Bell-type Polarization Exp: Uncorrelated Photon Pairs & End of Nonlocality?

  • I
  • Thread starter vortextor
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Experiment
In summary, the authors of this experiment discuss how the measurement procedure in Bell-type experiments can yield a polarization relation between two photons, whether they are entangled or not. They also suggest that the CH inequality can only be conclusively tested when the analyzing instrument and final state-preparation instrument do not coincide. However, this experiment's findings seem to contradict the predictions of quantum mechanics and have been met with skepticism. The authors also do not take into account the Poissonian or Bose-Einstein-like photon number distribution in their analysis, which could affect the results.
  • #1
vortextor
17
0
TL;DR Summary
A very interesting Bell-type experiment using uncorrelated photons
A very interesting experiment:
Bell-type Polarization Experiment With Pairs Of Uncorrelated Optical Photons
M. Iannuzzi, et al.
in arXiv:2002.02723 [quant-ph] or Physics Letters A 384 (2020) 126200
The autor(s) conclude:
"We may therefore understand that the measurement precedure adopted in the Bell-type experiments yields the polarization relation between the two members of a pair, either entangled or not entangled, in their finalpreparation state.
In particular, for either quantum or classical physical systems, sinusoidal correlations relation of p12(a, b) substituited into the CH inequality, may cause its violation. Consequently we believe that the CH inequality will be conclusively tested only by relating it to Bell-type experiments with an analysing instrument and a final state-preparation instrument that do not coincide."
This seems to be very strange. This is the end of the "nonlocality" paradigm?
 
  • Skeptical
Likes Demystifier
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
As far as I can see, this experiment claims violation of Bell-type inequalities without entanglement. This is in contradiction with the predictions of quantum mechanics. I am very skeptical.
 
  • Like
Likes vortextor
  • #3
If i understand their work correctly, they are claming a variation of Bertlmann's socks. Wasn't this disproved mathematically by John Bell in 1981?
 
Last edited:
  • #4
The number of issues with this manuscript is very long. Just to start with, the photon bunching they see is not expected for two independent lasers, unless they are filtered strongly. In that case they become quasithermal light sources.
Along the same lines, they use two lasers instead of entangled photon pairs, but do not consider the Poissonian (or Bose-Einstein-like for quasithermal light) photon number distribution lasers show. So there are no photon pairs arriving, but strongly varying numbers of photons. This of course needs to be taken into account in a correct analysis and if I remember correctly, the derivation of the CH-inequality assumes exact photon pair states and not sometimes 2 photons, sometimes just 1 and sometimes 7.
 
  • Like
Likes vortextor, msumm21, mattt and 1 other person

Similar threads

  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
3
Replies
96
Views
4K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
4
Replies
138
Views
5K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
54
Views
3K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
3
Replies
79
Views
5K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
0
Views
303
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
814
Replies
1
Views
820
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
7
Replies
226
Views
18K
Replies
80
Views
4K
Back
Top