriggeredby particle2
(*t,'spin-up'
'spin-down'detectortriggeredby particle2
Ba()): - 1, (3.9(D))
./--/ {
I O, particle 2 not detected.
bv (:lt. .\ source Fora givenstateI of the emittedcompositesystem,we denotethe expectationvalues
r2rztusc0nsistsof an for thJsequantitiesby the symbolsArlll and 86(I). In the generalcasetheseaverage
jnlctcrsalnd6reS-
valuesrvili differ from the valuesassignedby equations(3 .9). Sincethe valuesfor I
cleaandllrepresent
and.B are boundedby 1, it follows that:
s.
<1
l.4"(r)l < 1.
lBo(l)l (3.10)
. rt lfld b rruy rep- Usingthe generaldefinitionof localityof $3.3,we can write the expectationvaluefor
cxp e ri n rent er .A s rheproduct A686 as:
faratuses 1 and 2, E(a, b)= Jr,,{"(,\)80(f) dp. (3 . 11)
res,as neccssary.
to include systems Sincewe are including in our ensembleonly those particleswhich have previously
'event-ready'detectors,we are assuredthat the distribution p and the
tc'rministicsYstems
riggeredthe
rnd th a t n r lv loc ally rangedf integrationA are independentof a and 6. Now considerthe cxpression:
vstcn ts,rr' hic hhav e Ao1\186,(r)l
E(o,b)- E(a,b')=J,rlAa(A)Bo(l)- dp
, s i n a n i n her ent ly
; for itrt-vplrticular rvherewe take a' and b' to be alternativcsettin$ for analysers1 and 2, respectivcly.
,b:r[riliticsrn:tv each Thiscan be rewrittenas:
'cspcctivr:lv,and of E(a,b)-E(o, /''): Ja Aa(^)Bb(l)[lt A,'1t14o,(l)]dp
.'iseindependent of
- J" A^(A)Bb'(lXl
t Aa,Q)Er,())l
dp.
. 'stl r:rtth c out c om e Usinginequalities(3.10),we then have:
t 1(.Il trrti l l ' t t c or npo-
rt tlrccspcritrtcnter lE(o,b)- E(a,D')| dp+J"[1t Aa'$)Ba(l)]
< In [t t AE( )8l,,,(l)] dp
bt :ri n i n gknor v ledge U I
) c o n t r r i n isn l o r m a - lE(o,b)- E(a,b')l< tlE(a',6')+E(o',6)l + 2 [n de.
-
LNI rl I
pre su rn l blvr ev eals Hence' \. -'rll-'
yfif C{)lll})OnCnt Of a
. (3.r2) 1"\t/,"
t it drrcs prcscribe, rs a, a',0 and b' inthe centralexpressionof (3.12),
Bvre-deiinitionof the paramete
tcrrr is rtrlt c:tusally
theminussign may bc permutedto any one of the four terms. Inequaliry(3.12)and
rce ti rc ttto s Y s t em s
itspcrmtrtationsarc one form of Bell's inequality,and reprcscnta gencralprediction
('rrl s:l l 'uIr ' r f ( lr r nc d.
the aboveassumptions.
iorthc theoriescovcredby
In order to completethe proof of thc theorem,it is sufficientto show that in at
leastonesituationthe predictionsby quantum mechanicscontradictinequality(3.12).
Thcquantum-mechanical predictiontEG,6)]c* for the two spin-| particleexample,
t Lrc:rl i tv. I c f init ion.
rvhendue aecountis taken of imperfcctiorrsin the analysers,detcctorsand state
rsscdi n $. 1. 2: r nd is will bc of the form:
prep:rration,
c rrsso ci :t t ct ppar
tl a-
l s s i l l l c o t t t C t ) t T t C S t, O =Cd.6
lE@,6)lo" (3.13)
--
Experirnental Theories*
Testof LocalHidden-Variable
We have mearured the llnear polarizatton correlatlon of the photons emtttr.d ln an atom-
ic cascade of calctum. tt has bcen shown by a generalizatlon of Bcll's lneqnali..:'that the
eristence of local htdden variables imposes restrictions on thls corelatlon ln confllci
with the predictions of quantum mechanics. oltr data, in agreement withquantum me-
chanics, vlolate these restrlctions to high stattstical accuracy, thus provldlng strong evl- nG. l. schematir
dence against local hidden-varlable theorles. i clectronlcs. Sca
Ftr sl the discrimi
Since quanh.rmmechanics was first developed, features, tlr€nr. arise because a quantum state \ each 100-sec co
there have been repeated suggestions that its sta- represents a statistical ensemble of "hidden- rcaiera and
the e..rpr
d ou paper tape anL
tistical features possibly might be described by variable states." Proofs by von Neumann and
Ee r.
an underlying deterministic substructure. Such others, demonstrating the impossibility of a hid'
938
J A P R r Ll g 7 2 \ , o L U M E2 E .
NUMBTRI{ PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS J A p n tI l 9 - l
with quantum
den-variablesubstructureconsistent
indebted to the 1 moved. Quantum mechanics predicts that R(q)
t
I the Lawrence rely On various asSumptions concern- and R o are rel ated as fol l ow s3' 5:
rnechaniCS,
rsly allowing hlq{ ingh. character of the hidden variables't Bell
R (p)/R o = f (ert + €,r)( €" " * e,2) + t ( . r t - €, "t )
these assumptions are unduly re-
he K' e:eosure: ir-r -S,t.d that
by considering an idealized x(€r2-e^2)F,(0)cosLp, (1a)
Saltieri, P. J. t strictive. However,
nal, G. R. Lync\ caseof two spatially separatedbut quantum-me- while
S. Rabin, F. T. chanically correlatedsystems, he was able to
and R. Wind- that any hidden-variabletheory satisfying R L / R o =| . ( e, t + € , r ) , (tul
t show natural assumptionof "locality" also
't
ody the and
leadsto predictions("Bell's inequalitY")in con-
I
flict with quantummechanics.r \/ Ro = t(e ,t * e,'). (l c)
c Energyao.trt Bell's proof was extendedto realizable systems
PA 191. by Clauser, Horne, Shimony, and Holt,s who also Here eri (e,n')is the transmittanceof the fth po-
leport No. CLIN- larizer for light polarized parallel (perpendicu-
pointedout that their generalizationof Bell's in-
equditycan be tested experimentally, thus test- lar) to the polarizer axis, sd Fr(6) is a function
:d.
ingatl local hidd'en-variabletheories, but that of the half-angle 6 subtendedby the primary lens-
I
rt 2227 $9711.
existingexperimentalresults were insufficient es. It representsa depolarizationdue to noncol-
9. Low, aod J. E. fbr this purpose. This Letter reoorts the results. linearity of the two photons,and approachesunity
7l). Ofan eXDerirnpnt shinh ^rp srrfjinientlyDfeCiSe., for infinitesimal detector sotid angles. IFor this
(r9?1). 1onrle out locil hidden-variable theoties '!,i!h_ e x p e r i m e n t ,I = 3 0 n ,a n dF , ( 3 0 1 ) . 0 . 9 9] .
.torie, Nucl. highstatistical accuracv- We malre the following assumptionsfor any lo-
In the presentwork we ineasuredthe correla- cal hidden-vrritrble theory: tl) The two photons
: 9 ?1 ) .
tion in linear polarization of two photons 7, and propagaters separatedlocaiizea particles. (2) A
v. ktt. 26,
r, e m i t t e di n a J = 0 - . I = 1 - J = 0 a t o m i ee a s e a d e . binary selection process ocgurs for each photon
. E. Pellefr, a.od The decaying atoms w€r€ viewed by fwo sffllrn€t- at eachpolartzer (transmissionor no-transmis-
,34 (19?l). ricdly placed opticd systems, each eonsisting sion). Tlris selection does not dependupon the
i even short€r d tro lenses, a wavelengthfitter, a rotatable orientation of the distant polarizer.
theoreticd vdtr andremovable polrrlzer, and a slngle-photon de- [n actclition,we make the following assumption
HEP 7139, 19?1 tector(see Flg. 1). The following quantities were to all0ry a comparison of the generalization of
lory a corr
mea$Eed: R(El, the coincidencerete for two- Bell's inequality with out erperiment: (3) eU
nter-ceater
:ories (as tbe t'- Srotondetectioq as a frrnctlon of the angle g b€- photonsinctdent on a detector have a probability
cs) is - 1 [w. Ko] treea the planes of linear polartzatlon defined by of detectlonlhat is independentof whether or not
t. lalt. 27, L176 he orientaHonof the insertcd polrrteersl R,, the thC photon has passed through a polarizer.c
r 2 is usGlly coincldencerate wtth polerlzet 2 removed; r!, The ebovetssumptions constrain the coinci-
nt-fragment thecolncidencerate wlth polarizer I removed; dence rates by the following inequal,ities?:
&, the coincidencerate with both polarizers re- - I { A ( 9 )- ' 0 , (2)
ublished.
where
@a.o'tx
+R-
-a{c)
\7'
_ Sn(ge) _ R,
_ R(3<p)
ril q '
Ro Ro Ro
i
For sufficiently small detector solid angles and
highly efficient polarizers, these inequalities (2)
are not satisfiedby the quantum-mechanical pre-
rtom- diction (1) for a range of values of g. Maximum
. the
violatlonsoccur et g =22*' [a(p) > 0J and I =67*o
:t
]- I [a(p) < - 1]. At these anglesof ma:rimumviola-
{ evl-
t
FIG. 1. Schematlcdtagram o{aenarahri and associat- tion, inequdities (2) can be combinedinto the
d electrrnlcs. Scalers (not shiwd monltored tjre out- simpler and more convenientexpression_
--5---- .. . t(
I
{ pttr of the dtsertmlnators and colncidencecircutts dur- )'-&ttt [, o*J
rantum state t{ each100-eeccount pertd. Ttre contents of the -6=IR(zz*"r/Ro
- fi(6?
*,)/nol-+ ig. (3)
of "hidden- lcrlere and the er<perlmental;onftguratlon were record-
leumann and eoon papertape and analyzedon an tBM f620-II com- which does not involve ,?, or &.
,ibility of a hid-' ruer. The experimentalarrangementwas similar to
6r
V o l u u e 2 8 .N u v s r n l 4 PHYSICAL REVIE\fl TETTERS J Apnrr t972
V O T U M E] F
-3
l a r i z e r s r e m o v e d w e r e 4 l = 1 . ?x 1 0 a n d 4 2 = l . s
x 10'3.s
A di agram of the el ectroni cs i s i ncl ude d in Fig.
1. The overall system time resolution was about
1.5 nsec. The short i ntermedi ate state l i jet im e
(- 5 nsec) permitted a narrow coincidence windon
4p4srP,
(8.1 nsec). A second coi nctdence channe l dis-
pl aced i n ti me by 50 nsec moni tored the n um ber
of acci dental coi nci dences, the true coi ncidence
rate bei ng determi ned by subtracti on.t0 A t im e-
ot.'so to-amplitude converter and pulse-height analyzer
measured the time-delay spectrum of the two
F I G . 2. Lev e l s c h e m eo { c a l c i u l . D a s h e dl i nes show photons. The resulting exponential gave the in-
the route for excitationto the initial state 4p?tSo. termedi ate state l i feti me.rt
FIG.3. t
The coincidence rates depended upon the beam
plerizers,
and lamp intensities, the latter gradually decreu. nced, Pio
that of Kocher and Commins.E A calcium atomic i ng duri ng a run. ?he tl pi cal coi nci dence r at e tbr Predicti
beam effused from a tantalum oyen, as shown in with polarizeis removed ranged f rom 0.3 to 0.1 tle ueaeur
Fig. 1. The continuum output of a deuterium arc countx/sec, and the accidental rate ranged from .qlee of th
lamp (ORIEL C-42-72-12) was passed through an 0.01 to 0.002 counts/sec. Long runs requ ir ed by
interference filter IZSOA fult width at halJ-maxi- the low coincidenee rate necessitated automatic
nons for i
mum (FWHM), 2ffi ttansmission at 2275 A ] data colteetions
focused on the beam. Resonance absorption of "naa The system was cycled with 100-sec counting
f
2215-i photon excited calcium atoms to the 3d4p periods. Periods with one or both polarizers in.
t P , s t at e. Of th e a to m s th a t d i d n o t d e c a y di rect- rWork sup
serted alternated with periods in which both po-
''t11e best'
ly to the ground stlte, a,bout 7% decayed to the larizers were removed. Both polarizers rotated
frkclv G
1 4P".So state, from whictr they cascaded through
the 4s4PrP, intermediate state to lhe ground
according to a prescribed sequence. For a giveu
run, R(q)/Ro was calculated by summing counts
Ectltn, 193
I state with the emission of fwo photons at 5513 A for all configUrations corresponding to angle g
Ieclrrlnics t
1955)1.For
I (r,) and 4227i tAl (see Fig. 2). At the interac- and dividing by half the sum of the counts in the rcr J. S. B€
tion region (roughly, a cylinder 5 mm high and 3 l.l.
I adjacent periods of the sequence in which both s. geu
I mm in diameter) the density of the calcium was polarizers were moved. Data f,or Rr/ \ and R2/ [re4.
It
J about 1x 10r0atoms/cmt. To avoid spherical Ro were analyzed in a similar fashion. The val- . rJ. oause
t tya. Rev.
I
't
1 aberrations which would have reduced counter ef-
ficiencies, aspheric primary lenses (8.0 cm
ues given here are averages over the orientatioo
of the inserted polarizer. This cycling and aver'
{A hldden-
a , 3r tc tndepe
i diam , , f = 0. 8) w e re u s e d . P h o to n s h w e re sel ect- aging procedure minimized the effeets of driIt
t t ed by a filter with 10 A fWnU ana iO% transmis- and apparatus asymmetry.
Ittlzer, and
ib molysl-.
t
I
i sion, *6 7z by a filter with O A fWnM and 2ffi The results of the measurements of the corre- tr rd R2 be:
6cy are so c
lation R(q)/Ro, corresponding to a total integra'
I
transmission. The requirement for large effi- '
cient linear polarizers led us to employ "pile-of - tion time of - t00 h,. are shown in Fig. 3. All er' hd. Horne,
hprrUtrshed
plates" polarizers. Each polarizer consisted of ror l i mi ts are cons6rvati ve esti mates of I st an-
ftrdum Me
ten 0.3-mm-thick glass sheets inclined nearly at dard deviation. Using the values at 22|" and tcbool of ph
Brewster's angle. The sheets were attached to 67*", we obtain-L:9059-_q0..0!8 in clear viola[on b, Neryyor
hinged frames, and could be folded completely of i negual i ty (!).r2 fu" [ne" * or., w i oU Jer ve no'
out of the optical path. A Geneva rr€chi,nism ro- evidence for a deviation from the predictions of
fated each polarizer through increments of 22+'. quantum mechani cs, cal cul ated from | ' re mea-
The measured transmittances of the polarizers sured polarizer efficiences and solid angles, utd
w e r e € r t = 0 . 9 ?* 0 . 0 1 , € , r t= 0 . 0 3 8* 0 . 0 0 4 , €, ' show n as the sol i d curve i n i i g. 3. W e consider
= 0. 96 r 0. 01, a n d € o ,'= 0 .0 3 ?t 0 .0 0 4 . T h e photo- these results to be strong evidence against iocal
m ult iplier de te c to rs (R C A C 3 1 0 0 0 E , q u antum ef- h idden-variable theories.
f i c i e n c y = 0 . 1 3 a t 5 5 1 3A ; ^ a n d R C A 8 8 5 0 , q u a n t u m The authors wish to express their sincerest aP'
ef f ic ienc y = 0.2 8 a t 4 2 2 7A) w e re c o o l e d , reduci ng preci ati on for gui danceand hel p from P ro f essor
dar k r at es t o ? 5 a n d 2 0 0 c o u n ts ,/s e c , re specti ve- E ugene C ommi ns, to P rofessor C hari es TowneS
Iy. The measured counter efficiencies with po- for hi s encouragementof thi s w ork, and to M . Sio'
940
] A p n r r1 9 7 2 PHYSICAL REVIE\Y' LETTERS j Apnrl l97l
V o l u r q e2 8 ,N u u a e n l ' {
941
VOLUME 36 24 MAY 1976 NUMBER 21
Following the suggestion by Clauser et al, ' in certain atomic cascades. Atoms undergoing
which in turn was inspired by Bell's theorem, ' cascade decays are viewed by two symmetrical-
two experiments were performed. Their purpose ly placed optical systems, each containing a ro-
was to distinguish between the predictions by the tatable linear polarizer and a single-photon de-
whole class of local hidden-variable theories and tector (see Fig. i). The rate of coincidence
conventional quantum mechanics. Moreover, counts R(qr) for two single-photon detections is
Clauser and Horne' have since shown that these measured as a function of the angle y between
experiments also test the more general (not nec- the orientations of the inserted polarizers. It is
essarily deterministic) class of objective local compared with the coincidence rate Ro measured
theories. This class includes any theory contain- with both polarizers removed.
ing objectivity and naive locality, and thus has a Objective local theories and local hidden-vari-
strong intuitive appeal. Unfortunately, the re- able theories require that the following constraint
sults of the two experiments are in conflict. The governs these rates'"':
results obtained by Freedman and Clauser4 at ")/R, —R (67—,")/R J ——,' 0.
5 = ~R (22 —, -
the University of California, Berkeley are in ex-
cellent agreement with the predictions of quan- An appropriate choice of a cascade is required
tum mechanics, and appear to exclude general so that the photons, though spatially separated,
objective local theories. ' On the other hand, the are strongly quantum-mechanically correlated,
unpublished results obtained at Harvard Univer- with the individual photon polarizations retaining
sity by Holt and Pipkin' distinctly favor objective a mutual nonlocal interference effect. ' With such
local theories (and/or local hidden-variable the- a choice, as well as with some rather stringent
ories) and, as such, are in disagreement with minimum requirements on the polarizer efficien-
the quantum-mechanical predictions. This Let- cies and collimator solid angles, the quantum-
ter describes a third experiment attempting to mechanically predicted correlation violates the
repeat, at least in part, the conditions of the above constraint. ' ' These specifications were
Harvard University experiment. achieved in the experiment of Freedman and
The experiment consists of measuring the po- Clauser by generating the photons in a =0- J J
larization correlation of optical photons emitted = 1-J=0 cascade of atomic calcium. The cas-
I223
460
'!
r982 Vorurrr {9. Nuuarr 2 PHYSICAL REVIEV TETTERS l2Jurv 1982
3
S oci ety
@ 1982The A meri canP hysi cal 9l
rt-
(3)
tor trapping as b decreases is reflective of the Our results strongly support the conclusionsof
lncorporationof periodic componentsinto the Grossmannand Thonrae.
sequenceof numbers generated. This research was supportedby the Oftice of
To summarize the motivation and principal con- Basic Enerry Sciencesof the U. S. Department
clusion of this Letter, we restatet that lor values of Enerry.
of b where numerically generatedsequenc$ ap-
Pear to be chaotic, it has not been settl,edwheth-
er those sequences"are truly chaotic, or wheth-
€r, in fact, they are really periodic, but wtth l t )P erml nent address: trl i l es l aboratori es, E l khar t ,
exceedinglylarge periods and very long tran- Irid. 46652.
sients required to settle down." On the one hand, (hbreseot address: Departmentof Chemlstry,
Grossmanand Thomaer't have suggestedthat StanfordUalverslty, Stanford, Cal. 94305.
tE . ott, R ev. I\l od.P hys. 53, 655 0980.
(only) the parameter value D= 1 generatespure
?C.A. Walsb andJ. J. Kozak, Phys. Rev. Irtt.
chaos [see the discussionlollowing Eq. (31) of !!,
1 5 0 0( 1 9 3 1 ) .
Ret, 5 and the correlations plotted in their Fig. lE. S. lloutroll, Proc. Symp..Appl.I\fath.Am. Math.
9l On the other hand, for certain othn values Soc.!!, 193 (196{); E. W. Moitroll aqd C. W. rffelss,
of D, numberical results of Lorenz (reported in J. trtath.Phys. !,, teZ (1965); E. W. IUontroll, J. Math.
Ref. 1) "strongly suggest that the sequencesare P bys. 10, ?53 (f969).
{K. Tomta , ln futtern Fornntion by Dlnanlc Sts -
truly chaotic." The purposeof this communica-
tion was to use an independentand exact result tems and futtern Reeognition,cdltcd by H. lfakca
(Sprtnger-Verlag,Hetdelberg,19?9),pp..90-9?..
from the statistical-mechanicaltheory of d=l 55. Tbornaeand S. Grossmana, J. Stat. Phys. 26,
random walks to test the randomnessof the p?rtr- 1 E 5( 1 9 6 1 )
bollc map for parameter values where thc exis- 65. Gr.ossmaaoaod S. Tlromae, 2. l{aturforsch. 32a,
tence ol "bue chaos" is still an op€nquestion. 1 3 s 3( r 9 ? ? ) .
I E04 @ l 9 t 2 T h e A m e r i c a nP h y s i c aSl o c i e t y
'J"n*
't,fc1
.:l
Vor-uue
61. NuMsr.n
I PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 4 Jury 1988
PACSnumbers:42.50.Wm.
42.50.DY
" 1 l
- pGr,eL)+
s -P(ai,e2) PGi,gT
l
+P.Gi,e)-PGi,-)- P(-,ol)=0. (l)
pbi, - ) andPG ,h) arc thecorrcsponding probabili-
ties with oneor the otherlincar polrrizerrtmoved. We
now calculatcthc joint probability P(.f1,hl 5,:t by
quantummechanics andthenby clad<rl waveoptics.
Quantum theory.-lf thc inputto thc dhlectricbeam
splitterBSconsists of an r-polc:i2s6signalphotonanda
rotatcdypolanzd idlerphoton,thentheoutputstatere-
F I G . l . Ou tl i n co f th e a p p a ra tu s . ferredto thetwochannclsI and2 illustratcdin Fig. I is
50 @ l9EEThe AmericanPhysicalSocicty
Voluue 6l, NuusenI PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 4 Jur-v1988
q
Coincidcnccratc
pcr minutc fr 5so
h
o -.-'-.}.
67. 50 45c 2E.3t 0.E A
22.5e 450 29.8t 0.t 3c
67.5c 0c 29.9t 0.E an
22.50
67.50
0o
No polarizcr
5.6t
34.7t
0.7
0.9
E
l)
No polarizcr 450 36.2t 0.9 a
tr
..a-'-:
€ro
'8
tr l'f--a
whcrewe havewrittcn/, - lEr(+)l', I,- lgf +l | 2 for
thc signaland idlcr intcnsitics.C is a constantcharac- ,3
tcristicof thc dctcctor.Comparison with Eq. (5a)shows 0
,16 t0 ?3 m rG Un t!6
similariticr,but thc tcrmgin (Ii) and Ol) arc abscntin
thc quantum.mcchanical casc,bccauscwc arc dealing
0,furccd
with singlcrignelandidlcr photons. FtG. 2. Mcrsurcd coincidencccountingratc sr a functionof
In thc rpccial carc Rr - l -Tr, Rt - t -Tr, and thc polarizeren3lc 01,witb A fucd rt 45'. Thc full curvc ir
thc quentum prcdiction br$d on Eq. (t t) rcC thc dashdottcd
whenh-r14, E4. (14) rcduccdto
cunc is thc clrsricrl prdhtiot brr€d oo Eq. (lE). The drshcd
PGn*14) - Trl, (tS)
- # Ct(O* I)2)+.*,sin(2or rnd dottd curycs .rc obteinsd by multiplicetioo of thc
rinuridel functionrin Eqr. (i i) en'd(lt), rccFsrively,by 0.?5
whcre to allow for rcdrccd modulrtim ceurcd by irnperfcct align.
rft
m:nt.
- frll I 1 4l,h
I,)2)|h,
"{ t(00'--l 1 (16)
7r Erstrnt(0/) -U]lr/zIl)|. From E4. (16) the phasc 7 of thc modulation depcndson
If wc matc thc rimplifyingassumptionr aboutthc in- thc intcnrityratio Url/U)-R. Althoughf -0 whcn
tcnsityfluctrntbor thEt Ur2)- Ur)2(I + t ), Ul) - 11,1z,t R-1, for verysmsllor vcry largcR thc phasc7 tends
+t), Ul'I.t(ri{4xl +t), thcnthc rclrtivcmodulation towrrds X,rl2. Tbis i8 again in contrast to thc
or "viribility't'y i! E& (15) bcomcs qurotum-mccbanirnl rcsultgivcaby Eq. (l l), for which
the pha$ of thc modulatioair indcpcndcnt of thc ratio
v - (0r)iiti.) rlltitr)* 0,))2, (l?)
of signalto idhr photons.
which is alwryr lcsr than unity and has thc value * TablcI showg thc rcsultsof coincidencc
countingmea-
whcn (Ir) -Oi). ThL ir in cootraEtto thc quantum- surcmcnts for ccrtaiacombinations 0r0z of thc polarizcr
mcchsnicel rcruld'cmbodicrl io Eq. (l l). In thc spccial anglcs,andaftcrgubtraction of accidcntals.As tbc coin-
casc(/i) -(Ir), Eq.(15)rcduccs to cidcnccratc is proportionalto P(0r02), wc can calculate
thc combinatign S givenby rclation(l) up to a scalc
P@n*14)-! C0,)2[t+ * gia2orl. (re) comtant. tf S ir thc quantityaaalogoust; S but cx-
| prcsscdin tcrmsof thc coincidcnccratcs,wcfrnd
S-frQ2.5.;ii.l-h22.i.,0.)+t(6?.sc,4ic)+fi(6?.5o,0.)-nbl.5o,-)-fi(-,45o)
-(l1.5 (le)
HcnccS ir poritivcwitb la sccuracyof about6 gtandard l
deviationg,in violrtiooof thc Bcll iocqualily(l). Unlikc ' diction given by Eq. (tg), rcspcctivcly,with thc scalc
Allcy andShih,ewc prcfcrto bascourconclusions on thc constants K and C adjustcd for bcst fit. The mean
quaatityS rrthls tlrn on tlrir rimplcrcouating-ratc ra- counting ratcs of dctectors I and 2 wcre 2600/sccand
tio d, bccaurcthc Bcll incquality(t) ds not dcpcndon 2t00/scc when 4-02-45o. It will b€ sccn that
symnctry with rcrpct to 81,02,aod thc thrcsholdfor P@nxl4) docs indccd cxhibit thc expcctcd sinusoidal
violationoccunat S -0. modulationwith thc anglc 0s, with half pcriod of 90o.
Whcn0zis fixcdat 45oandthe e,rglc01is varicd,the Thc obscrvedrelativc modulationV obtainedfrom thc
resultsof thc coincidcncc countingm€asurcmcnts arc il- bcst fitting curveis about 0.76, which is grcatcr than thc
lustratcdin Fig. 2. Thc solidcurvcandthc dashdotted 0.50 figure predictedby thc classicalrelation (lE), but
curvc in Fig. 2 corrcrpondto tbc quantum-mcchanical bclow the 1009bvaluc given by the quantum relation
prcdiction$vco by Eq. (tt) andthc clarsicalwavcprc- (t t). Wc bclicvcthat thc rcasonfor thc ubscrvcddepth
52'
PSYSICAL REVIEW
LETTERS
VotuuE8l 7 DECEMBER1998 NutrlsER23
PACSoumbers:03.65.82
0031-9007
/98/81(23)/5039(5)$15.00@ 1998TheAmerican
Physical
Society s039
Vot utvc 81,NutrlgeR23 PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 7 DeceN,tsen
1998
5040
:
Vot ulvc 81, Nulrgnn 23 PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 7 DnceMsen
1998
generator. This generator has a light-emitting diode series,but did not in any way degradetime resolutionor
(coherencetime lc = l0 fs) illuminating a beam splitter accuracy.
whose outputs are monitoredby photomultipliers. The Each observer station featured a personalcomputer
subsequentelectroniccircuit sets its output to "0"("1") which stored the tables of time tags accumulatedin
upon receiving a pulse from photomultiplier "0"("1"). a measurementcycle. Long after measurementswere
Events where both photomultipliersregister a photon finishedwe analyzedthe filesfor coincidenceswith a third
within Al < 2 ns are ignored. The resultingbinary ran- computer. Coincidences were identifiedby calculating
dom numbergeneratorhas a maximumtogglefrequency time differencesbetweenAlice's and Bob'stime tagsand
of 500 MHz. By changingthe sourceintensitythe mean comparingthesewith a time window(typicallya few ns).
interval was adjustedto about l0 ns in order to have a As therewerefour channelson eachside-two detectors
high primaryrandombit rate[4,15]. Certainlythis kind with two switch positions-this procedureyielded 16
of random-number generatoris not necessarilyevenlydis- coincidencerates,appropriatefor the analysisof Bell's
tributed. For a testof Bell's inequalityit is, however,not inequality. The coincidencepeak was nearly noise-free
necessaryto have perfectlyeyen distribution,becauseall [signal-to-noiseratio (SNR) > 100] with approximately
corelation functionsarenormalizedto the total numberof Gaussianshapeand a width (FWHM) of about 2 ns.
eventsfor a certaincombinationof the analyzers'settings. All data reportedhere were calculatedwith a window
Still, we kept the distributionevento within ZVoin order of 6 ns.
to obtain an approximatelyequal numbcr of samples Therearemanyvariantsof Bell's inequalities.Herewe
for each setting by changingthe internal photoelectron usea versionfirst derivedby Clauseret al. tl6l (CHSH)
amplificationof the two photomultipliers.Becauseof sinceit appliesdirectlyto our experimentalconfiguration.
the limited speedof the subsequent modulationsystemit The numberof coincidences betweenAlice's detector
was sufficient to sample this random number generator i and Bob's detector1 is denotedby Cii@, F) with
periodicallyat a rate of l0 MHz. i, j e {+, -} where a and p are the directionsof the
The total of the delays occurring in the electronics two polarizationanalyzersand "f" and "-" denotethe
and optics of our random number generator,sampling two outputsof a two-channelpolarizer,respectively.If
circuit, amplifier,electro-opticmodulator,and avalanche we assumethat the detectedpairs are a fair sampleof
photodiodeswas measuredto be 75 ns. Allowing for all pairs emitted,then the normalizedexpectationvalue
another25 ns, to be sure that the autocorrelationof the E(q,F) of the correlationbetweenAlice's and Bob's
random number generatoroutput signal is sufficiently local resultsis E(a, F) : [C++(o, F) + C--(a, p) -
low, it was safe to assumethat the spcific choice of C*-(a,p) - C-+(e,P))/N, whereN is the sumof all
an analyzersctting would not be influencedby any event coincidencerates. In a rather generalform -the CHSH
more than 100 ns earlier. This was much shoner than ygrylitl,ea$
the 1.3 ps thatany informationaboutthe otherobseryer's
measurement would havebeenretarded. S(o,dt, F, F') - lE(o,p) - E(o',B)l ) Pt\.\"-x
The photonswere deiectedby silicon avalanchepho- = z. (l)
+ lr(a, P')+ E(o',9')l
todiodeswith dark count rates(noise) of a few hundred
per second. This is very small comparedto the 10.000- Quantumtheory predictsa sinusoidaldependence for
15.000signalcountsper secondper detector.The pulses the coincidence iati eT*@,P) o sin2(F a) on rhe
of eachdetectorwere fed into electroniccircuits,respon- differenceangleof the analyzerdirectionsin Alice's and
sible for disregardingeventsthat occunedduring transi- Bob's experiments.The samebehaviorcan alsobe seen
tions of the switch signaland encodingthe positionof in the correlation f u n c t i o nE s ^ ( a , 9 ) : - c o s [ 2 ( F -
the switchin an extrasignal. Finally,all detections were Thus, for variouscombinations of analyzerdirec-
time-tagged in specialtime intervalanalyzers with 75 ps t")].
i o n sd , F , o ' , 9 ' t h e s ef u n c t i o n sv i o l a t eB e l l ' s i n e q u a l -
resolutionand 0.5 ns accuracyreferencedto a rubidium ity. Maximumviolationis obtainedusingthe following
standardtogetherwith the appendant switchposirion.The setof anglesSflfi'*: Sq'(0o,45',22,5,67.5';- 2'n:
overalldeadtime of an individualdetectionchannelwas 2.82> 2.
approximatelyI ps. If, however,the perfectcorrelations(a - B :0o or
Using an auxiliaryinput of our time intervalanalyzers 90o) have a reducedvisibility V s I then the quantum
we synchronized Alice's andBob's time scalesby sending theoreticalpredictionsfor E and S are reducedas well by
laserpulses(670 nm wavelength,3 ns width) througha the samefactorindependent of the angle. Thus,because
secondopticalfiber. While the actualjitterbetweenthese the visibilityof the perfectcorrelationsin our experiment
pulseswaslessthan0.5 ns,the auxiliaryinputof thetime was about97Vowe expectS to be not higherthan2.74
intervalanalyzershad a resolutionnot betterthan 20 ns if alignmentof all anglesis perfectand all detecrorsare
thus limiting synchronizationaccuracy. This nonperfect equallyefficient.
synchronization only limited our ability to exactlypredict We performedvariousmeasurements with thedescribed
the apparenttime shift betweenAlice's and Bob's data setup. The datapresented in Fig. 3 arethe resultof a scan
5041
Voluun 81,Nulasen23 PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 7 DeceNasen
1998
\. :\ \-\
50/'2 r.'J. ;{.c* 1.t.-liV' ''. I .rr A.j.rq.
t
,.T',''r.
fi ll
l'.r
\l
letters to nature
Nru,,'.(dr,Q) - Natr.r.n,(dr,dr)
(1)
Experimental
uiolationofa Bell's Q(4',Q): Nr".. * Ndff.r.n,
however, cyr, 6r, 0z and !2 are not quite the same angles both
times they occur in the Bell's inequality. In our experiment the tocalityissues
dominant reason for this error results from the phase instability of The ions are separated by a distance of approxirnately 3 pm, which is greater than 100
the synthesizer, which can cause the angles to drift appreciably times the size of the wavepacket of each ion. Although the Coulornb interaction strongly
couples the ions'motionr it does not affect the ions' internal states.At this distance,all
during four minutes, the time required to take a complete set of
known relevant interactions are expected to be srnall. For example, dipole-dipole
measurements.This random drift causesa root-mean-squarederror interactions between the ions slightly modifr the light-scattering intensity, but this effect is
for the correlation function of +0.03 on this timescale, which negligible for the ion-ioh separationsusedt'. Also, the detection solid angle is large
propagatesto an error of -f 0.06 for the Bell's signal. The error for enough that Young's interference fringes, ifpresent, are averaged out30.Even though all
knovrn interactions would causenegligible correlations in the measurement outcomes, the
the Beil's signal from the five combined data sets is then +0.03,
ion separationis not large enough to eliminate the lightcone loophole.
consistent with the run-to-run variation observed. Averaging the We note that the experiment would be conceptually simpler if, after creating the
five Bell's signals from Table 2, we arrive at our experimental result, entangledstate,we separatedthe ions so that the input manipulations and measurements
which is were done individually. Flowever, unless we separated the ions by a distance large enough
to overcome the lightcone loophole, this is only a matter of convenienceof description and
r3r 3o\
==2.25{-.0.03 does not change the conclusions that can be drawn from the results.
fr 2U'
'(-
S,T u T) Received
25 Octobcr;acceptr:d
30 November2000.
If we take into account the imperfections of our experiment l. Clauser, ). F. & Shimony, A. Bell's theorem: experimental tests and implications. Rep. Prog. Phys. 4L,
(imperfect state fidelity, manipulations, and detection), this value 1883-1927 (t978).
2. Einstein, A., Podolsky, B. & Rosen, N. Can quantum-nrechanical description of reality be considered
agreeswith the prediction of quantum mechanics.
conrplete? Phys. Rev. 47,777-780 (1935).
The result above was obtained using the outcomes of every 3. Bell,],S.OntheEinstein-Podolsky-Rosenparadox.Physicsl,195-200(1965).
experiment, so that no fair-sampling hypothesis is required. In 4. Bell, LS.inFoundations of Quantun Mechanics(ed. d'Espagnat,B.) l7t-l8l (Academic,NewYork,
tI,._
QuantumCryptographyBasedon Bell'sTheorem tr,'.. .l.-r--.'ts"
I
-
't.
ArturK' Ekert "c')'I'
."''!-
Merton Collegeand PhysicsDepartment,Oxford Uniuersity,Oxford OXI 3PU, UnitedKingdom )u, -'t-- i.
(R ecei ved
l E A pri l l 99l ) " ,
PACSnumbers: 42.80.Sa.
03.65.82. 89.70.*c
Cryptography, despitea colorfulhistorythat goesback sct up to test Bcll's theorem. Beforc I prmeed any fur-
to 400 8.c.,only bccamepart of mathematics and infor- ther let mc first introducesome'baricnotiongof cryptog.
mationtheorythis century,in the late 1940s,mainlydue raphy. ' \'
to the seminalpapersof Shannonttl. Today,one can Originallythe securityof a cryptdaxt depcndedon the
brieflydefinecryptography as a mathematical systemof scerccyof the entire encryptint'and.'decrypting pro-
transforminginformationso that it is unint€lligibleand cedures;however,today we use cipherr for which the al-
thereforeuseless to thosewho are not meantto haveac- gorithm for cncryptingand decrypting. csuld be revealed
cessto it. However,as the computationalpro€ess associ- to anybodywithout compromisingthe sccurityof a par-
ated with transformingthe informationis alwaysper- ticular cryptogram. In suchciphcn a c€t of spccificpa-
formed by physical means,onc cannot separatethe ramctcrs,callcda.key,is suppliedtogctherwith the plain-
mathematical structurefrom the undcrlyinglawsof phys- tcxt asan input to the encryptingalgorithm,and together
ics that governthe process of computation[2]. Deutseh with the cryptogramas an input to thc decryptingalgo-
has shownthat quantumphysicsenrichesour computa- rithm. Thc cncrypting and decryptingalgorithmsare
tional possibilitiesfar beyondclassicalTuring machines publicly announcrd;the security.of,the eryptogramde-
[2J,andcurrentwork in quantumcryptography originat- pendscntirely on the sccrecyof the.kcyr and this key,
ed by Bennettand Brassardprovidesa goodexampleof which is very important,may consistof any randomly
thisfact [31. ehosen, sufficientlylongstringof bits. Oncethe key is es-
In this paperI will presenta methodin whichthe sccu- tablished,subsequentcommunicationdinvolves sending
rity of the so-calledkey distributionprocessin cryptogra. cryptogramsoyer a publicchannelwhich is rulnerableto
phy dependson the completeness of quantummechanics. total passiveinterception(e.g.,public announcement in
Herecompleteness mcansthat quantumdescription pro- massmedia). However,in orderto establishthe key,two
videsmaximumpossibleinformationabout any system users,who shareno secretinformationinitially, mustat a
underconsideraticn.The proposedschemeis basedon certainstageof communicationusc a rcliablcand a very
the Bohm'swell-knownversionof the Einstein-Podolsky- securechannel. Since the interceptionis a set of mea-
Rosengedankenexperiment[4]; the generalizedBell's surementspcrformedby the eavesdroppcr on this chan-
theorem(Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt inequalities)t5l nel, howeverdifficult this might be from a technological
is used to test for eavesdropping.From a theoretical point of view, in principle any classicalchannelcan al-
pointof viewthe schemeprovidesan interesting and new waysbe passivelymonitored,without thc legitimateusers
extensionof Bennettand Brassard'soriginal idea, and being aware that any eavesdropping ,hastaken place.
from an experimental perspectiveoffersa practicalreali- This is not so for quantumchanncls[31. In the follo.ing
zationby a small modificationof experiments that were I describea quantumchannelwhich distributesthe key