Bell inequalities for K0K̄0 pairs from Φ-resonance decays

Physical Review D - Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology

Volumn 60, Issue 9, 1999, Pages 1-12

  Ancochea, B ^a   Bramon, A ^a   Nowakowski, M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITAT AUTÒNOMA DE BARCELONA   (Spain)

^b SÃO PAULO STATE UNIVERSITY UNESP   (Brazil)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 17144416864     PISSN: 05562821     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. See, e.g., the review by A. Steane, Rep. Prog. Phys. 61, 117 (1998).
2. A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935).
3. See for instance A. Peres, Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods (Kluwer, Dordrecht 1995).
4. J. S. Bell, Physics (Long Island City, NY) 1, 195 (1965); Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987); Quantum Mechanics versus Local Realism, edited by F. Selleri (Plenum, New York, 1988).
5. J. S. Bell, Physics (Long Island City, NY) 1, 195 (1965); Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987); Quantum Mechanics versus Local Realism, edited by F. Selleri (Plenum, New York, 1988).
6. J. S. Bell, Physics (Long Island City, NY) 1, 195 (1965); Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987); Quantum Mechanics versus Local Realism, edited by F. Selleri (Plenum, New York, 1988).
7. J. F. Clauser and M. A. Horne, Phys. Rev. D 10, 526 (1974).
8. E. P. Wigner, Am. J. Phys. 38, 1005 (1970).
9. J. F. Clauser and A. Shimony, Rep. Prog. Phys. 41, 1881 (1978).
10. A. Aspect, P. Grangier, and G. Roger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 460 (1982); 49, 91 (1982); A. Aspect, J. Dalibard, and G. Roger, ibid. 49, 1804 (1982).
11. A. Aspect, P. Grangier, and G. Roger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 460 (1982); 49, 91 (1982); A. Aspect, J. Dalibard, and G. Roger, ibid. 49, 1804 (1982).
12. A. Aspect, P. Grangier, and G. Roger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 460 (1982); 49, 91 (1982); A. Aspect, J. Dalibard, and G. Roger, ibid. 49, 1804 (1982).
13. E. Santos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 1388 (1991); E. Santos, Phys. Rev. A 46, 3646 (1992); E. Santos, Phys. Lett. A 212, 10 (1996); N. Gisin and H. Zbinden, "Bell inequality and the locality loophole," quant-ph/9906049; A. Afriat and F. Selleri, The Einstein. Podolsky and Rosen Paradox (Plenum, New York, 1999).
14. E. Santos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 1388 (1991); E. Santos, Phys. Rev. A 46, 3646 (1992); E. Santos, Phys. Lett. A 212, 10 (1996); N. Gisin and H. Zbinden, "Bell inequality and the locality loophole," quant-ph/9906049; A. Afriat and F. Selleri, The Einstein. Podolsky and Rosen Paradox (Plenum, New York, 1999).
15. E. Santos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 1388 (1991); E. Santos, Phys. Rev. A 46, 3646 (1992); E. Santos, Phys. Lett. A 212, 10 (1996); N. Gisin and H. Zbinden, "Bell inequality and the locality loophole," quant-ph/9906049; A. Afriat and F. Selleri, The Einstein. Podolsky and Rosen Paradox (Plenum, New York, 1999).
16. E. Santos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 1388 (1991); E. Santos, Phys. Rev. A 46, 3646 (1992); E. Santos, Phys. Lett. A 212, 10 (1996); N. Gisin and H. Zbinden, "Bell inequality and the locality loophole," quant-ph/9906049; A. Afriat and F. Selleri, The Einstein. Podolsky and Rosen Paradox (Plenum, New York, 1999).
17. E. Santos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 1388 (1991); E. Santos, Phys. Rev. A 46, 3646 (1992); E. Santos, Phys. Lett. A 212, 10 (1996); N. Gisin and H. Zbinden, "Bell inequality and the locality loophole," quant-ph/9906049; A. Afriat and F. Selleri, The Einstein. Podolsky and Rosen Paradox (Plenum, New York, 1999).
18. For the survey of the physics at the Φ factory see "The Second DaΦne Physics Handbook," edited by L. Maiani, G. Pancheri and N. Paver, INFN, Frascati, 1995.
19. A. Datta, in Quantum Queries, edited by R. Nair (World Scientific, Singapore, 1989).
20. A. Datta and D. Home, Found. Phys. Lett. 4, 165 (1991).
21. G. C. Ghirardi, R. Grassi and T. Weber, in "Proceedings of the Workshop on Physics and Detectors for DaΦne," edited by G. Pancheri, INFN 1991.
22. A. Di Domenico, Nucl. Phys. B450, 293 (1995).
23. F. Uchiyama, Phys. Lett. A 231, 295 (1997).
24. I.I. Bigi, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 24A, 24 (1991).
25. F. Benatti and R. Floreanini, Phys. Rev. D 57, 1332 (1998).
26. P. H. Eberhard, Nucl. Phys. B398, 155 (1993).
27. A. Apostolakis et al., Phys. Lett. B 422, 339 (1998).
28. F. Selleri, Phys. Rev. A 56, 3493 (1997).
29. For a related topic in the B system, see P. A. Bertlmann and W. Grimus, Phys. Lett. B 392, 426 (1997); Phys. Rev. D 58, 034014 (1998); G. V. Dass and K. V. L. Sarma, Eur. Phys. J. C 51, 283 (1998).
30. For a related topic in the B system, see P. A. Bertlmann and W. Grimus, Phys. Lett. B 392, 426 (1997); Phys. Rev. D 58, 034014 (1998); G. V. Dass and K. V. L. Sarma, Eur. Phys. J. C 51, 283 (1998).
31. For a related topic in the B system, see P. A. Bertlmann and W. Grimus, Phys. Lett. B 392, 426 (1997); Phys. Rev. D 58, 034014 (1998); G. V. Dass and K. V. L. Sarma, Eur. Phys. J. C 51, 283 (1998).
32. C. D. Buchanan, R. Cousins, C. Dib, R. Peccei, and J. Quackenbush, Phys. Rev. D 45, 4088 (1992).
33. 2 via Eq. (2.5) or the density matrix formalism is the same, however.
34. S beam will not yield a probability equal to one. The point is of course that there are other decay modes such as the semileptonic one into which the same kaon can decay. Obviously, these comments do not exclude a proportionality relation between the probabilities (2.10) and the joint decay rate (2.8) as we will give in Eq. (2.22).
35. f have been used in H. Lipkin, Phys. Rev. 176, 1715 (1968).
36. 2) becomes a common denominator and can be dropped.
37. M. Redhead, Incompleteness, Nonlocality and Realism (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1990).
38. To clarify the notion of λ we quote here from Ref. [7] p. 1888: "We denote this state by the single symbol λ, although it may well have many dimensions, discrete and/or continuous parts, and different parts of it interacting with either apparatus, etc."
39. A,B from which one can deduce Eq. (3.1) by specifying to the measurable probabilities associated to the choices a and b among those offered by the sets A and B. See also M. Ardehali, Phys. Rev. A 57, 114 (1998).
40. See the lucid discussions by M. Ferrero, T. W. Marshall, and E. Santos, Am. J. Phys. 58, 683 (1990); J. S. Bell in Ref. [4], Chap. 7.
41. B. Ancochea, A. Bramon, R. Munoz-Tapia, and M. Nowakowski, Phys. Lett. B 389, 149 (1996).
42. A. Peres, quant-ph/9807017.
43. 0 system is non-zero (see Ref. [10] for a definition of ε′). It was then concluded that any measure of ε′ ≠0 is a test of the Bell inequalities with no need of a direct check. There is, however, no automatism "ε′ ≠0, then local realism is ruled out." Or, not every measure of ε′ is a test of local realism and quantum mechanics. It is known otherwise also that the quantum mechanical predictions violate the Bell inequalities. This does not spare us the experiment to confirm or reject this result. At the end Bell inequalities and related expressions for kaons address the question, how entangled kaons behave.
44. P. K. Kabir, The CP Puzzle (Academic, London, 1968).
45. B. Ancochea and A. Bramon, Phys. Lett. B 347, 419 (1995).
46. C. P. Enz and R. R. Lewis, Helv. Phys. Acta 38, 860 (1965).
47. A. Datta, D. Home, and A. Raychaudhuri, Phys. Lett. A 123, 4 (1987); 130, 187 (1988).
48. A. Datta, D. Home, and A. Raychaudhuri, Phys. Lett. A 123, 4 (1987); 130, 187 (1988).
49. L. Khalfin, Found. Phys. 27, 1549 (1997); C. B. Chiu and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Phys. Rev. D 42, 3712 (1990); M. Nowakowski, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 14, 589 (1999).
50. L. Khalfin, Found. Phys. 27, 1549 (1997); C. B. Chiu and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Phys. Rev. D 42, 3712 (1990); M. Nowakowski, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 14, 589 (1999).
51. L. Khalfin, Found. Phys. 27, 1549 (1997); C. B. Chiu and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Phys. Rev. D 42, 3712 (1990); M. Nowakowski, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 14, 589 (1999).
52. A. Bramon and M. Nowakowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1 (1999).