Drawing a line between quantum and classical world

July 21, 2015

Quantum theory is one of the great achievements of 20th century science, yet physicists have struggled to find a clear boundary between our everyday world and what Albert Einstein called the "spooky" features of the quantum world, including cats that could be both alive and dead, and photons that can communicate with each other across space instantaneously.

For the past 60 years, the best guide to that boundary has been a theorem called Bell's Inequality, but now a new paper shows that Bell's Inequality is not the guidepost it was believed to be, which means that as the world of quantum computing brings quantum strangeness closer to our daily lives, we understand the frontiers of that world less well than scientists have thought.

In the new paper, published in the July 20 edition of Optica, University of Rochester researchers show that a classical beam of light that would be expected to obey Bell's Inequality can fail this test in the lab, if the beam is properly prepared to have a particular feature: entanglement.

Not only does Bell's test not serve to define the boundary, the new findings don't push the boundary deeper into the quantum realm but do just the opposite. They show that some features of the real world must share a key ingredient of the quantum domain. This key ingredient is called entanglement, exactly the feature of that Einstein labeled as spooky. According to Joseph Eberly, professor of physics and one of the paper's authors, it now appears that Bell's test only distinguishes those systems that are entangled from those that are not. It does not distinguish whether they are "classical" or quantum. In the forthcoming paper the Rochester researchers explain how entanglement can be found in something as ordinary as a beam of light.

Eberly explained that "it takes two to tangle." For example, think about two hands clapping regularly. What you can be sure of is that when the right hand is moving to the right, the left hand is moving to the left, and vice versa. But if you were asked to guess without listening or looking whether at some moment the right hand was moving to the right, or maybe to the left, you wouldn't know. But you would still know that whatever the right hand was doing at that time, the left hand would be doing the opposite. The ability to know for sure about a common property without knowing anything for sure about an individual property is the essence of perfect entanglement.

Eberly added that many think of entanglement as a quantum feature because "Schrodinger coined the term 'entanglement' to refer to his famous cat scenario." But their experiment shows that some features of the "real" world must share a key ingredient of Schrodinger's Cat domain: entanglement.

The existence of classical entanglement was pointed out in 1980, but Eberly explained that it didn't seem a very interesting concept, so it wasn't fully explored. As opposed to , classical happens within one system. The effect is all local: there is no action at a distance, none of the "spookiness."

With this result, Eberly and his colleagues have shown experimentally "that the border is not where it's usually thought to be, and moreover that Bell's Inequalities should no longer be used to define the boundary."

Explore further: The Peres conjecture is false: One of the most famous problems in quantum information physics solved

More information: Xiao-Feng Qian, Bethany Little, John C. Howell, and J. H. Eberly, "Shifting the quantum-classical boundary: theory and experiment for statistically classical optical fields," Optica Vol. 2, Issue 7, pp. 611-615 (2015) DOI: 10.1364/OPTICA.2.000611

Related Stories

How spacetime is built by quantum entanglement

May 27, 2015

A collaboration of physicists and a mathematician has made a significant step toward unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics by explaining how spacetime emerges from quantum entanglement in a more fundamental theory. ...

Physicists demonstrate new violations of local realism

June 10, 2015

(Phys.org)—Erwin Schrödinger once famously stated that quantum entanglement is "the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics" that distinguishes it from classical theories. Now in a new paper, physicists have demonstrated ...

Recommended for you

High-precision magnetic field sensing

December 2, 2016

Scientists have developed a highly sensitive sensor to detect tiny changes in strong magnetic fields. The sensor may find widespread use in medicine and other areas.

A friend of a friend is... a dense network

December 1, 2016

It's a familiar request in the digital age: one of your friends on social media has a friend who wants to be your friend. Frequent linking among friends of friends can cause a rapid increase in social network connectivity.

LIGO back online, ready for more discoveries

December 1, 2016

Today (November 30), scientists restarted the twin detectors of LIGO, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory, after making several improvements to the system. Over the last year, they have made enhancements ...

18 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

arom
Jul 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mimath224
1 / 5 (1) Jul 21, 2015
Not too sure that 'hands clapping' is the right analogy. If one cannot listen, see etc then surely we are back to probabilities...one would know that hands were moving toward or apart. Of course what might happen is that hands can stop clapping while on the quantum level this alternative is not available, all is in continuous motion. Classical entanglement has the third alternative because of 'choice' which doesn't seem to be available at the quantum level. Anther example could be a car at a 'T' junction but can't reverse. If I can't hear or see the next action the a left or right turn are the 2 alternatives...assuming the driver obeys traffic law. The driver might decide to 'cheat' and go straight forward and crash. Can quantum particles 'cheat'? I don't think so.
docile
Jul 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
dan42day
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 21, 2015
Can quantum particles 'cheat'? I don't think so.


Yes, it's called tunneling.
docile
Jul 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
big_hairy_jimbo
not rated yet Jul 22, 2015
Love this sentence "something as ordinary as a beam of light". Yeah right, something which we have wondered about for god knows how long, and still don't fully understand!!! Nothing ordinary about light!!!!!!
Mimath224
not rated yet Jul 22, 2015
@dan42day. I don't agree because you are using a classical concept to explain a quantum phenomenon and the H Uncertainty principle might/can be involved.Q tunneling might be achieved by a particle/wave gaining some energy from its surroundings. This can't happen in the classical sense, in fact quite the reverse, that is, the environment might help prevent a classical particle, say a ball, from achieving a certain level of energy.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Jul 22, 2015
Nothing ordinary about light

Just goes to show that intuition is crap when it comes to understanding what reality really is. Anyone who thinks they can do science by intuition are just fooling themselves. Hard.
docile
Jul 22, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 22, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 22, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 22, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
trevor_white
not rated yet Jul 22, 2015
not sure if it is a good thing that this proof is out there but some good science here. Along with the quantum tunnelling ice experiment which is related, some other recent articles the connections are there to begin making the right assumptions. The subsequent theories should be interesting.
trevor_white
not rated yet Jul 22, 2015
not sure if it is a good thing that this proof is out there but some good science here. Along with the quantum tunnelling ice experiment which is related, some other recent articles the connections are there to begin making the right assumptions. The subsequent theories should be interesting.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.