Long-distance Bell-type tests using energy-time entangled photons

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 59, Issue 6, 1999, Pages 4150-4163

  Tittel, W ^a   Brendel, J ^a   Gisin, N ^a   Zbinden, H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GENEVA   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0001085312     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: 10941622     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.59.4150     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935).
2. J. S. Bell, Physics (Long Island City, NY) 1, 195 (1964).
3. J. Freedman and J. F. Clauser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 938 (1972)
4. Phys. Rev. Lett.A. Aspect, P. Grangier, and G. Roger, 47, 460 (1981)
5. Phys. Rev. Lett.Z. Y. Ou and L. Mandel, 61, 50 (1988)
6. Phys. Rev. Lett.P. G. Kwiat, K. Mattle, H. Weinfurter, A. Zeilinger, A. V. Sergienko, and Y. H. Shih, 75, 4337 (1995)
7. Phys. Rev. Lett.J. G. Rarity and P. R. Tapster, 64, 2495 (1990)
8. J. Brendel, E. Mohler, and W. Martienssen, Europhys. Lett. 20, 575 (1992)
9. D. V. Strekalov, T. B. Pittman, A. V. Sergienko, Y. H. Shih, and P. G. Kwiat, Phys. Rev. A 54, R1 (1996).
10. A. Aspect, P. Grangier, and G. Roger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 91 (1982).
11. A. Aspect, J. Dalibard, and G. Roger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1804 (1982).
12. P. R. Tapster, J. G. Rarity, and P. C. M. Owens, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 1923 (1994).
13. W. Tittel, J. Brendel, H. Zbinden, and N. Gisin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3563 (1998).
14. All experiments up to now have relied on some unproven assumptions, leaving loopholes for local hidden variables theories.
15. P. Pearle, Phys. Rev. D 2, 1418 (1970)
16. E. Santos, Phys. Lett. A 212, 10 (1996).
17. P. Kwiat et al, Phys. Rev. A 49, 3209 (1994).
18. E. S. Fry, T. Walther, and S. Li, Phys. Rev. A 52, 4381 (1995).
19. Even if not explicitly mentioned, the following experiment has the potential to close the detection loophole: E. Hagley et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1 (1997).
20. E. Santos, Phys. Lett. A 200, 1 (1995).
21. A. Zeilinger, Phys. Lett. A 118, 1 (1986).
22. G. Weihs, T. Jennewein, C. Simon, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5039 (1998).
23. A. Suarez and V. Scarani, Phys. Lett. A 232, 9 (1997).
24. Phys. World, March, 1998, special issue on quantum communication.
25. C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, and A. K. Ekert, Sci. Am. 267 (4), 26 (1992).
26. C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2881 (1992)
27. Phys. Rev. Lett.K. Mattle, H. Weinfurter, P. G. Kwiat, and A. Zeilinger, 76, 4656 (1996).
28. C. H. Bennett et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895 (1993)
29. D. Bouwmeester et al, Nature (London) 390, 575 (1997)
30. D. Boschi et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1121 (1998).
31. P. W. Shor, in Proceedings of the 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Santa Fe, 1994, edited by S. Goldwasser (IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, 1994), p. 124.
32. A. K. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 661 (1991).
33. W. H. Zurek, Phys. Today 44 (10), 36 (1991). For comments by several authors, see Phys. Today 46 (4) (1993).
34. W. H. Furry, Phys. Rev. 49, 393 (1936).
35. G. C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini, and T. Weber, Phys. Rev. D 34, 470 (1986).
36. A first attempt to investigate nonlocality over large distances was reported in 6. However, it contrasts with ours, as both analyzers were positioned next to the source, one connected with a 4.3 km fiber on a spool, while the other analyzer was directly connected to the source. Therefore, the physical distance between the two analyzers was of only a few meters.
37. W. Tittel et al, Phys. Rev. A 57, 3229 (1998).
38. J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880 (1969).
39. J. D. Franson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 2205 (1989).
40. J. F. Clauser and M. A. Horne, Phys. Rev. D 10, 526 (1974).
41. J. Brendel, E. Mohler, and W. Martienssen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 1142 (1991).
42. We would like to mention that postselecting only events leading to the central coincidence peak in order to create the entangled state [Eq. (3)] constitutes a fundamental loophole in these kinds of Bell-type tests.
43. A. J. Menezes, P. C. van Oorschot, and S. A. Vanstone, Handbook of Applied Cryptography (CRC, New York, 1997).
44. G. S. Vernam, J. Am. Inst. Electr. Eng. XLV, 109 (1926).
45. C. E. Shannon, Bell Syst. Tech. J. 28, 656 (1949).
46. C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems, and Signal Processing, Bangalore, India, 1984 (IEEE, New York, 1984), p. 175.
47. C. H. Bennett, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 3121 (1992).
48. C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, and N. D. Mermin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 557 (1992).
49. A. K. Ekert, J. G. Rarity, P. R. Tapster, and G. M. Palma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 1293 (1992).
50. C. H. Bennett, F. Bessette, G. Brassard, L. Salvail, and J. Smolin, J. Cryptology 5, 3 (1992).
51. N. Gisin and B. Huttner, Phys. Lett. A 228, 13 (1997)
52. Ch. Fuchs et al, Phys. Rev. A 56, 1163 (1997).
53. Actually, in these papers one assumes that the eavesdropper can only measure one qubit after the other [although we also refer you to N. Gisin and I. Cirac, Phys. Lett. A 229, 1 (1997)];
54. H. Bechmann-Pasquinucci and N. Gisin, e-print quant-ph/9807041.
55. To avoid this inconvenience, one could use type-II phase matching and exploit the fact that, in this case, signal and idler photons are orthogonally polarized in order to separate all pairs.
56. L. De Caro and A. Garuccio, Phys. Rev. A 50, R2803 (1994).
57. S. Popescu, L. Hardy, and M. Zukowski, Phys. Rev. A 56, R4353 (1997).
58. J. D. Franson, Phys. Rev. A 45, 3126 (1992).
59. A. M. Steinberg, P. G. Kwiat, and R. Y. Chiao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 2421 (1992)
60. A. M. SteinbergP. G. KwiatR. Y. ChiaoPhys. Rev. A 45, 6659 (1992).
61. T. S. Larchuk, M. V. Teich, and B. E. A. Saleh, Phys. Rev. A 52, 4145 (1995).
62. J. Brendel, H. Zbinden, and N. Gisin, Opt. Commun. 151, 35 (1998).
63. There might be an interesting effect caused by the interplay of chromatic-dispersion-caused coincidence peak broadening and a coincidence window that selects only a subensemble of the whole peak. To simplify the argument, we neglect the intrinsic detector time jitter for a moment. Then, maximal or minimal values in the coincidence-detection time spectrum can be caused only by wave trains lying at the upper or lower end of the photon spectrum. The effect of a small coincidence window is then somehow similar to the use of a spectral filter. However, since the detection time jitter is dominant in our case, this filtering should be very small.
64. N. Gisin et al, Pure Appl. Opt. 4, 511 (1995).
65. M. Martinelli, M. J. Marrone, and M. A. Davis, J. Mod. Opt. 39, 451 (1992).
66. W. Tittel, J. Brendel, T. Herzog, H. Zbinden, and N. Gisin, Europhys. Lett. 40, 595 (1997).
67. P. C. M. Owens, J. G. Rarity, P. R. Tapster, D. Knight, and P. D. Townsend, Appl. Opt. 33, 6895 (1994)
68. Appl. Opt.A. Lacaita, P. A. Francese, F. Zappa, and S. Cova, 33, 6902 (1994).
69. The coincidence window has been set to a small value in order to achieve a better ratio of detected to accidental coincidences (Formula presented). However, a violation of Bell inequalities could have been achieved with a three-times-larger window as well. Due to a lower (Formula presented), the raw visibility of the coincidence fringes would drop from (Formula presented) to around (Formula presented) and still violate Eq. (10).
70. Unequal path-length differences in both interferometers (Formula presented) increase the possibility of differentiating between the long-long and short-short paths (by looking at the differences in photon arrival time), hence decreasing the visibility.
71. P. H. Eberhard, Phys. Rev. A 47, R747 (1993).
72. The necessity of changing the settings of the analyzers during the flight of the particles was pointed out for the first time by D. Bohm, and Y. Aharonov, Phys. Rev. 108, 1070 (1957).
73. N. Gisin and H. Zbinden (unpublished).
74. C. Marand and P. Townsend, Opt. Lett. 20, 1695 (1995)
75. R. Hughes, G. Luther, G. Morgan, G. Peterson, and C. Simmons, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 1109, 329 (1996)
76. H. Zbinden, G. D. Gautier, N. Gisin, B. Huttner, A. Muller, and W. Tittel, Electron. Lett. 33, 586 (1997).
77. C. H. Bennett et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895 (1993)
78. Phys. Rev. Lett.M. Zukowski et al, 71, 4287 (1993)
79. Phys. Rev. Lett.J. W. Pan et al, 80, 3891 (1998).
80. Y. Aharonov and D. Z. Albert, Phys. Rev. D 24, 359 (1981).