Christian Chapman-Bird Entanglement vs LHVs 2191474C

Entanglement vs Local Hidden Variables -

Recent Experiments
Abstract
An area that is strongly debated in the field of quantum physics is that which concerns properties of
pairs of particles in a special, entangled quantum state, and the measurements recorded on these
particles. Two groups of theories, quantum entanglement theory and local hidden variable
theories (LHVs), propose different explanations for this scenario and since the forming of these
groups of theories, experimentation to determine the underlying physical processes of the
phenomenon via manipulation of Bells Theorem has pointed towards entanglement theory holding
the more accurate explanation. However, these experiments are subject to mass criticism and are not
considered to be irrefutable proof for either side of the argument until the discrepancies have been
addressed, if possible. The subject is of great interest to scientific and industrial bodies alike, as
further knowledge in the field will enable its application in fields such as computing, cryptography
and microscopy.

Introduction
Since the conception of special relativity in 1905, it has been widely accepted that the speed of light is
the limit at which information can travel between two events if the distance of separation is too
great for light emitted in the first event to have reached the second before its occurrence, the two
events are independent of one another. However, quantum mechanics has thrown a spanner into the
workings of this observations between particles in an entangled state yields results that directly
oppose the predictions by special relativity by possessing faster-than-light travel of information.
Albert Einstein, the founder of special relativity, believed that such a phenomenon could not be
explained by special quantum effects allowing instantaneous information transfer5, and that it was
quantum physics instead that was unable to reconcile the issue. Fortunately, in 2015, a group of
scientists from QUTech, the Netherlands, devised an experimental procedure able to replicate the
conditions in which measurements involving quantum entanglement could be observed, which
provided evidence to unbalance the sides of the argument and shed light on the truth although not
without criticism.

Conception of Quantum Entanglement and LHVs

The conception of these two groups of theories can be demonstrated
through a simple example. Let there be an electron, e-, and a positron,
e+, released by a gamma ray as shown in Figure 1. If the spin values in
the z-axis of the electron and the positron are measured, they will
always be exact opposites of one another. This is true no matter the
Figure 1 The production of an
distance between the two particles. The general form of this example electron-positron pair from
was addressed in 19355, and named the EPR paradox (after the gamma ray decay.
5
scientists who conceived it ). If the above interaction were allowed to
occur, it would provide means of determining the particles momentum and position to a degree of
accuracy which violates Heisenbergs Uncertainty principle. Therefore, the conclusion was drawn that

1
Christian Chapman-Bird Entanglement vs LHVs 2191474C

when one particle is measured, the other particle was altered such that the above interaction always
held5. This instead raised another issue, as it implied faster-than-light travel of information a direct
violation of special relativity.

There are two main proposed explanations for this paradox; either that the particles are linked in an
entangled quantum state that allows instant communication of information, or that when the particles
were produced they were assigned local hidden variables that would govern their behaviours in all
situations. These two schools of thought are represented by quantum entanglement theory and LHVs
respectively. A specific purpose of experimentation in the field of quantum entanglement theory is to
disprove the existence of LHVs by demonstrating that entanglement theory is replicable2.

Knowledge in this subject area is incredibly valuable. Entanglement is a resource crucial to

manipulating qubits3, the building blocks of quantum computing, which in turn lends itself well to the
fields of cryptography. Quantum entanglement may also potentially be important in the stabilisation
of ultra-precise atomic clocks10. A team at the university of Japan even utilised entanglement of
photons to enhance a differential interference contrast microscope in 2014, which is a huge step in
areas such as microbiology that use this technology11. Determination of the fundamentals of the
theorem is crucial to both enhancing the current applications of it and potentially discovering more
useful ways it may be applied in the future.

Bells Theorem and Test Experiment

Bells Theorem and its Inequality

Bells Theorem, named after its originator John S. Bell, states that no local hidden variables or theory
exist that allow reproduction of all quantum mechanical predictions2. In a scenario akin to the
electron-positron example above, the probability predicted by quantum mechanics that any particular
value out of all possibilities will be measured will always be the same as the probability determined
experimentally by entanglement theory, however LHV theory allows for other predictions to occur
that do not satisfy this requirement. This is known as Bells inequality, which will be violated if
entanglement between the particles is present and non-locality is observed upon measurement4.

There are loopholes associated with entanglement theory, however, that must be dealt with in order
for the experiments to adequately test Bells Theorem7. The main issues are the detection loophole,
where the inability to measure 100% of the incoming particles potentially allows for unknown
quantum mechanical processes to potentially be affecting the results, and the information loophole,
where the experiment is not technically valid unless the particles analysed are unable to have
influenced other particles/equipment in the experiment. While these loopholes do not necessarily
change the results if not accounted for, they leave the possibility for unknown effects which may
discount the observations made. Throughout the last 50 years, more and more precisely arranged
experiments have been performed in an attempt to counteract these problems, usually through the
closing of one loophole at a time; the information loophole was closed for the first time in 20136.
These efforts culminated in the inevitable no-loophole experiment, which was finally achieved in
20151.

The No-Loophole Test Experiment

The No-loophole experiment aimed to violate the CHSH inequality4, a variant of the Bell inequality,
for the purpose of ruling out any hidden variable theories in the description of quantum mechanics
the typical form of this inequality is || 2 , where S represents a particular combination of the
probabilities of different outcomes of the measurement being conducted4. The experimental setup

2
Christian Chapman-Bird Entanglement vs LHVs 2191474C

consisted of three laboratories, namely A, B and C. A and B were positioned 1280 metres from one
another, with C placed between them, demonstrated in Figure 2; the dotted lines represent fibre
connections between the laboratories, and the three boxes above the laboratories represent the
apparatus detecting the photon emission.

A and B consisted of a single nitrogen vacancy centre (an

imperfection where electron spin is more easily manipulated)
in diamond, and a quantum random number generator (RNG)
that determined the readout conditions for the electron spin.
An electron was added to A and B, and the RNG input a
value that determined which of two radiative pulses were
emitted which, in combination with pulsing red and yellow
Figure 2 Experimental setup of a no- lasers, excited the electron. The emissions due to this were
loophole Bell test experiment1.
then separated into two different parts using a dichromic
mirror based on their resonance; the off-resonant part was
detected by a photon counter, and the resonant part was sent along a path consisting of a beam
sampler and wave plates before finally being transmitted to C via an optical fibre. The photons
received by C from A and B were passed through a beam-splitter and polarizer, before finally being
analysed. In order to comply with the loophole issues described above, the experiment uses the special
separation between A and B in combination with an event-ready scheme1 (in order to comply with the
information loophole), and only allows the NV centre to transmit pairs of entangled photons to C
(which is sufficient to satisfy the detection loophole).

In total, 245 trials of the test were performed. However, this took 220 hours due to the low rate of
successful implementation of the entangled state on the photons only approximately 1 per hour was
achieved. In order for the experiment to be a success, the S value recorded must have exceeded 2.
The obtained value, = 2.42, indicated that violation of the CHSH inequality had occurred1. This in
turn suggested that the phenomena observed could not be explained by any local hidden variables, and
that entanglement theory was correct.

This experiment marks an important benchmark in research in the field as it paves the way for future
experimentation to further minimise potential for hidden variables to be swaying measurements taken
using similar, adjusted experimental setups. The same group of scientists went forth to alter the
experiment to fine-tune the random number generation and improve readout times using a method
involving a Twitter databank as the RNG in the experiment, and modified timing windows with
reference to the results of their initial experiment9. Their results suggested an even stronger bias
towards the entanglement theory, as well as resulting in development of a more reliable RNG9.

Controversy over the Entanglement theory

Although some scientists agree that entanglement is, at the very least, on the right path to the
explanation for the EPR paradox, others believe that the Bell test experiments are flawed and do not
disprove the presence of LHVs. One reason proposed is that the violation of Bell inequalities is not in
fact connected with quantum entanglement and its properties of locality8. Another possible
explanation is that the quantum theory which entanglement is trying to align with may in fact be
governed by some kind of LHVs in itself, which would invalidate the claim that the presence of
entanglement eliminates the possibility of LHVs8. It is also important to address that no experiment
may completely eliminate all conceivable loopholes through which LHVs may affect results for
example, on the most basic level, it cannot be proven whether input and output bits from the RNG in

3
Christian Chapman-Bird Entanglement vs LHVs 2191474C

the experiment described above are truly random1. However, all of these claims are mostly unbacked
by any kind of experimental evidence, and so until there is data that can be analysed these arguments
against entanglement theory carry little weight.

Conclusion
While quantum mechanics can often be counterintuitive and wild, flashes of inspiration like Bells
Theorem followed by decades-long graft to understand the very fundamentals of its inner workings
show that this new branch of physics can not only be comprehended, but utilised in practical
situations. The 2015 experiment above serves as a guide for future research teams who wish to further
the research in the field, and also presents opportunities for those who disagree with its process to
adapt it and improve its accuracy. Following these further improvements, the techniques and
knowledge developed may be applied in many industrial, scientific and academic fields in
combination with other discoveries to pioneer new technology such as the aforementioned uses in
quantum computing, cryptography, microscopy and atomic clocks. While the answer to the EPR
paradox may be truly impossible to completely prove, the relevance to modern physics in exploring
its possibilities is undisputable.

References
1) Hensen, B. et al. Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by
1.3 kilometres. Nature 526, 682686. doi:10.1038/nature15759
2) Shimony, A. Bell's Theorem. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2016 Edition),
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/bell-theorem/
3) Pfaff, W. et al. Demonstration of entanglement-by-measurement of solid-state
qubits. Nature Phys. 9, 2933. doi:10.1038/nphys2444
4) Khrennikov, A. CHSH Inequality: Quantum Probabilities as Classical Conditional
Probabilities. Foundations of Phys. 45, 711-715. doi:10.1007/s10701-014-9851-8
5) A. Einstein et al. Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered
Complete?. Phys. Rev, 47, 777 doi:10.1103/PhysRev.47.777
6) Giustina, M. et al. Bell violation using entangled photons without the fair-sampling
assumption. Nature 497, 227230. doi:10.1038/nature12012
7) Georgescu, I. Bell's theorem: Closing the loopholes. Nature Phys. 10, 248
doi:10.1038/nphys2945
8) Kupczynski, M. Bell Inequalities, Experimental Protocols and Contextuality. Foundations
of Phys. 45, 735-753. doi:10.1007/s10701-014-9863-4
9) Hensen, B et al. Loophole-free Bell test using electron spins in diamond: second experiment
and additional analysis. Scientific Reports 6, 30289. doi:10.1038/srep30289
10) Krzysztof, C. et al. The quantum Allan variance. New Journal of Physics 18 083035.
doi:10.1088/1367-2630/18/8/083035
11) Ono, T. et al. An Entanglement-Enhanced Microscope. arXiv:1401.8075 [quant-ph].
doi:10.1038/ncomms3426