Mermin's device

Last updated October 24, 2023

In physics, Mermin's device^[1]^[2] or Mermin's machine^[3] is a thought experiment intended to illustrate the non-classical features of nature without making a direct reference to quantum mechanics. The challenge is to reproduce the results of the thought experiment in terms of classical physics. The input of the experiment are particles, starting from a common origin, that reach detectors of a device that are independent from each other, the output are the lights of the device that turn on following a specific set of statistics depending on the configuration of the device.

The results of the thought experiment are constructed in such a way to reproduce the result of a Bell test using quantum entangled particles, which demonstrate how quantum mechanics cannot be explained using a local hidden variable theory. In this way Mermin's device is a pedagogical tool to introduce the unconventional features of quantum mechanics to a larger public.

History

The original version with two particles and three settings per detector, was first devised in a paper called "Bringing home the atomic world: Quantum mysteries for anybody" authored by the physicist N. David Mermin in 1981.^[4] Richard Feynman told Mermin that it was "One of the most beautiful papers in physics".^[5] Mermin later described this accolade as "the finest reward of my entire career in physics". Ed Purcell shared Mermin's article with Willard Van Orman Quine, who then asked Mermin to write a version intended for philosophers, which he then produced.^[6]^[7]

Mermin also published a second version of the thought experiment in 1990 based on the GHZ experiment, with three particles and detectors with only two configurations.^[8] In 1993, Lucien Hardy devised a paradox that can be made into a Mermin-device-type thought experiment with two detectors and two settings.^[9]^[10]

Original device

Assumptions

In Mermin's original thought experiment, he considers a device consisting of three parts: two detectors A and B, and a source C.^[4] The source emits two particles whenever a button is pushed, one particle reaches detector A and the other reaches detector B. The three parts A, B and C are isolated from each other (no connecting pipes, no wires, no antennas) in such a way that the detectors are not signaled when the button of the source has been pushed nor when the other detector has received a particle.

Each detector (A and B) has a switch with three configurations labeled (1,2 and 3) and a red and a green light bulb. Either the green or the red light will turn on (never both) when a particle enters the device after a given period of time. The light bulbs only emit light in the direction of the observer working on the device.

Additional barriers or instrument can be put in place to check that there is no interference between the three parts (A,B,C), as the parts should remain as independent as possible. Only allowing for a single particle to go from C to A and a single particle from C to B, and nothing else between A and B (no vibrations, no electromagnetic radiation).

The experiment runs in the following way. The button of the source C is pushed, particles take some time to travel to the detectors and the detectors flash a light with a color determined by the switch configuration. There are nine total possible configuration of the switches (three for A, three for B).

The switches can be changed at any moment during the experiment, even if the particles are still traveling to reach the detectors, but not after the detectors flash a light. The distance between the detectors can be changed so that the detectors flash a light at the same time or at different times. If detector A is set to flash a light first, the configuration of the switch of detector B can be changed after A has already flashed (similarly if B set to flash first, the settings of A can be change before A flashes).

Results

The results of the experiment are given in this table in percentages:^[4]

Table 1
Setting of detector 1	Setting of detector 2	Flash the same colors (%)	Flash opposite colors (%)
1	1	100	0
2	2
3	3
1	2	25	75
1	3
2	1
2	3
3	1
3	2

Every time the detectors are set to the same setting, the bulbs in each detector always flash same colors (either A and B flash red, or A and B flash green) and never opposite colors (A red B green, or A green B red). Every time the detectors are at different setting, the detectors flash the same color a quarter of the time and opposite colors 3/4 of the time. The challenge consists in finding a device that can reproduce these statistics.

Hidden variables and classical mechanics

In order to make sense of the data using classical mechanics, one can consider the existence of three variables per particle that are measured by the detectors and follow the percentages above.^[4] Particle that goes into detector A has variables $(a_{1},a_{2},a_{3})$ and the particle that goes into detector B has variables $(b_{1},b_{2},b_{3})$ . These variables determine which color will flash for a specific setting (1,2 and 3). For example, if the particle that goes in A has variables (R,G,G), then if the detector A is set to 1 it will flash red (labelled R), set to 2 or 3 it will flash green (labelled G).

We have 8 possible states:


$(a_{1},a_{2},a_{3})$	$(b_{1},b_{2},b_{3})$
(G,G,G)	(G,G,G)
(G,G,R)	(G,G,R)
(G,R,G)	(G,R,G)
(G,R,R)	(G,R,R)
(R,G,G)	(R,G,G)
(R,G,R)	(R,G,R)
(R,R,G)	(R,R,G)
(R,R,R)	(R,R,R)

where $(b_{1},b_{2},b_{3})=(a_{1},a_{2},a_{3})$ in order to reproduce the results of table 1 when selecting the same setting for both detectors.

For any given configuration, if the detector settings were chosen randomly, when the settings of the devices are different (12,13,21,23,31,32), the color of their lights would agree 100% of the time for the states (GGG) and (RRR) and for the other states the results would agree 1/3 of the time.

Thus we reach an impossibility: there is no possible distribution of these states that would allow for the system to flash the same colors 1/4 of the time when the settings are not the same. Thereby, it is not possible to reproduce the results provided in Table 1.

Quantum mechanics

Table 1 can be reproduced using quantum mechanics using quantum entanglement.^[4] Mermin reveals a possible construction of his device based on David Bohm's version of the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox.

One can set two spin-1/2 particles in the maximally entangled singlet Bell state:

|\Psi ^{-}\rangle ={\frac {|\uparrow \downarrow \rangle -|\downarrow \uparrow \rangle }{\sqrt {2}}}

,

to leave the experiment, where $|\uparrow \downarrow \rangle$ ( $|\downarrow \uparrow \rangle$ ) is the state where the projection of the spin of particle 1 is aligned (anti-aligned) with a given axis and particle 2 is anti-aligned (aligned) to the same axis. The measurement devices can be replaced with Stern–Gerlach devices, that measure the spin in a given direction. The three different settings determine whether the detectors are vertical or at ±120° to the vertical in the plane of perpendicular to the line of flight of the particles. Detector A flashes green when the spin of the measured particle is aligned with the detector's magnetic field and flashes red when anti-aligned. Detector B has the opposite color scheme with respect to A. Detector B flashes red when the spin of the measured particle is aligned and flashes green when anti-aligned. Another possibility is to use photons that have two possible polarizations, using polarizers as detectors, as in Aspect's experiment.

Quantum mechanics predicts a probability of measuring opposite spin projections given by

P(\theta )=\cos ^{2}(\theta /2)

where $\theta$ is the relative angle between settings of the detectors. For $\theta =0$ and $\theta =\pm 120^{\circ }$ the system reproduces the result of table 1 keeping all the assumptions.

Related Research Articles

The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) paradox is a thought experiment proposed by physicists Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen which argues that the description of physical reality provided by quantum mechanics is incomplete. In a 1935 paper titled "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?", they argued for the existence of "elements of reality" that were not part of quantum theory, and speculated that it should be possible to construct a theory containing these hidden variables. Resolutions of the paradox have important implications for the interpretation of quantum mechanics.

The uncertainty principle, also known as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics. It states that there is a limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, can be simultaneously known. In other words, the more accurately one property is measured, the less accurately the other property can be known.

Bell's theorem is a term encompassing a number of closely related results in physics, all of which determine that quantum mechanics is incompatible with local hidden-variable theories, given some basic assumptions about the nature of measurement. "Local" here refers to the principle of locality, the idea that a particle can only be influenced by its immediate surroundings, and that interactions mediated by physical fields cannot propagate faster than the speed of light. "Hidden variables" are putative properties of quantum particles that are not included in quantum theory but nevertheless affect the outcome of experiments. In the words of physicist John Stewart Bell, for whom this family of results is named, "If [a hidden-variable theory] is local it will not agree with quantum mechanics, and if it agrees with quantum mechanics it will not be local."

The Schrödinger equation is a linear partial differential equation that governs the wave function of a quantum-mechanical system. Its discovery was a significant landmark in the development of quantum mechanics. It is named after Erwin Schrödinger, who postulated the equation in 1925 and published it in 1926, forming the basis for the work that resulted in his Nobel Prize in Physics in 1933.

In physics, equations of motion are equations that describe the behavior of a physical system in terms of its motion as a function of time. More specifically, the equations of motion describe the behavior of a physical system as a set of mathematical functions in terms of dynamic variables. These variables are usually spatial coordinates and time, but may include momentum components. The most general choice are generalized coordinates which can be any convenient variables characteristic of the physical system. The functions are defined in a Euclidean space in classical mechanics, but are replaced by curved spaces in relativity. If the dynamics of a system is known, the equations are the solutions for the differential equations describing the motion of the dynamics.

Quantum superposition is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics. In classical mechanics, things like position or momentum are always well-defined. We may not know what they are at any given time, but that is an issue of our understanding and not the physical system. In quantum mechanics, a particle can be in a superposition of different states. However, a measurement always finds it in one state, but before and after the measurement, it interacts in ways that can only be explained by having a superposition of different states.

In physics, the CHSH inequality can be used in the proof of Bell's theorem, which states that certain consequences of entanglement in quantum mechanics cannot be reproduced by local hidden-variable theories. Experimental verification of the inequality being violated is seen as confirmation that nature cannot be described by such theories. CHSH stands for John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard Holt, who described it in a much-cited paper published in 1969. They derived the CHSH inequality, which, as with John Stewart Bell's original inequality, is a constraint on the statistical occurrence of "coincidences" in a Bell test which is necessarily true if there exist underlying local hidden variables, an assumption that is sometimes termed local realism. In practice, the inequality is routinely violated by modern experiments in quantum mechanics.

The Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger experiment or GHZ experiments are a class of physics experiments that may be used to generate starkly contrasting predictions from local hidden-variable theory and quantum mechanical theory, and permit immediate comparison with actual experimental results. A GHZ experiment is similar to a test of Bell's inequality, except using three or more entangled particles, rather than two. With specific settings of GHZ experiments, it is possible to demonstrate absolute contradictions between the predictions of local hidden variable theory and those of quantum mechanics, whereas tests of Bell's inequality only demonstrate contradictions of a statistical nature. The results of actual GHZ experiments agree with the predictions of quantum mechanics.

In physics, the Rabi cycle is the cyclic behaviour of a two-level quantum system in the presence of an oscillatory driving field. A great variety of physical processes belonging to the areas of quantum computing, condensed matter, atomic and molecular physics, and nuclear and particle physics can be conveniently studied in terms of two-level quantum mechanical systems, and exhibit Rabi flopping when coupled to an optical driving field. The effect is important in quantum optics, magnetic resonance and quantum computing, and is named after Isidor Isaac Rabi.

In nuclear physics and particle physics, isospin (I) is a quantum number related to the up- and down quark content of the particle. More specifically, isospin symmetry is a subset of the flavour symmetry seen more broadly in the interactions of baryons and mesons.

In quantum mechanics and computing, the Bloch sphere is a geometrical representation of the pure state space of a two-level quantum mechanical system (qubit), named after the physicist Felix Bloch.

In physics, canonical quantization is a procedure for quantizing a classical theory, while attempting to preserve the formal structure, such as symmetries, of the classical theory to the greatest extent possible.

In physics, the Hanbury Brown and Twiss (HBT) effect is any of a variety of correlation and anti-correlation effects in the intensities received by two detectors from a beam of particles. HBT effects can generally be attributed to the wave–particle duality of the beam, and the results of a given experiment depend on whether the beam is composed of fermions or bosons. Devices which use the effect are commonly called intensity interferometers and were originally used in astronomy, although they are also heavily used in the field of quantum optics.

In quantum mechanics, a triplet state, or spin triplet, is the quantum state of an object such as an electron, atom, or molecule, having a quantum spin S = 1. It has three allowed values of the spin's projection along a given axis m_S = −1, 0, or +1, giving the name "triplet".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Quark model</span> Classification scheme of hadrons

In particle physics, the quark model is a classification scheme for hadrons in terms of their valence quarks—the quarks and antiquarks that give rise to the quantum numbers of the hadrons. The quark model underlies "flavor SU(3)", or the Eightfold Way, the successful classification scheme organizing the large number of lighter hadrons that were being discovered starting in the 1950s and continuing through the 1960s. It received experimental verification beginning in the late 1960s and is a valid effective classification of them to date. The model was independently proposed by physicists Murray Gell-Mann, who dubbed them "quarks" in a concise paper, and George Zweig, who suggested "aces" in a longer manuscript. André Petermann also touched upon the central ideas from 1963 to 1965, without as much quantitative substantiation. Today, the model has essentially been absorbed as a component of the established quantum field theory of strong and electroweak particle interactions, dubbed the Standard Model.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Spin-1/2</span> Type of matter

In quantum mechanics, spin is an intrinsic property of all elementary particles. All known fermions, the particles that constitute ordinary matter, have a spin of 1/2. The spin number describes how many symmetrical facets a particle has in one full rotation; a spin of 1/2 means that the particle must be rotated by two full turns before it has the same configuration as when it started.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LOCC</span> Method in quantum computation and communication

LOCC, or local operations and classical communication, is a method in quantum information theory where a local (product) operation is performed on part of the system, and where the result of that operation is "communicated" classically to another part where usually another local operation is performed conditioned on the information received.

Relational quantum mechanics (RQM) is an interpretation of quantum mechanics which treats the state of a quantum system as being observer-dependent, that is, the state is the relation between the observer and the system. This interpretation was first delineated by Carlo Rovelli in a 1994 preprint, and has since been expanded upon by a number of theorists. It is inspired by the key idea behind special relativity, that the details of an observation depend on the reference frame of the observer, and uses some ideas from Wheeler on quantum information.

Spin is an intrinsic form of angular momentum carried by elementary particles, and thus by composite particles such as hadrons, atomic nuclei, and atoms. Spin should not be conceptualized as involving the "rotation" of a particle's "internal mass", as ordinary use of the word may suggest: spin is a quantized property of waves.

In quantum physics, a quantum state is a mathematical entity that embodies the knowledge of a quantum system. Quantum mechanics specifies the construction, evolution, and measurement of a quantum state. The result is a quantum mechanical prediction for the system represented by the state. Knowledge of the quantum state and the quantum mechanical rules for the system's evolution in time, exhausts all that can be known about a quantum system.

References

↑ Ross, Robert (June 2020). "Computer simulation of Mermin's quantum device". American Journal of Physics. 88 (6): 483–489. Bibcode:2020AmJPh..88..483R. doi:10.1119/10.0000833. ISSN 0002-9505. S2CID 219514634.
↑ Stuckey, W. M.; Silberstein, Michael; McDevitt, Timothy; Le, T. D. (2020-09-25). "Answering Mermin's challenge with conservation per no preferred reference frame". Scientific Reports. 10 (1): 15771. Bibcode:2020NatSR..1015771S. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-72817-7. ISSN 2045-2322. PMC 7519099 . PMID 32978499.
↑ Mullin, William J. (2017). Quantum weirdness. Oxford, United Kingdom. ISBN 978-0-19-251434-9. OCLC 975487260.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
1 2 3 4 5 Mermin, N. D. (1981). "Bringing home the atomic world: Quantum mysteries for anybody". American Journal of Physics. 49 (10): 940–943. Bibcode:1981AmJPh..49..940M. doi:10.1119/1.12594. ISSN 0002-9505.
↑ Feynman, Richard P. (2008-08-01). Perfectly Reasonable Deviations from the Beaten Track: The Letters of Richard P. Feynman. Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-7867-2242-6.
↑ Mermin, N. David (1990-03-15). Boojums All the Way Through: Communicating Science in a Prosaic Age. Cambridge University Press. pp. xv. ISBN 978-0-521-38880-1.
↑ Mermin, N. David (July 1981). "Quantum Mysteries for Anyone". The Journal of Philosophy. 78 (7): 397–408. doi:10.2307/2026482. JSTOR 2026482.
↑ Mermin, N. David (1990-08-01). "Quantum mysteries revisited". American Journal of Physics. 58 (8): 731–734. Bibcode:1990AmJPh..58..731M. doi:10.1119/1.16503. ISSN 0002-9505.
↑ Hardy, Lucien (1993). "Nonlocality for two particles without inequalities for almost all entangled states". Physical Review Letters. 71 (11): 1665–1668. Bibcode:1993PhRvL..71.1665H. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.71.1665. PMID 10054467.
↑ Mermin, N. David (1994-10-01). "Quantum mysteries refined". American Journal of Physics. 62 (10): 880–887. Bibcode:1994AmJPh..62..880M. doi:10.1119/1.17733. ISSN 0002-9505.

Additional references

"David Mermin". The Information Philosopher. Retrieved 2023-03-22.
Greenstein, George; Zajonc, Arthur (2006). The Quantum Challenge: Modern Research on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Jones & Bartlett Learning. ISBN 978-0-7637-2470-2.
Blumel, Reinhold (2010). Foundations of Quantum Mechanics: From Photons to Quantum Computers. Jones & Bartlett Learning. ISBN 978-0-7637-7628-2.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[1] Ross, Robert (June 2020). "Computer simulation of Mermin's quantum device". American Journal of Physics. 88 (6): 483–489. Bibcode:2020AmJPh..88..483R. doi:10.1119/10.0000833. ISSN 0002-9505. S2CID 219514634.

[2] Stuckey, W. M.; Silberstein, Michael; McDevitt, Timothy; Le, T. D. (2020-09-25). "Answering Mermin's challenge with conservation per no preferred reference frame". Scientific Reports. 10 (1): 15771. Bibcode:2020NatSR..1015771S. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-72817-7. ISSN 2045-2322. PMC 7519099 . PMID 32978499.

[3] Mullin, William J. (2017). Quantum weirdness. Oxford, United Kingdom. ISBN 978-0-19-251434-9. OCLC 975487260.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

[:0-4] 1 2 3 4 5 Mermin, N. D. (1981). "Bringing home the atomic world: Quantum mysteries for anybody". American Journal of Physics. 49 (10): 940–943. Bibcode:1981AmJPh..49..940M. doi:10.1119/1.12594. ISSN 0002-9505.

[5] Feynman, Richard P. (2008-08-01). Perfectly Reasonable Deviations from the Beaten Track: The Letters of Richard P. Feynman. Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-7867-2242-6.

[6] Mermin, N. David (1990-03-15). Boojums All the Way Through: Communicating Science in a Prosaic Age. Cambridge University Press. pp. xv. ISBN 978-0-521-38880-1.

[7] Mermin, N. David (July 1981). "Quantum Mysteries for Anyone". The Journal of Philosophy. 78 (7): 397–408. doi:10.2307/2026482. JSTOR 2026482.

[8] Mermin, N. David (1990-08-01). "Quantum mysteries revisited". American Journal of Physics. 58 (8): 731–734. Bibcode:1990AmJPh..58..731M. doi:10.1119/1.16503. ISSN 0002-9505.

[9] Hardy, Lucien (1993). "Nonlocality for two particles without inequalities for almost all entangled states". Physical Review Letters. 71 (11): 1665–1668. Bibcode:1993PhRvL..71.1665H. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.71.1665. PMID 10054467.

[10] Mermin, N. David (1994-10-01). "Quantum mysteries refined". American Journal of Physics. 62 (10): 880–887. Bibcode:1994AmJPh..62..880M. doi:10.1119/1.17733. ISSN 0002-9505.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]