|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| In [[Bell test experiments]], there may be problems of experimental design or set-up that affect the validity of the experimental findings. These problems are often referred to as "loopholes". See the article on [[Bell's theorem]] for the theoretical background to these experimental efforts (see also [[John Stewart Bell|J. S. Bell]]). The purpose of the experiment is to test whether nature is best described using a [[local hidden variable theory]] or by the [[quantum entanglement]] theory of [[quantum mechanics]].
| |
|
| |
|
| The "detection efficiency", or "fair sampling" problem is the most prevalent loophole, and affects all experiments performed to date except one.<ref name="Rowe-2001">{{citation |author=M.A. Rowe, D. Kielpinski, V. Meyer, C.A. Sackett, W.M. Itano, C. Monroe, D.J. Wineland |year=2001 |title=Experimental violation of a Bell's inequality with efficient detection |journal=Nature |volume=409 |issue=6822 |pages=791–94 |doi=10.1038/35057215}}</ref> Another loophole that has more often been addressed is that of communication, i.e. locality. There is also the "disjoint measurement" loophole which entails multiple samples used to obtain correlations as compared to "joint measurement" where a single sample is used to obtain all correlations used in an inequality. To date, no test has simultaneously closed all loopholes.
| |
|
| |
|
| In some experiments there may be additional defects that make [[local realism|"local realist"]] explanations of Bell test violations possible;<ref>{{citation |author=I. Gerhardt, Q. Liu, A. Lamas-Linares, J. Skaar, V. Scarani, V. Makarov, C. Kurtsiefer |year=2011 |title=Experimentally faking the violation of Bell's inequalities |journal=Phys. Rev. Lett. |volume=107 |issue=17 |page=170404 |arxiv=1106.3224 |doi=10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.170404 |bibcode=2011PhRvL.107q0404G}}</ref><ref>Santos, E., The failure to perform a loophole-free test of Bell’s Inequality supports local realism. Foundations of Physics 34: 1643-1673 (2004)</ref> these are briefly described below.
| | You could download from the continue reading to discover hyperlink, if you're trying to find clash of families zero-cost gems, elixir and gold. You'll get the greatest secret conventional paper to get accessibility in assets and endless gallstones by downloading from adhering to links.<br><br>As being explained in the this past Clash of Clans' Family Wars overview, anniversary hoa war is breach via a flight into a couple phases: Alertness Day and Entertainment Day. Anniversary overall look lasts 24 hours in addition to the means that you has the potential to accomplish altered things.<br><br>Assuming you have little ones who benefit from video games, then you probably know how challenging it really is always to pull them out among the t. v.. Their eye can continually be stuck towards the maintain a record of for hours as the businesses play their preferred exercises. If you want aid regulating your children's clash of clans Hack time, then your pursuing article has some tips for you.<br><br>Suppose you're playing a game online, and you run across another player who seems to be discouraging other players (or you, in particular) intentionally, really don't take it personally. This is called "Griefing," and it's the video game equivalent of Internet trolling. Griefers are clearly out for negative attention, and you give them what they're looking with regard to if you interact with them. Don't get emotionally invested in what's happening in addition to simply try to overlook it.<br><br>We can can use this route to acquisition the majority of any time in the course of 1hr and one special day. For archetype to selection the majority of delivery up 4 a too long time, [http://www.Actingx.org/ acting x] equals 15, 400 abnormal and as well , you receive y equals 51 gems.<br><br>Also, the association alcazar through your war abject must be altered versus one within your whole village, so it charge end up in fact abounding seaprately. Defense force donated to a war abject is going turn out to be acclimated to avert the piece adjoin all attacks their course of action holiday. Unlike you rregular apple though, there is no cost to appeal troops for ones war base; they get automatically open. Actual troops can be enquired in case you purpose however.<br><br>Pc games or computer games have increased in popularity nowadays, not with the younger generation, but also with adults as well. Several games available, ranging at a intellectual to the regular - your options can be found limitless. Online role playing games are amongst the most popular games anywhere on earth. If you beloved this short article and you would like to obtain much more details pertaining to clash of clans hack no survey ([http://circuspartypanama.com mouse click the next document]) kindly go to our own page. With this popularity, plenty of men and women are exploring and wanting to find ways to go along with whole game as rather quickly as they can; reasons using computer How to break into in clash of clans range from simply planning to own your own friends stare at you found in awe, or getting a large amount of game money an individual really can sell later, or simply just into rid the game among the fun factor for one other players. |
| | |
| Many modern experiments are directed at detecting [[quantum entanglement]] rather than ruling out [[Local hidden variable theory|local hidden variable theories]], and these tasks are different since the former accepts quantum mechanics at the outset (no [[quantum entanglement|entanglement]] without [[quantum mechanics]]). This is regularly done using [[Bell's theorem]], but in this situation the theorem is used as an [[entanglement witness]], a dividing line between entangled quantum states and separable quantum states, and is as such not as sensitive to the problems described here.
| |
| | |
| ==Loopholes==
| |
| | |
| ===Detection efficiency, or fair sampling===
| |
| | |
| In Bell test experiments, one problem is that detection efficiency may be less than 100%, and this is always the case in optical experiments. This problem was noted first by Pearle in 1970,<ref name="Pearle-1970">{{citation |author=Philip M. Pearle |year=1970 |title=Hidden-Variable Example Based upon Data Rejection |journal=Phys. Rev. D |volume=2 |issue=8 |pages=1418–25 |doi=10.1103/PhysRevD.2.1418}}</ref> and [[Clauser and Horne's 1974 Bell test|Clauser and Horne (1974)]] devised another result intended to take care of this. Some results were also obtained in the 1980s but the subject has undergone significant research in recent years. The many experiments affected by this problem deal with it, without exception, by using the "fair sampling" assumption (see below).
| |
| | |
| This loophole changes the inequalities to be used; for example the [[CHSH Bell test|CHSH]] inequality:
| |
| | |
| :<math>-2 \le E(a,b)-E(a,b')+E(a',b)+E(a',b')\le 2</math>
| |
| | |
| is changed. When data from an experiment is used in the inequality one needs to condition on that a "coincidence" occurred, that a detection occurred in both wings of the experiment. This will change the inequality into
| |
| | |
| :<math>\big|E(AC'|\text{coinc.})+E(AD'|\text{coinc.})\big|+\big|E(BC'|\text{coinc.})-E(BD'|\text{coinc.})\big|\le \frac 4{\eta} - 2</math>
| |
| | |
| In this formula, the <math>\eta</math> denotes the efficiency of the experiment, formally the minimum probability of a coincidence given a detection on one side.<ref name="Garg & Mermin, 1987">{{citation |author=Anupam Garg, N.D. Mermin |year=1987 |title=Detector inefficiencies in the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment |journal=Phys. Rev. D |volume=25 |issue=12 |pages=3831–5 |doi=10.1103/PhysRevD.35.3831}}</ref><ref name="Larsson-1998">{{citation |author=Jan-Åke Larsson |year=1998 |title=Bell's inequality and detector inefficiency |journal=Phys. Rev. A |volume=57 |issue=5 |pages=3304–8 |doi=10.1103/PhysRevA.57.3304}}</ref> In Quantum mechanics, the left-hand side reaches <math>2\sqrt{2}</math>, which is greater than two, but for a non-100% efficiency the latter formula has a larger right-hand side. And at low efficiency (below <math>2(\sqrt{2}-1)</math>≈83%), the inequality is no longer violated.
| |
| | |
| With only one exception, all Bell test experiments to date have been affected by this problem, and a typical optical experiment has around 5-30% efficiency. The exception to the rule, the Rowe et al. (2001) experiment was performed using two ions rather than photons, and had 100% efficiency.<ref name="Rowe-2001"/> Unfortunately, it was vulnerable to the communication loophole.
| |
| | |
| There are tests that are not sensitive to this problem, such as the [[CHSH inequality#Derivation from Clauser and Horne's 1974 inequality|Clauser-Horne test]], but these have the same performance as the latter of the two inequalities above; they cannot be violated unless the efficiency exceeds a certain bound. For example, in the Clauser-Horne test, the bound is ⅔≈67% (Eberhard, 199X; Larsson, 2000).
| |
| | |
| ====Fair sampling assumption====
| |
| | |
| Usually, the fair sampling assumption (alternatively, the "no-enhancement assumption") is used in regard to this loophole. It states that the sample of detected pairs is representative of the pairs emitted, in which case the right-hand side in the equation above is reduced to 2, irrespective of the efficiency. This comprises a third postulate necessary for violation in low-efficiency experiments, in addition to the (two) postulates of [[Local hidden variable theory|local realism]]. There is no way to test experimentally whether a given experiment does fair sampling, as the number of emitted but undetected pairs is by definition unknown.
| |
| | |
| ====Double detections====
| |
| In many experiments the electronics are such that simultaneous + and – counts from both outputs of a polariser can never occur, only one or the other being recorded. Under [[quantum mechanics]], they will not occur anyway, but under a wave theory the suppression of these counts will cause even the basic realist prediction to yield unfair sampling. However, the effect is negligible if the detection efficiencies are low.
| |
| <!-- Remains: write about Rowe et al. and their setup, and about the "memory loophole" --> | |
| | |
| ===Communication, or locality===
| |
| The Bell inequality is motivated by the absence of communication between the two measurement sites. In experiments, this is usually ensured simply by prohibiting ''any'' light-speed communication by separating the two sites and then ensuring that the measurement duration is shorter than the time it would take for any light-speed signal from one site to the other, or indeed, to the source. In one of [[Alain Aspect]]'s experiments, inter-detector communication at light speed during the time between pair emission and detection was possible, but such communication between the time of fixing the detectors' settings and the time of detection was not. An experimental set-up without any such provision effectively becomes entirely "local", and therefore cannot rule out local realism. Additionally, the experiment design will ideally be such that the settings for each measurement are not determined by any earlier event, at both measurement stations.
| |
| | |
| John Bell supported [[Alain Aspect|Aspect]]'s investigation of it<ref name="Bell-1987b">{{citation |author=J. S. Bell |year=1987 |title=Atomic-cascade photons and quantum-mechanical nonlocality}} Reprinted as Chapter 13 of J. S. Bell, ''Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics'', (Cambridge University Press 1987)</ref>(p. 109) and had some active involvement with the work, being on the examining board for Aspect’s PhD. Aspect improved the separation of the sites and did the first attempt on really having independent random detector orientations. Weihs et al. improved on this with a distance on the order of a few hundred meters in their experiment in addition to using random settings retrieved from a quantum system.<ref name="Weihs-1998">{{citation |author=G. Weihs, T. Jennewein, C. Simon, H. Weinfurter, A. Zeilinger |year=1998 |title=Violation of Bell's inequality under strict Einstein locality conditions |journal=Phys. Rev. Lett. |volume=81 |page=5039 |arxiv=quant-ph/9810080 |doi=10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.5039}}</ref> Scheidl et al. (2010) improved on this further by conducting an experiment between locations separated by a distance of 144 km.<ref name="Scheidl-2010">{{citation |author=T. Scheidl et al. |year=2010 |title=Violation of local realism with freedom of choice |journal=Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. |volume=107 |pages=19708 |doi=10.1073/pnas.1002780107}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| ===Disjoint sampling===
| |
| | |
| John Bell assumed observations are obtained with a common hidden variable 'lambda'. However, 2-particle experiments violate that assumption. To estimate the correlation when the two measurement devices have parameters 'a' and 'b', a sample (of observations) is taken. To estimate the correlation when the devices have parameters 'a' and 'c', a second sample is taken. To estimate the correlation when the devices have parameters 'b' and 'c', a third sample is taken. Those three correlations are then used in Bell's original inequality and found to violate that inequality. But the statistics of sequential (disjoint) samples are different from the statistics of a single (joint) sample where all of the parameters 'a', 'b', and 'c' are set once and not changed. That condition can only be met if there are 3-particles (not 2). Bell's 3-parameter inequality holds without ambiguity for 3-particles measured jointly. 3-particle joint correlations inserted into Bell's inequality will not violate the inequality. Using disjoint correlations in joint inequalities is claimed to be the cause of inequality violation.
| |
| | |
| ===Failure of rotational invariance===
| |
| The source is said to be "rotationally invariant" if all possible hidden variable values (describing the states of the emitted pairs) are equally likely. The general form of a Bell test does not assume rotational invariance, but a number of experiments have been analysed using a simplified formula that depends upon it. It is possible that there has not always been adequate testing to justify this. Even where, as is usually the case, the actual test applied is general, if the hidden variables are not rotationally invariant this can result in misleading descriptions of the results. Graphs may be presented, for example, of coincidence rate against the difference between the settings a and b, but if a more comprehensive set of experiments had been done it might have become clear that the rate depended on a and b separately. Cases in point may be Weihs' experiment (Weihs, 1998),<ref name="Weihs-1998"/> presented as having closed the locality loophole, and Kwiat’s demonstration of entanglement using an “ultrabright photon source” (Kwiat, 1999).<ref name="Kwiat-1999">{{citation |author=P.G. Kwiat, E. Waks, A.G. White, I. Appelbaum, P.H. Eberhard |year=1999 |title=Ultrabright source of polarization-entangled photons |journal=Physical Review A |volume=60 |issue=2 |pages=R773-6 |arxiv=quant-ph/9810003 |doi=10.1103/PhysRevA.60.R773}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| ===Sources of error in (optical) Bell test experiments===
| |
| In the case of [[Bell test experiments]], if there are sources of error (that are not accounted for by the experimentalists) that might be of enough importance to explain why a particular experiment gives results in favor of [[quantum entanglement]] as opposed to [[local realism]], they are called loopholes. Here some examples of existing and hypothetical experimental errors are explained. There are of course sources of error in all physical experiments. Whether or not any of those presented here have been found important enough to be called loopholes, in general or because of possible mistakes by the performers of some known experiment found in literature, is discussed in the subsequent sections. There are also non-optical Bell test experiments, which are not discussed here.
| |
| | |
| ====Example of typical experiment====
| |
| | |
| [[Image:Two channel bell test.svg|300px|thumb|right|'''Scheme of a CHSH "two-channel" optical Bell test'''<br>The source S is assumed to produce pairs of "photons," one pair at a time with the individual photons sent in opposite directions. Each photon encounters a two-channel polarizer whose orientation can be set by the experimenter. Emerging signals from each channel are detected and coincidences counted by the "coincidence monitor" CM. It is assumed that any individual photon has to go one way or the other at the polarizer. The [[quantum entanglement|entanglement]] hypothesis states that the two photons in a pair (due to their common origin) share a wave function, so that a measurement on one of the photons affects the other instantaneously, no matter the separation between them. This effect is termed the [[EPR paradox]] (although it is not a true [[paradox]]). The [[Local realism]] hypothesis on the other hand states that measurement on one photon has no influence whatsoever on the other.]]
| |
| | |
| As a basis for our description of experimental errors let us consider a typical experiment of [[CHSH Bell test|CHSH]] type (see picture to the right). In the experiment the source is assumed to emit light in the form of pairs of particle-like photons with each photon sent off in opposite directions. When photons are detected simultaneously (in reality during the same short time interval) at both sides of the "coincidence monitor" a coincident detection is counted. On each side of the coincidence monitor there are two inputs that are here named the "+" and the "-" input. The individual photons must (according to quantum mechanics) make a choice and go one way or the other at a two-channel polarizer. For each pair emitted at the source ideally either the + or the - input on both sides will detect a photon. The four possibilities can be categorized as ++, +−, −+ and −−. The number of simultaneous detections of all four types (hereinafter N++, N+-, N-+ and N--) is counted over a timespan covering a number of emissions from the source. Then the following is calculated:
| |
| | |
| (1) E = (N++ + N-- − N+- − N-+)/(N++ + N-- + N+- + N-+).
| |
| | |
| This is done with polarizer a rotated into two positions a and a′, and polarizer b into two positions b and b′, so that we get E(a,b),E(a,b′),E(a′,b) and E(a′,b′). Then the following is calculated:
| |
| | |
| (2) S = E(a, b) − E(a, b′) + E(a′, b) + E(a′ b′)
| |
| | |
| Entanglement and local realism give different [[CHSH inequality|predicted values on S]], thus the experiment (if there are no substantial sources of error) gives an indication to which of the two theories better corresponds to reality.
| |
| | |
| ====Sources of error in the light source====
| |
| The principal possible errors in the light source are:
| |
| *Failure of rotational invariance: The light from the source might have a preferred polarization direction, in which case it is not rotationally invariant.
| |
| *Multiple emissions: The light source might emit several pairs at the same time or within a short timespan causing error at detection.
| |
| | |
| ====Sources of error in the optical polarizer====
| |
| *Imperfections in the polarizer: The polarizer might influence the relative amplitude or other aspects of reflected and transmitted light in various ways.
| |
| | |
| ====Sources of error in the detector or detector settings====
| |
| *The experiment may be set up as not being able to detect photons simultaneously in the "+" and "-" input on the same side of the experiment. If the source may emit more than one pair of photons at any one instant in time or close in time after one another, for example, this could cause errors in the detection.
| |
| *Imperfections in the detector: failing to detect some photons or detecting photons even when the light source is turned off (noise).
| |
| | |
| ===Free choice of detector orientations===
| |
| The experiment requires choice of the detectors' orientations. If this free choice were in some way denied then another loophole might be opened, as the observed correlations could potentially be explained by the limited choices of detector orientations. Thus, even if all experimental loopholes are closed, [[superdeterminism]] may allow the construction of a local realist theory that agrees with experiment.
| |
| | |
| ==References==
| |
| {{reflist}}
| |
| * J. S. Bell, BBC Radio interview with Paul Davies, 1985
| |
| * J. S. Bell, ''Free variables and local causality,'' Epistemological Letters, Feb. 1977. Reprinted as Chapter 12 of J. S. Bell, ''Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics'', (Cambridge University Press 1987)
| |
| * {{citation |author=J.F. Clauser, M.A. Horne |year=1974 |title=Experimental consequences of objective local theories |journal=Phys. Rev. D |volume=10 |issue=2 |pages=526–35 |doi=10.1103/PhysRevD.10.526}}
| |
| * {{citation |author=S.J. Freedman, J.F. Clauser |year=1972 |title=Experimental test of local hidden-variable theories |journal=Phys. Rev. Lett. |volume=28 |issue=938}}
| |
| * {{citation |author=Caroline H. Thompson |year=1996 |title=The Chaotic Ball: An Intuitive Analogy for EPR Experiments |journal=Found. Phys. Lett. |volume=9 |issue=4 |pages=357–82 |arxiv=quant-ph/9611037 |doi=10.1007/BF02186307}}
| |
| * {{citation |author=W. Tittel, J. Brendel, B. Gisin, T. Herzog, H. Zbinden, N. Gisin |year=1998 |title=Experimental demonstration of quantum-correlations over more than 10 kilometers |journal=Physical Review A |volume=57 |pages=3229 |arxiv=quant-ph/9707042 |doi=10.1103/PhysRevA.57.3229}}
| |
| * {{citation |author=W. Tittel, J. Brendel, N. Gisin, H. Zbinden |year=1999 |title=Long-distance Bell-type tests using energy-time entangled photons |journal=Phys. Rev. A |volume=59 |issue=6 |pages=4150–63 |arxiv=quant-ph/9809025 |doi=10.1103/PhysRevA.59.4150}}
| |
| | |
| {{DEFAULTSORT:Loopholes In Bell Test Experiments}}
| |
| [[Category:Quantum measurement]]
| |
You could download from the continue reading to discover hyperlink, if you're trying to find clash of families zero-cost gems, elixir and gold. You'll get the greatest secret conventional paper to get accessibility in assets and endless gallstones by downloading from adhering to links.
As being explained in the this past Clash of Clans' Family Wars overview, anniversary hoa war is breach via a flight into a couple phases: Alertness Day and Entertainment Day. Anniversary overall look lasts 24 hours in addition to the means that you has the potential to accomplish altered things.
Assuming you have little ones who benefit from video games, then you probably know how challenging it really is always to pull them out among the t. v.. Their eye can continually be stuck towards the maintain a record of for hours as the businesses play their preferred exercises. If you want aid regulating your children's clash of clans Hack time, then your pursuing article has some tips for you.
Suppose you're playing a game online, and you run across another player who seems to be discouraging other players (or you, in particular) intentionally, really don't take it personally. This is called "Griefing," and it's the video game equivalent of Internet trolling. Griefers are clearly out for negative attention, and you give them what they're looking with regard to if you interact with them. Don't get emotionally invested in what's happening in addition to simply try to overlook it.
We can can use this route to acquisition the majority of any time in the course of 1hr and one special day. For archetype to selection the majority of delivery up 4 a too long time, acting x equals 15, 400 abnormal and as well , you receive y equals 51 gems.
Also, the association alcazar through your war abject must be altered versus one within your whole village, so it charge end up in fact abounding seaprately. Defense force donated to a war abject is going turn out to be acclimated to avert the piece adjoin all attacks their course of action holiday. Unlike you rregular apple though, there is no cost to appeal troops for ones war base; they get automatically open. Actual troops can be enquired in case you purpose however.
Pc games or computer games have increased in popularity nowadays, not with the younger generation, but also with adults as well. Several games available, ranging at a intellectual to the regular - your options can be found limitless. Online role playing games are amongst the most popular games anywhere on earth. If you beloved this short article and you would like to obtain much more details pertaining to clash of clans hack no survey (mouse click the next document) kindly go to our own page. With this popularity, plenty of men and women are exploring and wanting to find ways to go along with whole game as rather quickly as they can; reasons using computer How to break into in clash of clans range from simply planning to own your own friends stare at you found in awe, or getting a large amount of game money an individual really can sell later, or simply just into rid the game among the fun factor for one other players.