Over the past few decades, experimental tests of Bell-type inequalities have been at the forefront of understanding quantum mechanics and its implications. These strong bounds on specific measurements on a physical system originate from some of the most fundamental concepts of classical physics—in particular that properties of an object are well-defined independent of measurements (realism) and only affected by local interactions (locality). The violation of these bounds unambiguously shows that the measured system does not behave classically, void of any assumption on the validity of quantum theory. It has also found applications in quantum technologies for certifying the suitability of devices for generating quantum randomness, distributing secret keys and for quantum computing. Here we report on the violation of a Bell inequality involving a massive, macroscopic mechanical system. We create light-matter entanglement between the vibrational motion of two silicon optomechanical oscillators, each comprising approximately 10^10 atoms, and two optical modes. This state allows us to violate a Bell inequality by more than 4 standard deviations, directly confirming the nonclassical behavior of our optomechanical system under the fair sampling assumption.
Joy Christian wrote:***
The PRL authors write "... we have demonstrated the violation of a Bell-type inequality using massive (around 10^10 atoms), macroscopic optomechanical devices, thereby verifying the nonclassicality of their state without the need for a quantum description of our experiment." https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/1 ... 121.220404
But isn't that what I have been saying for the past eleven years? https://www.academia.edu/24765800/Propo ... ls_Theorem
"... without the need for a quantum description of our experiment."
Joy Christian wrote:
The key phrase by the authors here is the following:"... without the need for a quantum description of our experiment."
John S. Bell wrote:Thus the formal proof of von Neumann does not justify his informal conclusion. ....... It was not the objective measurable predictions of quantum mechanics which ruled out hidden variables. It was the arbitrary assumption of a particular (and impossible) relation between the results of incompatible measurements either of which might be made on a given occasion but only one of which can in fact be made.
FrediFizzx wrote:
Wow, that is fantastic!
Joy Christian wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:
Wow, that is fantastic!
The 180-degree flips are explained in this video as a result of the intermediate axis theorem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Si6iRL5Fj8
***
Q-reeus wrote:So instead of this seemingly endless grizzling over unfair treatment for your theory papers Joy, isn't it high time to get a reliable simulation done and settle it once and for all?
Here's one possible starting point I found rather quickly: http://newtondynamics.com/forum/newton.php
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests