Spooky action at Spooky action at distance also for neutral distance also for neutral

kaons?kaons?

bybyBeatrix C. HiesmayrBeatrix C. Hiesmayr

University of ViennaUniversity of Vienna

2SGA2746Projects FWF-P21947N16and FWF-P23627

Very short history…1935: Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-PARADOX1935: Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-PARADOX

Beatrix C. Hiesmayr

aALICE BOB

a

…

1. pair

ALICE BOB

2. pair

3. pair

4. pair

BA A B

The EPR reality criterion: “If without in any way disturbing a system, one can predict with certainty (i.e. with the probability equal to one) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity.” Quantum Theory is not complete!

Very short history…1935: Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-PARADOX1935: Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-PARADOX

1964: John Stuart Bell1964: John Stuart Bell

Hobby: Foundations of QM

What are Bell inequalities?

realism

locality

free will*

Local realistic theories:

inequalities for probabilities always satisfied!

QM probabilities may violate the inequalities!

Quantum Mechanics:

No spooky action at distance!

Experiment has to decide!

),(),(),( bcPcaPbaP

1)(

),(),()(),(

dwith

bpapdbaP BA

Bell’s locality hypothesis

*exerting their independence; totally randomly

Are local realistic theories ruled out?

Photons: many experiments, show violations but still loopholes

Various ordinary matter systems: show violations but still loopholes

!Single! neutrons: show violations but tests different aspects

The EPR scenario

... spin 1/2

... photon (polarisation)

... kaons (K-mesons)

... B-meson

1935: Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-PARADOX1935: Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-PARADOX

...

BABA

BABA

BABA

BABA

BBBB

KKKK

HVVH

0000

21

0000

21

21

21

Bell state:

High EnergyPhysics

1998: CPLEAR collaboration, Physics Letters B 422, 339

BABAKKKK 0000

21

Branching ratio depends

on hydrogen density

What are Bell inequalities good for?

• Has been proven: quantum cryptography protocols are save if a Bell inequality is violated!

• Quantum Computers/Quantum Communication Complexity: Bell inequalities are necessary and sufficient conditions for quantum protocols to beat the classical ones!

My goal: to test Bell inequalities for Neutral Kaons

• very difficult, not straightforwardly (even from theoretical point of view)!

• but new physics is revealed!

• since last year (2012) there is a hope of a doable experiment (with KLOE?, with FLAIR?,…?)

??,?, PH

Requirements for tests LRT versus QM

Requirements for a conclusive proof of the existence of correlation stronger than those explainable by locality and realism/explainable by local resources & shared randomness:

(1) “Active ” measurements (opening the possibility for Alice and Bob to choose among alternative setups-> free choice)

(2) “Use all information” (test the whole ensemble; decay product states are included this “additional” information cannot be ignored)

are not “are not “only”only”

loopholesloopholes!!

Bell inequality for kaons

a bt ta b a bE K t K t m t t e

0 0 ( )( , ; , ) cos ( )

8222 .PhotonS

2),,,( dcbaKaon ttttS

Violation!

Bertlmann & Hiesmayr,Phys. Rev. A (2001)

NO violation!Kaons?

),(),(),(),(:),,,( dabdcabadcbaCHSH tKtKEtKtKEtKtKEtKtKEttttS00000000

22 );,,,( '' mnmn ttttS

local realistic models

Summary I

If we believe in QM, then there is “spooky action at distance” also for this system at different energy scale, but there exists NO CONCLUSIVE EXPERIMENT so far.

Hiesmayr, Eur. Phys. J. C (2007)

A violation for observables that can be actively measured can be found, but for an initial non-maximally entangled state.

Hiesmayr, Domenico, Curceanu, Gabriel, Huber, Larsson, Moskal, Eur. Phys. J. C (2012)

New Bell inequality for unstable systems that isexperimentally feasible and can be performed with currenttechnology!

Frascati, Italy

!?Nonlocality related to a symmetry violation?!

Bell inequalities CP violation

world anti-worldThere exists correlations

stronger than classical

physics allows!

CP violation (C…charge conjugations,P…parity)

11

00 3,2,

CPCP

KK

Experiment: 1964 Christensen, Cronin, Fitch and Turlay

}{

}{

)||(

)||(

1212

1

2112

1

2

2

KKK

KKK

L

S

CP violation!310

310120273

)..()()(

)()(

lLlL

lLlL

lKlK

lKlK

Leptonic charge asymmetry:

Why are we living in a matter dominated universe?

Bell inequality for kaonsBertlmann & Hiesmayr,Phys. Rev. A (2001)

),(),(),(),(:),,,( dabdcabadcbaCHSH tKtKEtKtKEtKtKEtKtKEttttS00000000

22 );,,,( '' mnmn ttttS

local realistic models

);,,,(max);,,,();,,,(min '''''' mnmnSEP

mnmnmnmnSEP

ttttSttttSttttS

• for stable systems gives +/-2

taking into account the decay property without loosing the conclusiveness

Hiesmayr et al., Eur. Phys. J. C (2012)

Bell inequality for kaons

Bell inequality

Bound

);,,,(max);,,,();,,,(min '''''' mnmnSEP

mnmnmnmnSEP

ttttSttttSttttS

• for stable systems gives +/-2

Bell inequality for kaons

sensitive to CP violation !!!

Bell inequality

Bound

Bell inequality

Bound

Revealing Bell’s Nonlocality for Unstable Systems in High Energy PhysicsHiesmayr, Domenico, Curceanu, Gabriel, Huber, Larsson, Moskal, Eur. Phys. J. C (2012)

B.C. Hiesmayr

Revealing Bell’s Nonlocality for Unstable Systems in High Energy PhysicsHiesmayr, Domenico, Curceanu, Gabriel, Huber, Larsson, Moskal, Eur. Phys. J. C (2012)

A little history…A little history…

Drawn by R.A. Bertlmann to the 60th birthday of John Bell

What other foundations of QM can be tested?

•The kaonic eraser: „Erasing the Past Impacting the Future“

•Heisenbergs Uncertainty Relation, Bohr‘s complementarity relation, …

•Test entanglement: Is there decoherence in the system? (->What causes decoherence? CPT violation (string theory), Lorentz-Invariance, dark matter,…)

•Collapse Models

… a lot !!

A. Di Domenico, A. Gabriel, B. C. Hiesmayr, F. Hipp, M. Huber, G. Krizek, K. Mühlbacher, S. Radic, Ch. Spengler and L. Theussl, Found. Of Physics (2011)A. Bramon, G. Garbarino, Hiesmayr Phys. Rev. A 68 (2004).

Aharanov & Zubairy: Science 307:875, 2005

Bramon, Garbarino, Hiesmayr , Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004)

Nature: Scientific Reports:

Testing Collapse Models with Neutrinos, Mesons and Chiral Molecules

Summary

… experiments ? KLOE, ELENA, FLAIR

Testing Foundations of QM at all energy scales has started!

Higher energies reveal different aspects and new physics!

To obtain a full picture of entanglement and to reveal its role in our universe all systems have to be considered!

Accelerator experiments can add to our understanding of quantum foundations!

Thank you for Your attention!

www.quantumparticlegroup.at

Why do we see no macroscopic superpositions?

Is there a border between a quantum and classical world? And if where is it?

• SCHRÖDINGER EQUATION: linear, deterministic, reversible

• WAVE PACKET REDUCTION (measurement): nonlinear, stochastic, irreversible

One solution: COLLAPSE MODELS (Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber,1986)

Consequence: QM would be not fundamental assumes a random field filling space Origin? Gravitation (Penrose), Dark matter/energy,…?

Can the collapse be measured for flavor oscillations?

tttt LSCSLLS emteeeKtKP )()cos(|)|;,( 24100

20

3

2

23

16 mr

m

C

CSL

Can this be measured??

After a long and cumbersome computation…

Neutrinos?

Donaldi, Bassi, Curceanu, DiDomenico, Hiesmayr, arXiv:1207.6000 Bahrami, Donaldi, Ferialdi, Bassi, Curceanu, DiDomenico, Hiesmayr, submitted

strength of the collapse

correlation length

0 12 S LK K K

This Wednesday and Thursday

Programme of the Workshop „Theory Meets Experiment: Finding Proposals Towards Testing Foundational Issues in Particle

Physics“Wednesday (28.11.2012) Thursday (29.11.2012)

8:50-9:00 Opening (Hiesmayr); from 8:30 registration  Chairperson: Mavromatos   Chairperson:

Brukner 

9:00-9:30Possibilities of Foundational Tests with the KLOE Detector: STATUS&FUTURE (speaker: Di Domenico)      

On the Feasibility of Bell's inequality and Other New Foundational Tests at KLOE-2 (speaker: Di Domenico)

9:30-10:00Possibilities of Foundational Tests at the Facility FLAIR: STATUS&FUTURE (speaker: Grzonka)

Correlations of Decay Times of Entangled Composite Unstable Systems (speaker: Durt)

10:00-10:30Possibilities of Foundational Tests with the Hyperon-Antihyperon system: STATUS&FUTURE (speaker: Kupsc)

Recent Photon Experiments Testing Local Realism (speaker: Piacentini)

10:30-11:00 Coffee break Coffee break

11:00-11:30

Chairperson: Sponar   Chairperson: Erker

 

Possibilities of Foundational Tests in Atomic, Nuclear and Subnuclear Systems: STATUS&FUTURE (speaker: Curceanu)

Optimal inequalities for state-independent contextuality (speaker: Larsson)

11:30-12:00Possibilities of Foundational Tests with Neutrons: STATUS&FUTURE (speaker: Klepp)

Quantum Frameness for Charge-Parity-Time Reversal Symmetry (speaker: Skotiniotis)

12:00-12:30Possibilities of Foundational Tests with Artificially Engineered Systems: STATUS&FUTURE (speaker: Paraoanu)

Simulating Relativistic Effects of Motion with Superconducting Circuits (speaker: Friis)

12:30-13:00Lunch Break

Towards Relativistic Quantum Technologies (speaker: Bruschi)

12:30-15:00 Lunch Break

15:00-15:30

Chairperson: Bertlmann   Meeting in Small GroupsCPT in the Early Universe and the Observed Baryon Asymmetry (speaker: Mavromatos)

15:30-16:00Geometrodynamics: the Kaluza-Klein Compactification and the Quantum Nonlocality (speaker: De Martini)

Meeting in Small Groups

16:00-16:30 Coffee Break Coffee Break

16:30-17:00

Chairperson: Larsson   Moderated discussions: (Moderator: Curceanu)Reports from the Small GroupsClosing

Is the Compton Frequency a Particle Identification mark? (speaker: Rauch)

17:00-17:30Imperfect Bosonic Behaviour of Composites Made of Fermions (speaker: Tichy)

19:00 DINNER (in a traditional Viennese inn, none touristic)

00 0 0

2

( , ; , ) ( , ; , )( )

cos( )

cosh( )

QM l r l rP K t K t P K t K tA

m

t

tt

An experiment for kaons

How good do these two data points verify the quantum mechanical interference term? Is the Schrödinger-Furry hypothesis really ruled out? Is there decoherence in the system? Loss of entanglement? Traces of quantum gravity, CPT violations,…

1

2 2 *1 2 1 2 2( , ; , ) 2 Re(1 )l rP f t f t

Spontaneous factorization of the wave function

( 1) Schrödinger-Furry Hypothesis:

| | || |r ll rS SL LK KK K

50% 50%

| |rlS LK K ||

l rSL KK

)1()()( tAtAQM

Bertlmann, Grimus and Hiesmayr, Phys. Rev. D, 60, 114032 (1999)

16.015.013.0

CPLEAR-experiment (1998):

00 0 0

2

( , ; , ) ( , ; , ) cos( )( , )

cosh( )QM l r l r

l r

P K t K t P K t K t mA t t

tt

Observable:

Spontaneous factorization of the wave function

1

2 2 *1 2 1 2 2( , ; , ) 2 Re(1 )l rP f t f t

)1( Schrödinger-Furry Hypothesis :

50% 50%

0 00 0|l rr l

K K K K

00| |l r

K K 0 0| |rl

KK

Bertlmann, Grimus and Hiesmayr, Phys. Rev. D, 60, 114032 (1999)

CPLEAR-experiment (1998):

))(cosh()(cosh()cosh(

))(cos()(cos()cos(),(

21

21

21

21

21

,00

rl

rlrl tttt

ttmtmtmtt

KKA

67.057.041.000

,

KK

Testing entanglement/decoherence

Bertlmann, Grimus, Hiesmayr, Phys.Rev.

D (1999)

00

0.4 0.7K K

KLOE Coll., Phys. Lett. B (2006)

interaction in KS,KL interaction in K0,K0:

0.160.13

0.15S LK K

0.003 0.018 0.006 S LK Kstat syst

00 7(1.4 9.5 3.8 ) 10 K Kstat systDiDomenico (2009)

0.018 0.040 0.07S LK Kstat syst

00 5(0.10 0.21 0.04 ) 10 K Kstat syst

B-mesons:

A.Go, BELLE, PRL (2008) 0.029 0.057H LB B

But (t)=1-e-t?PhD, Gerald Richter, HEPHY 2007

B.D. Yabsley (2008) arXiv:0810.1822 (D-mesons)

Different observable!

“Erasing the past and impacting the future”The quantum eraser

1801 Thomas Young:

Photons interfere!

Interference lost because photon watched (gain which way info)!

Erasing the which way info brings interference back!No wonder Einstein would be confused!

1982 Drühl & Scully:

Bell inequality for unstable systems

),(),(),(),();,,,( '''''' mnmnmnmnmnmn tKtKEtKtKEtKtKEtKtKEttttS00000000

22 );,,,( '' mnmn ttttS

);,,,(max);,,,();,,,(min '''''' mnmnSEP

mnmnmnmnSEP

ttttSttttSttttS

• for stable systems gives +/-2

Frascati, Italy

Assumption:time evolution (exponential decay) of single kaons is correctly described by QM

Experiment:Control over single and joint probabilities !

Crash course on neutral kaons:

2 20 12

( )S L

S Limt tiL

t t mSK e K e Kt

Kaon in time: short-lived state long-lived state

10 1S

L

10 ...decay width of K

1/ 600 ...decay width of K

0.5 ...mass difference

S s

L S

L S Sm m m

„A kaon is a kind of double slit“

Strangeness:

Mass-eigenstates:

Feynman diagram

0 0

0 0

S K K

S K K

,S LK K

0 12 S LK K K

Bramon, Garbarino, H., PRA (2004)

Loopholes

Univ. of Vienna 2011, Beatrix C. Hiesmayr

“Detection Loophole”: if not all pairs are measured or if some are misidentified due to imperfections of the detectors, Nature could still be local since some information is missing (“fair sampling assumption”).

“Locality Loophole”: measurements of Alice and Bob have to be space-like separated, thus avoiding any possible exchange of subluminal signals about the measurement choices of Alice and Bob

not closed!

…but full control over single and joint probabilities!

Advantages: one knows essentially with 100% probability that in case a neutral kaon is reconstructed it can only come from an entangled pair. In addition, on average only one entangled pair is generated per event.

Could be closed with enough money…

Generalized Bell inequality for kaons

II. Vary in time:

' '

' ' ' '

( , , , ; , , , )

( , ; , ) ( , ; , ) ( , ; , ) ( , ; , ) 2

CHSH n m n m a b c d

n a m b n a m c n d m b n d m c

S k k k k t t t t

E k t k t E k t k t E k t k t E k t k t

0

'' Kkk

kk

mn

mn

8222 .PhotonS

0012.),,,(max dcbaKaon ttttS

Violation!

Kaons?

local realistic theories

BABAKKKK 0000

21

)()cos(),;,( ba ttbaba etttKtKE

00

Hiesmayr, Eur. Phys. J. C (2007)

Violation! But too small ..