Einstein, Gödel and Time Travel

In January 1940 Gödel left Austria and emigrated to America, to the newly founded Institute for Advanced Study, located in Princeton University’s Fine Hall. Princeton University mathematician, Oskar Morgenstein, told Bruno Kreisky on October 25 1965 that, Einstein has often told him that in the late years of his life he has continually sought Gödel’s company, in order to have discussions with him. Once he said to him that his own work no longer meant much that he came to the Institute merely to have the privilege to be able to walk home with Gödel (Wang, Hao Reflections on Kurt Gödel, MIT Press, 1987, 31).

Godel

Image of Einstein and Gödel.

Palle Yourgrau writes in his book A World Without Time:

“Within a few years the deep footprints in intellectual history traced by Gödel and Einstein in their long walks home had disappeared, dispersed by the harsh winds of fashion and philosophical prejudice. A conspiracy of silence descended on the Einstein-Gödel friendship and its scientific consequences. An association no less remarkable than the friendship between Michelangelo and Leonardo – if such had occurred – has simply vanished from sight”. (Yourgrau, Palle A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Gödel and Einstein, Basic Books, 2005, 7).

In fact, cinquecento Florence the cradle of renaissance art, led to competition among the greatest artists, Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci and Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni. And in 1504 the two greatest artists of the Renaissance Leonardo and Michelangelo became direct rivals.

images

Scuola di Atene, Raphael. Plato (Leonardo) and Aristotle (not Michelangelo).

We can readily admit that, the comparison Yourgrau made between Leonardo’s “friendship” with Michelangelo and Gödel’s daily walk to and from the Institute of Advanced Studies with Einstein is a comparison between two very different things.

einstein%20and%20Godel

Picture of Gödel and Einstein

In Princeton, in 1949, Gödel found that Einstein’s theory of general relativity allows the existence of closed timelike curves (CTCs), paths through spacetime that, if followed, allow a time traveler to interact with his/her former self (Gödel, Kurt, “An example of a new type of cosmological solutions of Einstein’s field equations of gravitation, Reviews of Modern Physics 21, 1949, 447-450).

He explained (Gödel, Kurt, “A remark about the relationship between relativity theory and idealistic philosophy, in: Albert Einstein – Philosopher-Scientist, ed. Paul . A. Schilpp, 1949, pp. 555-562; pp. 560-561):

“Namely, by making a round trip on a rocket ship in a sufficiently wide curve, it is possible in these worlds to travel into any region of the past, present, and future, and back again, exactly as it is possible in other worlds to travel to distant parts of space. This state of affairs seems to imply an absurdity. For it enables one e.g., to travel into the near past of those places where he has himself lived. There he would find a person who would be himself at some earlier period of his life. Now he could do something to this person which, by his memory, he knows has not happened to him. This and similar contradictions, however, in order to prove the impossibility of the worlds under consideration, presuppose the actual feasibility of the journey into one’s own past”.

Einstein_Godel_1950

Einstein replied to Gödel (in: Albert Einstein – Philosopher-Scientist, ed. Paul. A. Schilpp, 1949, pp.687-688):

“Kurt Gödel’s essay constitutes, in my opinion, an important contribution to the general theory of relativity, especially to the analysis of the concept of time. The problem here involved disturbed me already at the time of the building up of the general theory of relativity, without my having succeeded in clarifying it. Entirely aside from the relation of the theory of relativity to idealistic philosophy or to any philosophical formulation of questions, the problem presents itself as follows:

Picture1

If P is a world-point, a ‘light-cone’ (ds2= 0) belongs to it. We draw a ‘time-like’ world-line through P and on this line observe the close world-points B and A, separated by P. Does it make any sense to provide the world-line with an arrow, and to assert that B is before P, A after P?

Is what remains of temporal connection between world-points in the theory of relativity an asymmetrical relation, or would one be just as much justified, from the physical point of view, to indicate the arrow in the opposite direction and to assert that A is before P, B after P?

In the first instance the alternative is decided in the negative, if we are justified in saying: If it is possible to send (to telegraph) a signal (also passing by in the close proximity of P) from B to A, but not from A to B, then the one-sided (asymmetrical) character of time is secured, i.e., there exists no free choice for the direction of the arrow. What is essential in this is the fact that the sending of a signal is, in the sense of thermodynamics, an irreversible process, a process which is connected with the growth of entropy (whereas, according to our present knowledge, all elementary processes are reversible).

If, therefore, B and A are two, sufficiently neighbouring, world-points, which can be connected by a time-like line, then the assertion: ‘B is before A,’ makes physical sense. But does this assertion still make sense, if the points, which are connectable by the time-like line, are arbitrarily far separated from each other? Certainly not, if there exist point-series connectable by time-like lines in such a way that each point precedes temporally the preceding one, and if the series is closed in itself. In that case the distinction ‘earlier-later’ is abandoned for world-points which lie far apart in a cosmological sense, and those paradoxes, regarding the direction of the causal connection, arise, of which Mr. Gödel has spoken”.

Seth Lloyd suggests that general relativistic CTCs provide one potential mechanism for time travel, but they need not provide the only one. Quantum mechanics might allow time travel even in the absence of CTCs in the geometry of spacetime. He explores a particular version of CTCs based on combining quantum teleportation (and quantum entanglement) with “postselection”. This combination results in a quantum channel to the past. The entanglement occurs between the forward – and backward going parts of the curve. Post-selection replaces the quantum measurement, allowing time travel to take place: Postselection could ensure that only a certain type of state can be teleported. The states that qualify to be teleported are those that have been postselected to be self-consistent prior to being teleported. Only after it has been identified and approved can the state be teleported, so that, in effect, the state is traveling back in time. Under these conditions, time travel could only occur in a self-consistent, non-paradoxical way. The resulting post-selected closed timelike curves (P-CTCs) provide time-travel (Quantum time machine) that avoids grandfather paradox. Entangled states of P-CTCs, allows time travel even when no space-time CTC exists. Such quantum time travel can be thought of as a kind of quantum tunneling backwards in time, which can take place even in the absence of a classical path from future to past.

ps_star_trek_teleportation_1358514340_jpg_814x610_q85

But on March 3 1947, Einstein wrote the famous lines to Max Born: “I cannot make a case for my attitude in physics which you would consider at all reasonable. I admit, of course, that there is considerable amount of validity in the statistical approach which you were the first to recognize clearly as necessary given the framework of the existing formalism. I cannot seriously believe in it because the theory cannot be reconciled with the idea that physics should represent a reality in time and space, free from spooky actions at a distance”. (Einstein to Born March 3 1947, letter 84). And at about the same time Professor John Archibald Wheeler recounted the time he was presenting Einstein with a new method of looking at quantum mechanics. The aging Einstein listened patiently for 20 minutes. “Well, I still can’t believe God plays dice”, he replied, adding, “but may be I’ve earned the right to make my mistakes”…

 

Advertisements

End of complementarity? Was Einstein right after all?…

Whereas the wavefunction is usually interpreted statistically, and it reflects our inability to know the quantum particle’s state prior to the act of measurement, a quite new paper interprets it, instead, without any respect to observation or measurement. This is the popular account and now to the more serious one…

images

In philosophy we usually make a distinction between two views: the view that something corresponds directly to reality, observation-independent: refers to what is there, what is “physically real”, and independent of anything we say, believe, or know about the system.

In this case, quantum states represent knowledge about an underlying reality, real objects, real properties of quantum systems.

If we consider Schrodinger’s cat gedankenexperiment, then from the above point of view, Schrödinger’s cat in superposition of two states is a monster inside a box: both alive and dead cat at the same time. How come then when we open the box and observe (and measure) the both alive and dead cat at same time, we only see alive cat or dead cat? The orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics invokes the collapse of the wave function whereby the act of observing the cat causes it to turn into alive-cat or dead-cat state. If the quantum state is a real physical state, then collapse is a mysterious physical process, whose precise time of occurrence is not well-defined. Accordingly, people who hold this view are generally led to alternative interpretations that eliminate the collapse, such as Everett’s relative state formulation of quantum mechanics, many-worlds theory.

The “state of knowledge” view, observation-dependent: refers to experimenter’s knowledge or information about some aspect of reality; what we think, know, or believe what is reality. We presuppose tools of observation and measurement.

In this case, the quantum state does not represent knowledge about some underlying reality, but rather it only represents knowledge about the consequences of measurements that we might make on the system; states that undergo a discontinuous change in the light of measurement results; it does not imply the existence of any real physical process.

From this point of view (anti-realist or neo-Copenhagen point of view), collapse of the wavefunction need be no more mysterious than the instantaneous Bayesian updating of a probability distribution upon obtaining new information: Hence Schrodinger’s cat is also not at all mysterious. When we consider superposition of states, both alive and dead cat at the same time, we mean that it has a fifty percent probability of being alive and a fifty percent probability of being dead (what is the likelihood of the cat being dead or alive). The process depends for its action on observations, measurements, and the knowledge of the observer. The collapse of the wave function corresponds to us observing and finding out whether the cat is dead or alive.

Erhard Scheibe introduced the notions of epistemic and ontic states of a system. The Ontic state of the system is the system just the way it is, it is empirically inaccessible. It refers to individual systems without any respect to their observation or measurement. On the other hand, the epistemic state of the system depends on observation and measurement; it refers to the knowledge that can be obtained about an ontic state.

As commonly understood, Bohr was advocating epistemic physics while Einstein was considering ontic physics. And indeed Jaynes wrote that the two physicists were not discussing the same physics: “needless to say, we consider all of Einstein’s reasoning and conclusions correct on his level; but on the other hand we think that Bohr was equally correct on his level, in saying that the act of measurement might perturb the system being measured, placing a limitation on the information we can acquire and therefore on the predictions we are able to make. There is nothing that one could object to in this conjecture, although the burden of proof is on the person who makes it”. Hence, the famous Bohr-Einstein debate was never actually resolved in favor of Bohr – although common thinking even among physicists and philosophers of science is that it was.

albert_einstein_1930_niels_bohr_by_paul_ehrenfest-1

The million-dollar question is: What does a quantum state represent? What is the quantum state? Is the quantum wavefunction an ontic state or an epistemic state? Using the terminology of Harrigan and Spekkens, let us ask: is it possible to construct a ψ-ontic model? A ψ-ontic hidden variable model is a quantum state which is ontic, but we construct some underlying ontic hidden variable states theory. Hidden variable theories are always ontic states theories.

Or else, is it possible to construct a ψ-epistemic model? A ψ-epistemic hidden variable model is a quantum state which is epistemic, but there is some underlying ontic hidden state, so that quantum mechanics is the statistical theory of this ontic state.

In a paper entitled, “The Quantum State Cannot be Interpreted Statistically” by Matt Pusey, Jon Barrett and Terry Rudolph (henceforth known as PBR), PBR answer the above question in the negative, ruling out ψ-epistemic theories, and attempting to provide a ψ-ontic view of the quantum state.

PBR present a no-go theorem which is formulated for an ontic hidden variable theory: any model in which a quantum state represents mere information about an underlying physical state of the system must make predictions which contradict those of quantum theory.

In the terminology of Harrigan and Spekkens, the PBR theorem says that ψ-epistemic models cannot reproduce the predictions of quantum theory.

The PBR theorem holds only for Systems that are prepared independently, have independent physical states (independent preparations). A system has an ontic hidden state λ. A quantum state ψ describes an experimenter’s information which corresponds to a distribution of ontic hidden states λ. PBR show that when distinct quantum states ψ correspond to disjoint probability distributions of ontic hidden variables (i.e., what PBR call independent preparations, they do not have values of ontic hidden variables in common), these quantum states ψ are ontic and they are not mere information. And if the states of a quantum system do not correspond to ontic disjoint probability distributions (the distributions of the values of ontic hidden values overlap), the quantum wavefunctions are said to be epistemic.

The PBR theorem is in the same spirit as Bell’s no-go theorem, which states that no local theory can reproduce the predictions of quantum theory. Bell’s theorem was formulated for ontic hidden variable theory as well. Bell’s theorem shows that a ψ-epistemic hidden variable theory which is local is forbidden in quantum mechanics, i.e, any ψ-epistemic hidden variable theory must be non-local in order to reproduce the quantum statistics of entanglement (EPR).

PBR ended their paper by saying: “For these reasons and others, many will continue to view the quantum state as representing information [epistemic]. One approach is to take this to be information about possible measurement outcomes [epistemic], and not about the objective state of a system [ontic]”; i.e., one approach is not to take this as a ψ-epistemic model. Hence, why not follow a ψ-ontic model?

Einstein would finally not emerge victorious. Although the PBR theorem favors “Einstein” who believes that quantum physics is not ontic complete, it does not rule “Bohr” who believes in quantum physics that is epistemic complete (Wavefunctions are epistemic, but there is no underlying ontic hidden variable states theory). Indeed PBR are aware of this possibility.

einstein-bohr

It seems that the PBR theorem does not end the century-old debate about the ontology of quantum states. It does not prove, with mathematical certitude, that the ontic interpretation is right and the epistemic one is wrong.

Read my paper on the PBR theorem and Einstein.

3742352151_31c5532bdc

Another no-go theorem, Kochen–Specker (KS) theorem: non-contextual (does not depend on the context of the measurement) deterministic hidden variable theories are incompatible with quantum mechanics.

Kochen, Simon B., and Ernst .P. Specker, “On the problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics”, Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics 17, 1967, pp. 59–87.

Philosophy of Physics – Quantum Mechanics פילוסופיה של הפיזיקה מכניקת הקוונטים

schrodingerscat_fullpic        Weknowmemes  (קישורים למאמרים בעברית בתוך המאמר באנגלית)

Foundations of quantum physics

Quantum time machine and quantum time travel

Einstein’s theory of general relativity allows the existence of closed timelike curves (CTCs), paths through spacetime that, if followed, allow a time traveler to interact with his/her former self. Seth Lloyd suggests that general relativistic CTCs provide one potential mechanism for time travel, but they need not provide the only one. Quantum mechanics might allow time travel even in the absence of CTCs in the geometry of spacetime. He explores a particular version of CTCs based on combining quantum teleportation (and quantum entanglement) with “postselection”. This combination results in a quantum channel to the past. The entanglement occurs between the forward- and backward going parts of the curve. Post-selection replaces the quantum measurement, allowing time travel to take place: Postselection could ensure that only a certain type of state can be teleported. The states that qualify to be teleported are those that have been postselected to be self-consistent prior to being teleported. Only after it has been identified and approved can the state be teleported, so that, in effect, the state is traveling back in time. Under these conditions, time travel could only occur in a self-consistent, non-paradoxical way. The resulting post-selected closed timelike curves (P-CTCs) provide time-travel (Quantum time machine) that avoids grandfather paradox. Entangled states of P-CTCs, allows time travel even when no space-time CTC exists. Such quantum time travel can be thought of as a kind of quantum tunneling backwards in time, which can take place even in the absence of a classical path from future to past

Here 

  x

 פילוסופיה של הקוונטים: מסע בזמן, טלפורטציה בזמן והחתול של שרדינגר קם לתחייה

Picture1

Wheeler’s delayed choice thought experiment

Wave-particle duality: A photon, may behave either as a particle or a wave. The way in which it behaves depends on the kind of experimental apparatus with which it is measured. Both aspects, particle and wave, which appear to be incompatible, are never observed simultaneously (complementarity, Copenhagen interpretation). It was suggested that quantum particles may know in advance to which experiment they will be confronted, via a hidden variable, and could decide which behavior to exhibit. This was challenged by Wheeler’s delayed choice thought experiment: In this variant of the double slit experiment (Mach-Zehnder interferometer + classically controlled beam-splitters), the observer chooses to test either the particle or wave nature of a photon after it has passed through the slits. Thus, the particle could not have known in advance via a hidden variable the kind of experiment it will be confronted. Wheeler’s experiment has been implemented experimentally, and quantum predictions were confirmed. Recently, quantum delayed choice experiments were proposed using a quantum beam-splitter in superposition of being present and absent, and thus the interferometer is in a superposition of being closed and open. This forces the photon to be in a superposition of particle and wave at the same time; then we can detect the photon before choosing if the interferometer is open or closed. This implies that we can choose if the photon behaves as a particle or as a wave after it has been already detected (post-selection). This negates consistent hidden-variable theories in which particle and wave are realistic properties. The upshot of the experiment can be cast in a (“realistic”) language of Schrödinger’s cat: “Long after the cat has supposedly been killed or not, one can choose to determine if it is dead or alive or determine if it is dead and alive,” says Seth Lloyd at the MIT. See refs. in this source

See here

Spookier than “spooky action at a distance”: Delayed choice quantum eraser and delayed choice entanglement swapping experiments

According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as “spooky action at a distance.” Here are experiments that are spookier than quantum entanglement. Two types of delayed choice experiments: delayed choice quantum eraser experiment and delayed choice entanglement swapping. Anton Zeilinger at the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information, the University of Vienna and authors experimentally realized the latter “Gedankenexperiment” formulated by Asher Peres in 2000.
Consider Wheeler’s delayed-choice experiment: Wheeler has pointed out that the experimentalist may delay his decision as to display wave like or particle like behavior in a light beam long after the beam has been split by the appropriate optics. A delayed-choice experiment with entangled photons pave the way for new possibilities, where the choice of measurement settings on the distant photon can be made even after the other photon has been registered. This has been shown in a delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment. The which-path information of one photon was erased by a later suitable measurement on the other photon. This allowed to a posteriori decide a single-particle characteristic, namely whether the already measured photon behaved as a wave or as a particle.
However, this delayed-choice experiment focused on wave-particle duality for single particles, there is an entanglement-separability duality for two particles. Entanglement and separability correspond to two mutually exclusive types of correlations between two particles. Even the degree to which the particles were entangled can be defined after the particles have been registered.
Consider entanglement swapping. Peres proposed an experiment, where entanglement is produced a posteriori, after the entangled particles have been measured and may no longer exist. This is Delayed choice for entanglement swapping. In realist’s language: quantum entanglement can reach into the past, future actions may influence past events.
In the proposed experiment, two distant observers, conventionally called Alice and Bob, independently prepare two sets of photons entangled with each other. Alice and Bob keep one particle of each pair and send the other particle to a third observer, Eve also arranges them in pairs (one from Alice and one from Bob). Alice and Bob sort the records of their measurements into four subsets, according to Eve’s results. It then follows that, the state of the particles that Alice and Bob kept was the same as the state later found by Eve. Even after Alice and Bob have recorded the results of all their measurements, Eve still has the freedom of deciding which experiment she will perform. It is not even necessary for Alice and Bob to know which experiments Eve will do. Hence, Eve has control over Alice and Bob’s particles. Eve is free to choose either to project her two photons onto an entangled state and thus project Alice’s and Bob’s photons onto an entangled state, or to measure them individually and then project Alice’s and Bob’s photons onto a separable state. If Alice and Bob measure their photons’ spin (or polarization) states before Eve makes her choice and projects her two photons either onto an entangled state or onto a separable state, it implies that whether their two photons are entangled (showing quantum correlations) or separable (showing classical correlations) can be defined after they have been measured; Eve can choose to take her action even after Bob and Alice may have destroyed their photons. Indeed Asher Peres wrote: “quantum effects mimic not only instantaneous action-at-a-distance but also, as seen here, influence of future actions on past events, even after these events have been irrevocably recorded”.
A recent experiment implements the two important steps necessary on the way from Wheeler’s to Peres’s gedankenexperiment: One needs to first extend Wheeler’s delayed-choice experiment to the delayed-choice quantum eraser to have the possibility that a choice (for one particle) can be after the measurement (of another particle). In a second step, one has to go from the delayed-choice quantum eraser to delayed-choice entanglement swapping to be able to a posteriori decide on a two-particle characteristic and show entanglement-separability duality

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Source 4

Source 5

פילוסופיה של הקוונטים חלק ב’. הפרדוקס של אשר פרס: האם העתיד גורם לעבר?

An entanglement swapping setup that generates a secrete key for quantum cryptography

The peculiar properties of quantum mechanics allow two remote parties to communicate a private secret key, which is protected from eavesdropping by the laws of physics and therefore unbreakable in theory (due to Heisenberg uncertainty principle). This is Quantum cryptography, or more precisely quantum key distribution (QKD). However, practical QKD systems could be vulnerable to side-channel attacks even if it is unbreakable in theory. Researchers from the UK have proposed a new theoretical scheme for QKD that keeps the detectors from being exposed to an untrusted third party (UTP) and, even better, uses the UTP to inadvertently generate the secrete key for the detectors. The protocol is based on an entanglement swapping setup scenario. Alice and Bob, control two private spaces, A and B, respectively. Conventionally, these spaces are assumed completely inaccessible from the outside, i.e., no illegitimate system may enter A or B. For this reason every kind of side-channel attack upon the private spaces is assumed excluded. Within its own private space, each party (Alice or Bob) has a bipartite state, which entangles two systems:  A, A’ for Alice and B, B’ for Bob. Systems A, B are kept within the private spaces, while systems A’, B’ are sent to a UTP, whose task is to perform a quantum measurement and communicate the corresponding result. At this point, Alice and Bob do not share any common quantum states with which to generate a key. But the UTP is Eve!! Eve’s aim is to eavesdrop the key, or else prevent Alice and Bob from generating the key. Eve applies a quantum instrument T to the incoming systems A’, B’ from Alice and Bob. This is a quantum operation with both classical and quantum outputs. The classical output of T can be simply represented by a stochastic variable L. The quantum output of T is represented by a system E which is correlated with Alice and Bob’s private systems A, B. E is the system that Eve will use for eavesdropping. Eve can store all the output systems E (generated in many independent rounds of the protocol) into a big quantum memory. Then, she can detect the whole memory using an optimal quantum measurement (corresponding to a collective attack). Oh my god!

Eve sends a classical communication to both Alice and Bob in order to “activate” the correlations. Here, Eve has another weapon in her hands, i.e., tampering with the classical outcomes. In order to decrease the correlations between the honest parties, Alice and Bob, Eve processes the output stochastic variable L via a classical channel and then communicates the fake variable L’ to Alice and Bob. Eve is now eavesdropping and entangled with Alice and Bob. After M rounds of the protocol, Alice and Bob will share M copies of a new fake quantum entangled state dependent on the fake variable L’. In general, Alice and Bob do not know anything about this physical process. They get M copies of an unknown state plus classical fake information L’. However, by measuring a suitable number M’ of these copies, they are able to deduce the explicit form of the fake quantum state for the remaining N = M – M’ copies (here M, M’ and N are large numbers). Then, by applying local measurements, Alice on her private systems and Bob on his, they are able to extract and derive a shared secret key. Hence, in the proposed protocol Eve allows the creation of correlations between the private systems A, B that Alice and Bob can exploit to generate a secret-key. According to the authors, eventually one is able to completely protect private space settings and detectors from probing side-channel attacks.

Source 1

Source 2

6968_389613914457991_2119124764_n

Charles Bennett’s meme

A quantum eraser under Einstein’s locality condition

Anton Zeilinger and authors propose and experimentally demonstrate a quantum eraser under “Einstein’s locality condition”: The locality condition imposes that if “two systems no longer interact, no real change can take place in the second system in consequence of anything that may be done to the first system”. To experimentally realize a quantum eraser under Einstein’s locality condition, the erasure event of “which-path” information has to be relativistically space-like separated from the whole passage of the interfering system through the interferometer including its final registration. This means that in any and all reference frames no subluminal or luminal physical signal can travel from one event to the other and causally influence it.

A source in a laboratory located in La Palma, on the Canary Islands, produces path-polarization entangled photon pairs: with entanglement between two different degrees of freedom, namely the path of one photon denoted as the system photon, and the polarization of the other photon denoted as the environment photon.

The system photon is sent to an interferometer, and the environment photon is subject to polarization measurements. The environment photon is sent away from the system photon to Tenerife via a long 144 km optical fiber (connecting the La Palma laboratory and a laboratory in Tenerife).

The environment photon’s polarization carries which-path information of the system photon due to the entanglement between the two photons. According to the quantum eraser experiment, by measuring the environment photon’s polarization (horizontal or vertical), Zeilinger is able to determine the which-path information of the system photon and observe no interference, or erase the which-path information and observe interference. In the latter case, it depends on the specific outcome of the environment photon in Tenerife which one out of two different interference patterns the system photon is showing. Choices to acquire which-path information or to obtain interference of the system photons in La Palma are made so that the two systems (system photon and environment photon) are not interacting; no real change is taking place in the second system (system photon) in consequence of something done to the first system (environment photon). Hence, there are no causal influences between the system photons and the environment photons. In this arrangement in order to pass information between the environment photon in Tenerife and the system photon in La Palma, the speed of a hypothetical superluminal signal would have to be about 96 times the speed of light!

Zeilinger demonstrates and confirms that, whether the correlations between two entangled photons reveal which-path information or an interference pattern of one (system) photon depends on the choice of measurement on the other (environment) Photon; this is so even when all of the events on the two sides that can be space-like separated are space-like separated. The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment or space-like quantum eraser experiment performed here shows that it is possible to decide whether a wave or particle feature manifests itself long after—and even space-like separated from—the measurement.

Zeilinger and authors conclude, their results demonstrate that the viewpoint that the system photon behaves either definitely as a wave or definitely as a particle would require faster-than-light communication. Because this would be in strong tension with the special theory of relativity, they believe that such a viewpoint should be given up entirely.

Source (January 2013).

Tripartite entanglement: three-party generalization of the 1935 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought experiment (EPR)

Scholars demonstrate Entanglement between three separated particles. Three particles – photons – are created directly from a single input photon: A pump photon (a narrowband pump laser at 404 nm) will occasionally fission inside a nonlinear crystal into a pair of daughter polarized photons at 776 nm and 842 nm. The total energy in the process is conserved. The daughter photons share strong energy and time (position-momentum) correlations that are the hallmark of entanglement. The process is repeated with the 776 nm daughter photon serving as a pump and sent through a second crystal, creating a pair of granddaughter photons simultaneously at 1530 nm and 1570 nm. Again energy is conserved, and the total energy of the three photons created must sum to the energy of the pump. This process leaves the 842 nm, 1530 nm and 1570 nm photons entangled in energy and time. Hence, the three photons exhibit genuine tripartite energy-time (position-momentum) entanglement. The entanglement between the three photons is the three-party generalization of the 1935 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought experiment (EPR). The new form of three-particle entanglement may prove to be a valuable part of future communications networks that operate on the principles of quantum mechanics

See here

Quantum communications networks? Recently entanglement has been achieved between two atomic ensembles (comprised of a large collection of identical atoms) and quantum teleportation of light to matter demonstrated. In 2005 scientists reported observations of entanglement between two atomic ensembles (quantum memories) located in distinct apparatuses separated by 3 meters. Now Chinese scientists reported they have realized the first quantum teleportation between two remote atomic-ensembles (quantum memories).  What about the Quantum Internet? How do we progress toward more complex quantum networks? Does entanglement extend across the whole network? Adopt the perspective of a quantum network as a quantum many body system and to search for more physical characteristics of the network (e.g., the scaling behavior of pair correlation functions and multipartite entanglement)? Distribution of quantum information over quantum networks: interaction of light with atomic ensembles

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Source 4

EPR model can exhibit a metric that is analogous to a black hole and a wormhole

The Bohm-de Broglie (BdB) “pilot wave” hidden variable theory opened up the possibility of a new physics that lied outside the domain of quantum physics: quantum cosmology. Cosmologists applied the BdB interpretation of quantum mechanics to gravity: space-time geometry sometimes looks like (semi-classical) gravity and sometimes looks like quantum effects. In the BdB approach, it is possible to interpret the quantum effects as modifying the geometry in such a way that the scalar particles see an effective geometry.

A scholar from Brasil follows this tradition and studies the two-particle wave function of a scalar field in two dimensions under the EPR condition. He first shows that a two dimensional EPR model, in a particular quantum state and under a non-tachyonic approximating condition – EPR without assuming tachyons – can exhibit in some limited region an effective metric that is analogous to a two dimensional black hole (BH). He considers the BdB theory and concludes that, Bohm’s 1952 quantum potential generates an effective metric so that the quantum potential modifies the background geometry giving a curved space-time with the metric defining a two dimensional BH type solution. After developing a causal approach to the non-tachyonic EPR two-particle correlated system, this allows him to connect the EPR correlations with an effective wormhole geometry. For a two-dimensional static EPR model he shows that quantum effects produce an effective geometry with singularities in the metric, a key ingredient of a bridge construction or a wormhole. He therefore interprets the EPR correlations as driven by an effective wormhole, through which physical signals can propagate (no need then for tachyons to “explain” via a hidden variable theory the EPR paradox?…). The two-particle system ”sees” an effective metric with singularities, a fundamental component of a wormhole, through which the physical signals can propagate from one particle to the other.

See here

1001895_9410_1024x2000

Personal wormhole

No-cloning theorem and teleportation

The story of FLASH—A superluminal communicator based upon a new kind of measurement. Nick Herbert proposed entanglement + cloning; faster than light communication was never mentioned. Asher Peres was the referee who approved the publication, knowing perfectly well that it was wrong. This led to the no-cloning theorem: cloning turns out not to be possible in quantum mechanics. If you can clone quantum bits (qubits), you can use this process to communicate faster than light. In fact quantum entanglement never lets you transmit information faster than light. If quantum states can be cloned then special relativity would be violated. A quantum state (quantum information) cannot be transmitted over the telephone. Suppose that Alice has an unknown quantum state. If she could send information over the telephone that was sufficient for Bob to recreate it, then Bob could recreate two copies. However, if Bob and Alice share an entangled bit in an EPR state, Alice can indeed send a qubit in an unknown state in teleportation. In teleportation Alice has destroyed the state, so the information in it is not cloned. Information is shifted from one place to another destroying the original process. Bob must wait to receive the classical outcome of Alice’s measurement, and thus teleportation cannot be used to transmit information faster than light

Source 1

teleportation

Charles Bennett’s meme

משפט האי שכפול וטלפורטציה

פילוסופיה של הקוונטים ג’: האם ניתן לתקשר במהירות אינסופית באמצעות ניסוי איינשטיין-פודולסקי-רוזן (אפ”ר)?

 einstein-bohr

The “Everettian Revolution” – Many Worlds

A system in a superposition of states could in principle boost quantum computers; but measurement causes the states to collapse into a single state. Prof. Frank Tipler explains how one can find a solution to this problem by adopting the “Everettian Revolution”, Hugh Everett’s many-worlds interpretation (Relative State formulation of quantum mechanics, which became the many worlds interpretation, and then parallel universes, many minds, etc…): “The quantum computer, invented by the Everettian physicist David Deutsch, is one of the first results of parallel universe thinking. The idea of the quantum computer is simple: since the analogues of ourselves in the parallel universes are interested in computing the same thing at the same time, why not share the computation between the universes? Let one of us do part of the calculation, another do another part, and so on with the final result being shared between us all”. Do we share the computation with a parallel universe via a wormhole?…  Raphael Bousso and Leonard Susskind resort to cosmology. They say that in both the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and the multiverse of eternal inflation the world is viewed as an unbounded collection of parallel universes. Therefore they argue that the many-worlds of quantum mechanics and the many worlds of the multiverse are the same thing (same sides of the same coin…), and that the multiverse is necessary to give exact operational meaning to probabilistic predictions from quantum mechanics.

Source 1

Source 2

פילוסופיה של הקוונטים ד’: החתול של שרדינגר במסע לעולם דה קוהרנטי ולעולמות מקבילים