Stationary entanglement between macroscopic mechanical oscillators

We show that the optomechanical coupling between an optical cavity mode and two movable cavity mirrors is able to entangle two different macroscopic oscillation modes of the mirrors. This continuous variable entanglement is maintained by the light bouncing between the mirrors and is robust against thermal noise. In fact, it could be experimentally demonstrated using present technology. Received 2 September 2002 / Received in final form 10 October 2002 Published online 7 January 2003     

On the physical interpretation of Heywood and Redhead's algebraic impossibility theorem

Heywood and Redhead's 1983 algebraic (Kochen-Specker type) impossibility proof, which establishes the inconsistency of a broad class of contextualized local realistic theories, assumes two locality conditions and two auxiliary assumptions. One of those auxiliary conditions, FUNC^*, has been called a physically unmotivated,ad hoc formal constraint.In this paper, we derive Heywood and Redhead's auxiliary conditions from physical assumptions. This allows us to analyze which classes of hidden-variables theories escape the Heywood-Redhead contradiction. By doing so, we hope to clarify the physical and philosophical ramifications of the Heywood-Redhead proof. Most current hidden-variables theories, it turns out, violate Heywood and Redhead's auxiliary conditions.1. See Redhead [1], pp. 133–136, for a complete discussion.2. Arthur Fine first pointed out the implicit reliance on FUNC^*, and proved FUNC^* to be both consistent with and independent of the Value Rule.3. LetA=_ia_i P _i andB=_jb_j P_j be spectral resolutions ofA andB. Then <A,B> is the observable associated with maximal operatorR=_ijf_ij P _iP_j, where f_ij=F(a_i,b_j), and where function F is 1:1.4. Heywood and Redhead's versions of these conditions employ equivalence-class notation to specify the ontological context. {<D,E>}={R} refers to the equivalence class of all possible <D,E> formed by using different F functions (cf. Footnote 3). Clearly, such notation assumes that ifR andR are two distinct commuting maximal operators formed as described in Fn. 3 fromD andE using two different F(d_i,e_j) functions, then [Q]^t _(R)(R)=[Q]^t _(R)(R), so that [Q]^t _{R}(R) is uniquely defined.Heywood and Redhead never rely upon this assumption in their proof, however. It is easily checked that a Heywood-Redhead contradiction follows from my non-equivalence class versions of OLOC, ELOC, VR, and FUNC^*. Therefore, I will not use equivalence class notation.5. Here I denote by µ_R the composite state of all the apparatuses needed to measure R. So µ_R may represent the state of more than one device.6 This is because in a hidden-variables framework, quantum mechanical probabilities are a weighted average of the underlying hidden-variables probabilities.7. This argument resembles a proof given by Fine [8].8. Recall from theorem 1 that ifQ=f(R), then for all quantum states , P_(t)(Qf(r), R=r)=0.     

Unprovability of a “precognition” effect in quantum mechanics

It is shown that nonlocality gives rise to an undecidable proposition, meaning it cannot be proved true nor proved false from the usual assumptions, but is independent of them. A variation on the usual thought experiment is considered in which the observers are timelike separated, but the nonlocality fails to become a precognition effect because of this independence result.     

Some difficulties for Clifton,Redhead, and Butterfield's recent proof of nonlocality

Clifton, Redhead, and Butterfield have recently produced a generalization of the new non-locality proof due to Greenberger, Horne, and Zeilinger. Their proof is intended to have certain advantages over the standard Belltype arguments. One of these is that, although the proof allows for causally relevant apparatus hidden variables, it avoids the need for making certain standard locality assumptions about those parameters. On closer inspection, the part of the proof which supposedly removes the need for such assumptions is shown to rest on a fallacy. This renders the proof invalid. Two other, related difficulties are explored along the way.1. CRB actually provide two nonlocality proofs, but our concern here is with the first.2. Cf. p.173 for a precise formulation of these. (Any references in these footnotes are to [1].) Note that, due to the way CRB define the µ's, these conditions are not entirely independent.3. Cf. p.174. Note that CRB claim to derive the independence of outcomes from apparatus existents via our other assumptions without imposing any other conditions on their distributions, citing Lemma 2, which we shall object to in Sec. 4 below. This should be given a careful reading; Lemma 2 only purports to derive the statistical independence of outcomes fromlocal (i.e., nearby) apparatus hidden variables. The independence of outcomes fromdistant apparatus hidden variables is assumed, rather, in OL.4. Here, and in many places, I shall rely on [1] for the details.5. CRB have endorsed this definition of M (personal correspondence).6. More precisely, those values of do so for at least one possible quadruple of apparatus existents, and measurement results; and foruncountably many setting quadruples in (p.167).7. Given CRB's way of defining the µ's so as to include the information found in the 's, the terms in OF and most of those in OL would actually be ill-defined in most cases (for each ) inany theory. This is simply because the measuring devices cannot be set to measure in two different directions at once. However, it should be possible to remedy that situation by simply redefining µ so that it includes only information about the state of the apparatus not covered by .8. CRB endorse the first of these two suggestions (personal correspondence).9. I have omitted the arguments fromA,B,C andD. Wherever they appear without arguments they will implicitly have the three with which they were first introduced. Note that M⁺ should ideally be indexed by and , as there is no reason to think that all the same members of M will makeABCD = +1 for different values of and .10. Cf. note 6 above.11. Note that in light of this objection to their proof, we can see that CRB also fail to establish the link they claim exists between TF, strict correlations, and the condition they call TF.TF is the four-particle analogue of the conjunction of Shimony's outcome independence and his parameter independence (p.162). They rest their claim about the link on Lemma 2 (pp.162 and 165).     

Generation of entanglement via atomic coherence in a two-mode three-level cascade atomic system

The generation of continuous variable entanglement via atomic coherence in a two-mode three-level cascade atomic system is discussed according to the entanglement criterion proposed by Duan et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2722 (2000)]. Atomic coherence between the top and bottom levels is induced with two photons of a strong external pump field. It shows that entanglement for the two-mode field in the cavity can be generated under certain conditions. Moreover, by means of the input-output theory, we show that the two-mode entanglement could also be approached at the output.     

Effects of phase decoherence on the entanglement of a two-qubit anisotropic Heisenberg XYZ chain with an in-plane magnetic field

We investigate the phase decoherence effects on the entanglement of a two-qubit anisotropic Heisenberg model with a nonuniform magnetic field in the x–z-plane. As a measure of the entanglement, the concurrence of the system is calculated. It is shown that when the magnetic field is along the z-axis, the nonuniform and uniform components of the field have no influence on the entanglement for the cases of and , respectively. But when the magnetic field is not along the z-axis, both the uniform and the nonuniform components of the field will introduce the decoherence effects. It is found that the effects of the Heisenberg chain's anisotropy in the Z-direction on the entanglement are dependent on the direction of the field. Moreover, the larger the initial concurrence is, the higher value it will exhibit during the time evolution of the system for a proper set of the parameters ν, Δ, θ, γ , B and b.     

New possibilities for testing local realism in high energy physics

The three photons from the dominant ortho-positronium decay and two vector mesons from the η_c exclusive decays are found to be in tripartite and high-dimensional entangled states, respectively. These two classes of entangled states possess the Hardy type nonlocality and allow a priori for quantum mechanics vs local realism test via Bell inequalities. The experimental realizations are shown to be feasible, and a concrete scheme to fulfill the test in experiment via two-vector-meson entangled state is proposed.     

Necessity of acceleration‐induced nonlocality

The purpose of this paper is to explain clearly why nonlocality must be an essential part of the theory of relativity. In the standard local version of this theory, Lorentz invariance is extended to accelerated observers by assuming that they are pointwise inertial. This locality postulate is exact when dealing with phenomena involving classical point particles and rays of radiation, but breaks down for electromagnetic fields, as field properties in general cannot be measured instantaneously. The problem is corrected in nonlocal relativity by supplementing the locality postulate with a certain average over the past world line of the observer.     

The bound of entanglement of superpositions with more than two components

A bipartite quantum state (for two systems in any dimensions) can be decomposed as a superposition of many components. For a superposition of more than two components we prove that there is a bound of the entanglement of the superposition state which can be expressed according to entanglements of its component states. Especially, if the component states are mutually bi-orthogonal, the entanglement of the superposition state can be exactly given in terms of the entanglements of the states being superposed.