1:
2: \documentstyle[twocolumn,aps]{revtex}
3: %\documentstyle[multicol,aps]{revtex}
4: %\documentstyle[preprint,aps]{revtex}
5: \begin{document}
6: \draft
7: \title{ A Local Realistic Model for
8: Two-Particle Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Pairs }
9: \author{ Zhi-Yuan Li }
10: \address{Ames Laboratory, US Department of Energy and
11: Department of Physics and Astronomy, Iowa State University,
12: Ames, Iowa 50011, and
13: Institute of Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, P. O. Box 603,
14: Beijing 100080, China}
15: \date{Received~~~~~~~~~June 2001}
16: \maketitle
17:
18: \begin{abstract}
19: A local realistic model for quantum mechanics of two-particle
20: Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen pairs is proposed. In this model, it is
21: the strict obedience of conservation laws in each
22: event at the quantum level that uphold the perfect correlation
23: of two spatially-separated particles, instead of nonlocality in
24: the orthodox formulation of quantum mechanics. Therefore,
25: one can conclude that all components of the spin of two particles, and
26: the position and momentum of a particle can
27: be measured simultaneously. The proposed model yields
28: the same statistical prediction on an
29: ensemble of individual particles as the orthodox formulation
30: does. This suggests that
31: the wave function is not a complete description of individual particle
32: as assumed in the orthodox formulation,
33: but only a statistical description of an ensemble of particles.
34:
35:
36: \end{abstract}
37: \pacs{ PACS numbers: 03.65.-w, 03.65.Ud, 03.65.Ta }
38: \narrowtext
39: \par
40:
41: The 20th century saw the birth, growth, and prosperity of quantum
42: mechanics, and its influence in every aspect of science and
43: technology. The prediction of
44: quantum theory has been found in excellent agreement with experimental
45: results in an extremely wide range.
46: However, the interpretation of quantum mechanics has
47: been widely disputed over a long time [1-16], notably coming from
48: Einstein in one side and Bohr in the other.
49: The central point of the controversy is whether or not
50: the wave function is a complete description of an individual system
51: at the quantum level. In a historic paper [1], Einstein, Podolsky, and
52: Rosen (EPR) analyzed a system consisting of two spatially
53: separated but quantum-mechanically correlated particles, the so-called
54: EPR pairs or entangled pairs [3], and
55: argued that both particles could simultaneously have
56: predetermined values of non-commuting operators, such as position and
57: momentum. Thus, they concluded that quantum mechanics is
58: not complete. In regard to this kind of entangled system,
59: Bell proved an inequality [11] based on which
60: it is possible to test quantum mechanics and the
61: opponent deterministic hidden-variable
62: theory [9-14] in a quantitative manner.
63: Most experiments to date have favored quantum mechanics [12,17-20].
64: Today, it has been well-established in the orthodox
65: formulation of quantum mechanics that spooky
66: nonlocal characteristics are indeed present in these EPR pairs.
67: This, together with the abandonment of realism (enforced in
68: the wave-packet reduction hypothesis in
69: old quantum measurement problem) represents the central
70: viewpoint of orthodox quantum mechanics on physics in
71: microscopic world. Both viewpoints will drastically
72: change our concepts and philosophy of nature.
73:
74:
75: \par
76: Is it possible to avoid such a radical
77: revolution of concepts about nature by using some
78: local realistic viewpoints to understand microscopic world
79: while pertaining agreement
80: with experimental observations? In this paper
81: we will give a positive answer to this question. We will propose
82: a local realistic model which
83: directly comes from standard quantum mechanics for many-particle
84: systems. Yet, the proposed model starts from a different viewpoint
85: and finally leads to different results from the orthodox formulation.
86:
87: \par
88: To this end, we first consider in general
89: the motion of two independent particles under the law of
90: quantum mechanics. One typical case is that these particles
91: are separated in space, and noninteracting with each other.
92: The Schr\"odinger equation for
93: this two-particle system is written as
94: $$ i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t}
95: \Psi = H\Psi= (H_1+H_2) \Psi. \eqno(1) $$
96: $H_1({\bf r}_1)$ and $H_2({\bf r}_2)$ are the Hamiltonian
97: for particles 1 and 2, respectively.
98: From physical intuition and simple argument one can find that
99: the system wave function $\Psi$ is just
100: the direct product of the wave function
101: of each particle, namely
102: $$\Psi({\bf r}_1,{\bf r}_2)=\psi_1({\bf r}_1) \psi_2({\bf r}_2). \eqno(2)$$
103: $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$ satisfy
104: $$i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t}
105: \psi_1 = H_1 \psi_1;~~~~~~~i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t}
106: \psi_2 = H_2 \psi_2. \eqno(3) $$
107: The general solution of Eq. (3) is
108: $$ \psi_1=\sum_{\lambda_1} c_{1,\lambda_1}
109: \psi_1({\bf r}_1,\lambda_1), ~~~~
110: \psi_2=\sum_{\lambda_2} c_{2,\lambda_2}
111: \psi_2({\bf r}_2,\lambda_2), \eqno(4)$$
112: where $\psi_1({\bf r}_1,\lambda_1)$ and $\psi_2({\bf r}_2,\lambda_2)$ are
113: eigenstates of particles 1 and 2 under Hamiltonian $H_1$ and $H_2$,
114: respectively, with $\lambda_1$
115: ($\lambda_2$) being their eigenvalues, and
116: $c_1$ and $c_2$ are the superposition coefficients.
117: Eqs. (2)-(4) verify that there is no mechanical correlation
118: between particles 1 and 2, as is exactly what we have supposed that
119: these two particles are independent.
120: Any external influence on one particle will not affect the wave
121: function of the other particle.
122:
123: \par
124: The above analysis is also applicable to a special two-particle system,
125: the free EPR pair, since what we only require in Eqs. (1)-(4)
126: is that two particles are far-away separated and
127: non-interacting, no matter these two particles are
128: either uncorrelated or correlated.
129: To be more specific,
130: we consider Bohm's scheme with a pair of spatially separated spin-1/2
131: atoms, which is produced from the dissociation of
132: a molecule in the spin singlet (total spin 0)
133: state (e.g., $\rm Hg_2$ molecule)[5,6].
134: Up to some time $t=0$, the wave function
135: of this combined system is
136: $$\Psi=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} [\psi_{+}(1) \psi_{-}(2)-\psi_{-}(1) \psi_{+}(2)],
137: \eqno(5)$$
138: where $\psi_{+}(1)$ means that atom 1 has spin $+\hbar /2$, and so on.
139: As $\Psi$ is rotationally invariant, the spin axis ``+" can be selected
140: along any direction in space.
141: This antisymmetric spin wave function is very common in
142: molecular bound states.
143: A good example is the spin singlet state of a
144: hydrogenic molecule, which is formed from
145: the group motion of two electrons under nuclear attraction.
146: It should be emphasized that two free hydrogenic atoms can
147: not form a spin singlet state.
148:
149:
150: \par
151: What happens if the two atoms are separated
152: by a method that does not influence the total spin?
153: In the orthodox formulation, the wave function in Eq. (5)
154: keeps unchanged even when the two atoms have separated so far away that
155: they cease to interact, namely, atoms in
156: both the bound state and free state have the same spin-singlet state.
157: And it is the nonlocality (something of action-at-a-distance) that
158: uphold the perfect correlation of the spins of the two atoms. Once
159: one measures one spin and finds it is along $\bf \hat n$ direction,
160: the other spin is immediately known
161: to be along $-\bf \hat n$ even if no measurement is
162: performed. Although spooky, this assumption has found
163: strong experimental supports for a long time.
164: These experiments are closely related to
165: the test of Bell's inequality, and found to favor
166: quantum mechanics [10,15-18].
167: The joint outcome of the spin of particle 1
168: along the direction $ {\bf n}_1$ and that of particle 2
169: along direction $ {\bf n}_2$ in orthodox quantum mechanics is [12]
170: $$E^{\Psi}( {\bf n}_1, {\bf n}_2)=<\Psi|({\bf \sigma}_1 \cdot
171: {\bf n}_1) ~~({\bf \sigma}_2 \cdot {\bf n}_2)|\Psi>
172: =- {\bf n}_1
173: \cdot {\bf n}_2, \eqno(6)$$
174: where $\sigma$ is the vector of Pauli matrices.
175: The result in Eq. (6) clearly violates Bell's inequality [11-14].
176: It is such kinds of violation that validate orthodox quantum mechanics
177: and refutes any hidden-variable theory.
178:
179:
180: \par
181: In our model, the system wave function
182: $\Psi$ has the form of Eqs. (2) and (4), each atom having its
183: own wave function independent of the other. Then, because
184: the total spin is conserved in every process of molecular dissociation,
185: the two particles must have a specific spin vector antiparallel to
186: each other, and thus both are in a pure spin state each time.
187: This yields to
188: $$\Psi=\psi_1 \psi_2, \eqno(7a) $$
189: $$\psi_1= \psi_{+}(1, {\bf n}),~~~~~~
190: \psi_2= \psi_{-}(2, {\bf n}), \eqno(7b)$$
191: where $ {\bf n}$ is a random unit vector of direction
192: uniformly distributed in space, in accordance with the rotational invariance
193: of original spin-singlet state in the molecule.
194: The wave function Eq. (7) changes its form under axis
195: rotation if it refers to a single spin pair. However,
196: since here it actually represents the whole ensemble
197: of spin pairs, it is rotationally invariant,
198: as is clear from the fact that $\bf n$
199: is uniformly distributed in space. This ensemble is composed of many
200: spin pairs each of which is composed of two spins
201: with definite but antiparallel directions.
202:
203:
204: \par
205: The physical picture involved in
206: Eq. (7) is quite simple. If we assume the spin-singlet molecule as
207: an atom source, then this source emits at each time a pair of
208: atoms who have definite spin vector antiparallel to each other, but what
209: direction the spins are along is unknown. This is similar
210: to spontaneous emission of photon from excited atoms. Each time the emitted
211: photon has a definite polarization, but the direction is unspecified,
212: all are possible. One can utilize this similarity to calculate
213: the quantum-mechanical expectation value (statistical average) of
214: all components of each spin, $\bar S_x$, $\bar S_y$, and so on,
215: which are of course all zero, the same as predicted
216: by the orthodox formulation.
217: The joint outcome can be found according to Fig. 1, which is
218: $$E( {\bf n}_1, {\bf n}_2)= <\psi_1( {\bf n}_1)|
219: {\bf \sigma}_1 \cdot {\bf n}_1 |\psi_1( {\bf n}_1)> $$ $$
220: \times ~~<\psi_2(- {\bf n}_1) |{\bf \sigma}_2 \cdot
221: {\bf n}_2|\psi_2(- {\bf n}_1) >=- {\bf n}_1
222: \cdot {\bf n}_2, \eqno(8)$$
223: also exactly the same as that predicted by the orthodox formulation of
224: quantum mechanics [shown in Eq. (6)]. Therefore our proposed model
225: also passes the test of Bell's inequalities.
226: Derivation of Eq. (8) implies
227: the application of Malus's law in classical optics.
228: It is well-known that when natural light passes through two
229: polarizers with an inclination of $\theta$, we observe
230: a field amplitude of $E_0 \cos \theta $,
231: and a light intensity of $\frac{1}{2}I_0 \cos^2 \theta $,
232: where $E_0$ and $I_0$ are the amplitude and intensity of incident light,
233: respectively. Natural light is a completely unpolarized photon beam,
234: which can be
235: decomposed into two independent orthogonal components of field.
236: Similarly, the spin pair as a whole is also completely unpolarized.
237: A photon beam passing through two polarizers is equivalent in effect
238: to a spin-pair beam of which each spin passing through one
239: Stern-Gerlach magnet, therefore, they yield to the same cosine law of
240: statistical joint outcome.
241:
242: \par
243: Note that the wave function Eq. (7) is not new. It has been suggested
244: soon after the EPR historical paper [3,4,12], but finally it was
245: refuted and abandoned due to two
246: difficulties assumed. The first difficulty is that Eq. (7) do not
247: conserve its form under rotation [8], the second difficulty
248: is that the statistical joint outcome
249: is different from the standard one shown in Eq. (8) (which is
250: the experimentally correct one) [13].
251: We now see that these two objections do not stand in our model.
252: The wave function Eq. (7) is rotationally invariant and yields the same
253: joint outcome [Eq. (8)] as the orthodox formulation, when the statistical
254: feature of the whole ensemble of spin pairs is concerned.
255: Both models predict definitely that
256: two spins in each pair is always antiparallel to each other.
257: If one is interested in the motion of single spin pair
258: as to what direction the spin is along, then
259: neither our model nor the orthodox formulation can give definite
260: results, only statistical results can be predicted definitely.
261:
262:
263: \par
264: Several important differences can be found between our model and
265: the orthodox formulation.
266: One significant consequence of Eq. (7) is that all
267: components of each spin can be measured simultaneously, since
268: now the two spins are noninteracting while in perfect correlation and thus
269: allow measuring one particle without affecting the other.
270: This can be accomplished by means of two spin-measuring
271: apparatuses (Stern-Gerlach magnets) oriented perpendicular
272: to each other, say,
273: along the x-axis and y-axis, respectively. Particles 1 and 2 passing
274: through apparatuses 1 and 2 will have their spin components
275: measured to be $S_{1x}$ and $S_{2y}$. Because of perfect antiparallel
276: correlation of the two spins, we at once know $S_{1y}=-S_{2y}$,
277: and $S_{2x}=-S_{1x}$. This is in contradiction with Heisenberg's
278: uncertainty principle in the orthodox formulation,
279: which asserts that $S_x$ and $S_y$ of a particle
280: can not be measured simultaneously because they are non-commuting
281: operators.
282:
283: \par
284: Another significant point of Eq. (7) is that
285: the conventional concept of
286: wave-packet reduction [5,6] is not present in our model,
287: because now each atom is in a pure state with a definite spin vector.
288: The measurement does not determine
289: what spin state the atom is in, but just tells
290: us what it is in. From this viewpoint, the measurement is not an
291: inseparable part combined with the quantum system considered,
292: a manner the orthodox formulation strongly stresses. If one
293: wishes to uphold the concept of wave-packet reduction,
294: then this process must have happened during the process of
295: molecular dissociation. This also has nothing to do with external
296: measurements by the observer.
297:
298: \par
299: In our model the perfect antiparallel correlation of the two spins is
300: maintained by the conservation law,
301: while in the orthodox formulation
302: it is preserved by the nonlocal entanglement of spin wave function
303: and realized in measurement by the mechanism of wave-packet reduction.
304: In experiments to test Bell's inequalities [17-20], two loopholes
305: are generally supposed to leave the conclusion uncertain.
306: One is that only a small subset of all pairs are detected
307: due to low detection/collection efficiency of the apparatus, the other
308: is that the Einstein locality condition might not be maintained
309: strictly. These two loopholes are, however, not present in our model.
310: The measurement process involved is always local,
311: and a small subset always represents fairly the whole ensemble
312: in a statistical manner.
313: It is not the communication between the two particles, but the
314: strict maintenance of conservation law in nature that upholds
315: the perfect correlation. From this point of view, our model
316: agrees with experimental observations in a more natural manner
317: than the orthodox formulation does.
318:
319: \par
320: Now we can see that our proposed model is realistic and local,
321: and at the same time it is in as good
322: agreement with experimental observations as the orthodox formulation,
323: when two-particle EPR pairs are concerned.
324: From the viewpoint of the orthodox formulation, our model
325: essentially lies inside the framework of hidden-variable theory. Then, since
326: the hidden-variable theory constructed here is local, realistic, and
327: makes same predictions as orthodox quantum mechanics does, one
328: is led to conclude that Bell's theorem is not always true in regard to
329: two-particle EPR pairs.
330:
331:
332: \par
333: Following the concept implied in above arguments, we turn to analyze the
334: scheme of entangled pair originally proposed by EPR
335: [1]. The system they studied consists of two particles, and
336: lies in the state
337: $\Psi(x_1,x_2)=\delta(x_1-x_2-a)$, which is the eigenfunction of
338: the operator $x_1-x_2$ with eigenvalue $a$, and of the operator $p_1+p_2$
339: with eigenvalue 0. We emphasize
340: that this $\delta$-type wave function implies very strong
341: interaction between the two particles. This pair as a whole can not
342: be subject to a simultaneous measurement of the position and momentum
343: without affecting each other. But the situation
344: changes completely when the pair is dissociated
345: at time $t_0$ and becomes noninteracting by
346: a process that does not influence the total momentum.
347: Each particle is now in a free state, with the momentum ($p_1$ and
348: $p_2$) specifying its motion feature (a pure state).
349: The conservation of total
350: momentum satisfied at each event leads to a perfect correlation
351: of the momentum $p_1+p_2=0$, from which
352: we derive
353: $$ x_1(t)- x_2(t)=a +p_1 (\frac{1}{m_1}+\frac{1}{m_2}) (t-t_0) \eqno(9) $$
354: under assumption of free propagation of particles.
355: $m_1$ ($m_2$) is the mass of particle 1 (2), $t_0$ is the time when
356: the particle dissociation occurs, and $t$ is the time at measurement.
357:
358: \par
359: Whether or not the position of the two particles persists a perfect correlation
360: depends on the accuracy of determining at what time the dissociation of the
361: molecule takes place. If this can be accomplished,
362: we immediately obtain a perfect correlation in both
363: momentum and position, and conclude that
364: both the position and momentum of each particle can be measured
365: simultaneously, and that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
366: is violated. Even if
367: we can not acquire a perfect correlation in position,
368: we can still simultaneously
369: measure the position and momentum of one of the two particles.
370: For example, we now decide to see particle 1. We first measure
371: its position and get a value
372: of $x_1$, at the same time we measure the momentum of
373: particle 2 and get a value
374: of $p_2$. Due to the perfect correlation of the momentum,
375: we at once know $p_1=-p_2$, and arrive at a position
376: that the uncertainty principle is violated.
377: Note that our argument is different from
378: original EPR's, where the two particles are supposed to be always
379: in a perfect entangled state (for both position and momentum)
380: when they are subject to measurements. In this entangled state,
381: the momentum and position of a particle can not be measured
382: simultaneously, because of the strong entanglement
383: between the two composites. We can further argue that
384: in Bohm's scheme the violation of
385: uncertainty principle remains even if we only have a system with
386: a perfect correlation in one of the spin components
387: instead of all components.
388:
389:
390: \par
391: In the orthodox quantum theory, it is assumed that
392: the wave function completely
393: specifies the physical state of an individual system.
394: According to our local realistic model, it is possible to obtain
395: through conservation laws in nature
396: (which hold true in all mechanical theories)
397: to obtain simultaneous knowledge
398: of non-commuting variables such as different components of a spin, and
399: the position and momentum of a particle. This violates
400: Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, one of the
401: basic foundations of orthodox quantum mechanics.
402: Therefore, it is possible
403: to obtain more complete information about individual system
404: beyond that allowed by the wave function in the orthodox formulation,
405: while at the same time arrive at the same statistical information
406: on an ensemble of individual systems as that predicted
407: by the orthodox formulation.
408: This suggests that the wave function in orthodox quantum theory is
409: only a complete description of an ensemble of individual particles,
410: but not a complete description of individual particles.
411: Let us look at the wave functions Eq. (5) and Eq. (7) once again.
412: They are equivalent to each other when they are referred to an
413: ensemble of EPR pairs,
414: while totally different when referred to an individual pair.
415: In the orthodox formulation, the wave function is always assumed to describe
416: an individual system. Now one finds it is more likely that
417: the wave function [like Eq. (5)] only describes an ensemble of individual
418: systems. It is this difference in the wave function for
419: an individual system that cause significant results of the proposed model
420: beyond the orthodox formulation.
421:
422:
423: \par
424: In summary, we have proposed a local realistic model for quantum
425: mechanics of two-particle EPR pairs in the framework of standard quantum
426: mechanics for many-body systems.
427: In this model, the spooky nonlocal
428: characteristics present in the space-separated free EPR pairs
429: as assumed in the orthodox formulation is abandoned. Also abandoned
430: is the concept of wave-packet reduction in the orthodox
431: formulation which is assumed to happen
432: when external measurement occurs. It is
433: the strict obedience of conservation laws in each
434: event at the quantum level that maintain the perfect correlation
435: of two spatially-separated particles.
436: With a different starting viewpoint from orthodox quantum mechanics,
437: the proposed model allows more information
438: on individual particles beyond the wave function in
439: the orthodox formulation to be obtained.
440: At the same time it leads to the same statistical information on
441: an ensemble of individual particles as predicted by the orthodox
442: formulation.
443: It may be expected that the proposed local realistic model
444: will help people to understand quantum mechanics in a conceptually
445: easy way, as has been the case for classical physics.
446:
447:
448:
449: \begin{references}
450:
451: \bibitem{[1]} A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. {\bf 47},
452: 777 (1935).
453:
454: \bibitem{[2]} N. Bohr, Phys. Rev. {\bf 48}, 696 (1935).
455:
456: \bibitem{[3]} E. Schr\"odinger, Naturwissenschaften {\bf 23}, 807; 823;
457: 844 (1935).
458:
459: \bibitem{[4]} W. F. Furry, Phys. Rev. {\bf 49}, 393, 476 (1936).
460:
461: \bibitem{[5]} P. A. M. Dirac, {\it Quantum Mechanics} (Clarendon Press,
462: Oxford, 1958).
463:
464: \bibitem{[6]} J. von Neumann, {\it Mathematical Foundations of Quantum
465: Mechanics }(Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1955).
466:
467: \bibitem{[7]} D. Bohm, {\it Quantum Theory} (Englewood Cliffs, Princeton
468: Hall, NJ, 1951).
469:
470: \bibitem{[8]} D. Bohm and Y. Aharonov, Phys. Rev. {\bf 108}, 1070 (1957).
471:
472: \bibitem{[9]} L. de Broglie, C. R. Acad. Sci. (Paris) {\bf 184}, 273 (1927);
473: J. Phys. Radium {\bf 8}, 22 (1928).
474:
475: \bibitem{[10]} D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. {\bf 85}, 166; 180 (1952).
476:
477: \bibitem{[11]} J. S. Bell, Physics (Long Island City, NY) {\bf 1}, 195 (1965).
478:
479: \bibitem{[12]} J. F. Clauser and A. Simony, Rep. Prog. Phys. {\bf 41}, 1881
480: (1978).
481:
482: \bibitem{[13]} D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and A. Zeilinger,
483: Am. J. Phys. {\bf 58}, 1131 (1990).
484:
485: \bibitem{[14]} M. O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy, {\it Quantum Optics}
486: (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997).
487:
488: \bibitem{[15]} J. S. Bell, Phys. World, August 33 (1990).
489:
490: \bibitem{[16]} K. Gotterfried, Nature (London) {\bf 405}, 533 (2000).
491:
492: \bibitem{[17]} S. J. Freeman and J. F. Clauser, Phys. Rev. Lett.
493: {\bf 28}, 938 (1972).
494:
495: \bibitem{[18]} A. Aspect, J. Dalibard, and G. Roger, Phys. Rev. Lett.
496: {\bf 49}, 1904 (1982).
497:
498: \bibitem{[19]} G. Weihs, T. Jennewein, C. Simon, H. Weinfurter,
499: and A. Zeilinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 5039 (1998).
500:
501: \bibitem{[20]} P. G. Kwiat, K. Mattle, H. Weinfurther, A. Zeilinger,
502: A. V. Sergienko, and Y. Shih, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 75},
503: 4337 (1995).
504:
505: \end{references}
506:
507: \begin{figure}
508: \caption{ Schematic configuration of an entangled spin-1/2 pair
509: with antiparallel spins ${\bf s}_1$ and ${\bf s}_2$
510: passed through two Stern-Gerlach
511: apparatuses along the ${\bf n}_1$ and ${\bf n}_2$ directions with an
512: inclination of $\theta$. Due to rotational invariance and
513: completely unpolarized nature of the spin-pair beam,
514: ${\bf s}_1$ can be set to be parallel to ${\bf n}_1$.
515: }
516: \end{figure}
517:
518:
519: \end{document}
520: