-3
$\begingroup$

This question is motivated by recent experiments in QM entanglement.[1][2] consider the following "simple/ simplified" classical analog of Bells experiment. it has a laser, a standard beamsplitter reflecting light in 2 directions "left/ right", and 2 polarizing beamsplitters, 1 at each left/ right arm. This creates 4 separate rays fed to 4 light detectors. 1 of the arms has a rotation angle relative to the other "θ".

Now consider a twist on the detection. The detectors measure light intensity, but convert it to binary on/off measurements ("pulses") based on a threshhold value T.

There is another twist. There is a motorized rotating polarizer screen in front of the laser prior to the 1st standard beamsplitter. It rotates at a constant speed.

The standard correlation coefficent for the Bell experiment is E(θ) = R++ + R-- - R-+ - R+- (where Rs are coincident pulses at opposite ends as in standard experiments).

In this experiment, E(θ) is calculated based on the detector threshhold measurements over short time Δt, counted/ integrated over long time scales/ many repeated measurements.

what is the formula for E(θ) (calculated using classical physics)?

note: can foresee there are some hidden subtlety(s) in calculating this formula.

[1] Quantum computer emulated by a classical system / La Cour, Ott, physorg

[2] Spooky Experiments Bring Quantum Weirdness to Nearly Macroscopic Scales / Gizmodo

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ What's the classical analog of entanglement? $\endgroup$
    – JohnS
    Apr 28 '18 at 19:35
2
$\begingroup$

To understand difficulty of violating Bell inequalities, it is better to look at this one (page 9 here) for binary variables $A,B,C$:

$$P(A=B)+P(A=C)+P(B=C) \geq 1$$

It can be easily checked by assigning any probability distribution among 8 possibilities, or just: "drawing 3 coins, 2 of them have to give the same value".

However, it is violated in QM.

To do it, instead of standard: "probability of alternative of disjoint events is sum of their probabilities" leading to above inequality,

we need to use Born rules: "probability of alternative of disjoint events is proportional to square of sum of their amplitudes".

Such Born rule can be easily understood if instead of ensemble of events in a given moment, like in Feynman path integrals we use ensemble of paths (discussion). This way amplitude corresponds to probability at the end of past or future half-paths, to draw some value in a given moment we need to draw it from both time directions, getting $P\propto \psi^2$ Born rule.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.