Article

Is wave–particle objectivity compatible with determinism and locality?

  • Nature Communications 5, Article number: 3997 (2014)
  • doi:10.1038/ncomms5997
  • Download Citation
Received:
Accepted:
Published online:

Abstract

Wave–particle duality, superposition and entanglement are among the most counterintuitive features of quantum theory. Their clash with our classical expectations motivated hidden-variable (HV) theories. With the emergence of quantum technologies, we can test experimentally the predictions of quantum theory versus HV theories and put strong restrictions on their key assumptions. Here, we study an entanglement-assisted version of the quantum delayed-choice experiment and show that the extension of HV to the controlling devices only exacerbates the contradiction. We compare HV theories that satisfy the conditions of objectivity (a property of photons being either particles or waves, but not both), determinism and local independence of hidden variables with quantum mechanics. Any two of the above conditions are compatible with it. The conflict becomes manifest when all three conditions are imposed and persists for any non-zero value of entanglement. We propose an experiment to test our conclusions.

  • Purchase article full text and PDF:

    $32

    Buy now

Additional access options:

Already a subscriber?  Log in  now or  Register  for online access.

References

  1. 1.

    Wheeler J. A., Zurek W. H. (eds)Quantum Theory and Measurement Princeton Univ. Press (1984).

  2. 2.

    Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods Kluwer (1995).

  3. 3.

    & Classification of hidden-variable properties. J. Phys. A 41, 425302 (2008).

  4. 4.

    On quantum theory. Eur. J. Phys. D 67, 238 (2013).

  5. 5.

    & Quantum Computation and Quantum Information Cambridge Univ. Press (2000).

  6. 6.

    & Lectures on Quantum Information Wiley-VCH (2007).

  7. 7.

    , & Quantum optical tests of complementarity. Nature 351, 111–116 (1991).

  8. 8.

    et al. Momentum transfer to a free floating double slit: realization of a thought experiment from the Einstein-Bohr debates. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 103201 (2013).

  9. 9.

    , , & Towards quantum superpositions of a mirror. Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 130401 (2003).

  10. 10.

    & Testing the limits of quantum mechanical superpositions. Nat. Phys. 10, 271–275 (2014).

  11. 11.

    & Proposal for a quantum delayed-choice experiment. Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 230406 (2011).

  12. 12.

    et al. Quantum control in foundational experiments. Found. Phys. 44, 576–587 (2014).

  13. 13.

    , , & Revisiting Bohr’s principle of complementarity using a quantum device. Phys. Rev. A 88, 014103 (2013).

  14. 14.

    Modified Two-Slit Experiments and Complementarity. Preprint at org/abs/1205.2207 (2012).

  15. 15.

    inAlbert Einstein—Philosopher-Scientist (ed. Schlipp P. A. 200–241The Library of Living Philosophers (1949).

  16. 16.

    inQuantum Theory and Measurement (eds Wheeler J. A., Zurek W. H. 182–213Princeton Univ. Press (1984).

  17. 17.

    inCompendium of Quantum Physics (eds Greenberger D., Hentschel K., Weinert F. 161–166Springer (2009).

  18. 18.

    et al. Experimental realization of Wheeler’s delayed-choice Gedanken experiment. Science 315, 966–968 (2007).

  19. 19.

    et al. Entanglement-enabled delayed choice experiment. Science 338, 637–640 (2012).

  20. 20.

    , & NMR implementation of a quantum delayed-choice experiment. Phys. Rev. A 85, 022109 (2012).

  21. 21.

    et al. Experimental analysis of the quantum complementarity principle. Phys. Rev. A 85, 032121 (2012).

  22. 22.

    et al. Realization of quantum Wheeler’s delayed-choice experiment. Nat. Photonics 6, 600–604 (2012).

  23. 23.

    et al. A quantum delayed choice experiment. Science 338, 634–637 (2012).

  24. 24.

    et al. Demonstration of a simple entangling optical gate and its use in Bell-state analysis. Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 210504 (2005).

  25. 25.

    et al. Linear optics controlled-phase gate made simple. Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 210505 (2005).

  26. 26.

    et al. Experimental Interference of Independent Photons. Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 240502 (2006).

  27. 27.

    , , & High-fidelity entanglement swapping with fully independent sources. Phys. Rev. A 79, 040302(R) (2009).

  28. 28.

    , & Determinism, independence and objectivity are inconsistent. Preprint at org/abs/1406.3963 (2014).

  29. 29.

    , & Characterizing the nonlocal correlations created via entanglement swapping. Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 170401 (2010).

Download references

Acknowledgements

D.R.T. thanks Perimeter Institute for support and hospitality. We thank Lucas Céleri, Jim Cresser, Berge Englert, Peter Knight, Stojan Rebić, Valerio Scarani, Vlatko Vedral and Man-Hong Yung for discussions and critical comments and Alla Terno for help with visualization. This work was supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. R.I. acknowledges support from the Institute for Quantum Computing, University of Waterloo, Canada, where this work started.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Theoretical Physics, National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, 077125 Bucharest-Măgurele, Romania

    • Radu Ionicioiu
  2. Research Center for Spatial Information - CEOSpaceTech, University Politehnica of Bucharest, 313 Splaiul Independentei, 061071 Bucharest, Romania

    • Radu Ionicioiu
  3. Institute for Quantum Computing, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1

    • Thomas Jennewein
    •  & Robert B. Mann
  4. Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1

    • Thomas Jennewein
    •  & Robert B. Mann
  5. Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 2Y6

    • Robert B. Mann
  6. Department of Physics and Astronomy, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales 2109, Australia

    • Daniel R. Terno

Authors

  1. Search for Radu Ionicioiu in:

  2. Search for Thomas Jennewein in:

  3. Search for Robert B. Mann in:

  4. Search for Daniel R. Terno in:

Contributions

T.J. and R.I. conceived the entanglement-controlled protocol. D.R.T. performed the hidden-variable analysis. R.I. and T.J. produced the experimental design. R.B.M. and D.R.T. analysed the experimental signatures. All authors contributed to the writing of the manuscript. D.R.T. coordinated the project.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel R. Terno.

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.