Bell made Simple - Hardy result

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Eye_in_the_Sky
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bell
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the Hardy result in quantum mechanics, particularly its implications for entanglement and measurement outcomes. Participants explore the nuances of the Hardy experiment, comparing it to other inequalities and discussing its complexities, especially in the context of partial entanglement.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant introduces the Hardy experiment and outlines specific measurement configurations and their outcomes, noting the probability of obtaining (NO,NO) in one case.
  • Another participant shares slides discussing the Hardy experiment, expressing that the associated inequality is more complicated than the CHSH inequality and is best analyzed under conditions of partial entanglement.
  • A third participant provides a link to a paper that offers a simple explanation of the Hardy result, suggesting it contains relevant equations for understanding the experiment.
  • A later reply presents a circuit design that meets the criteria of the Hardy experiment, detailing the operations involved and the expected outcomes for each measurement configuration.
  • The circuit description includes specific matrix representations and notes on the arrangement of outcomes, highlighting the conditions under which certain outcomes are forbidden.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding and interpretation of the Hardy result, with some agreeing on the complexity of the inequality while others focus on different aspects of the experiment. No consensus is reached on the implications or interpretations of the results discussed.

Contextual Notes

Some participants mention the dependence on specific configurations and the nuances of entanglement, indicating that the discussion may be limited by assumptions about the nature of the measurements and the entangled states involved.

Eye_in_the_Sky
Messages
331
Reaction score
4
I am starting this B thread for people to discuss and learn from.

In particular, I am hoping it will help to clarify some of the confusing issues which have come up in the "CFD - Counterfactual Definiteness" thread.

"Well wishings to ALL, for a complete and successful understanding!"
_______________________
_______________________

The example below is due to Hardy.
______

Each of the instruments of Alice and Bob (which together perform a joint-entanglement-measurement at spacelike separation) have two settings, 1 and 2, for which the outcomes can be YES or NO.

There is a quantum-mechanical entanglement scenario for which each of the following statements is true:

(0) For the configuration <a1,b1>: the outcome (NO,NO) is sometimes obtained.

(1) For the configuration <a1,b2>: if a1 gives NO, then b2 gives YES with certainty.

(2) For the configuration <a2,b1>: if b1 gives NO, then a2 gives YES with certainty.

(3) For the configuration <a2,b2>: the outcome (YES,YES) is forbidden.
______

I have taken this example (but adapted the notation) from Penrose's "Road to Reality", §23.5, p. 590. There, he mentions that the (NO,NO) outcome for the setting in (0) is obtained with a probability of 1/12.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Here's a circuit that meets the desired criteria:

Screenshot from 2016-09-09 12:42:34.png


The first gate is just making a 1/3-2/3 split. Its matrix is {{√⅔,-√⅓},{√⅓,√⅔}}. Then the controlled-Hadamard finishes the setup of the shared partially-entangled state ##|00\rangle + |01\rangle + |10\rangle##. Later, the referees make their choice of which case to query via a Hadamard+measure. Then the players can apply operations that depend on the choice of their referee; they both do nothing in the ON case and apply H+X in the OFF case.

Note the grid of outputs to the right. Imagine splitting it up into four 2x2 blocks. The top-left block is the A1,B1 case. Top-right is A1,B2. Bottom-left is A2,B1. Bottom-right is A2,B2. Within each 2x2 block the top-left is NO,NO and the bottom-right is YES,YES.

There's holes over the cells corresponding to (A2,B1,NO,NO), (A1,B2,NO,NO), and (A2,B2,YES,YES). But the cell for (A1,B1,NO,NO) isn't empty. Those are the requirements.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
6K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
199
Views
32K