Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:quant-ph/0507011 · AIP conference proceedings

Realism in the Realized Popper’s Experiment

Geoffrey Hunter

Published Jan 1, 2002• 4 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The realization of Karl Popper’s EPR‐like experiment by Shih and Kim (published 1999) produced the result that Popper hoped for: no “action at a distance” on one photon of an entangled pair when a measurement is made on the other photon. This experimental result is interpretable in local realistic terms: each photon has a definite position and transverse momentum most of the time; the position measurement on one photon (localization within a slit) disturbs the transverse momentum of that photon in a non‐predictable way in accordance with the uncertainty principle; however, there is no effect on the other photon (the photon that is not in a slit) no action at a distance. The position measurement (localization within a slit) of the one photon destroys the coherence (entanglement) between the photons; i.e. decoherence occurs. This realistic (albeit retrodictive) interpretation of the Shih‐Kim realization of what Popper called his “crucial experiment” is in accord with Bohr’s original concept of the nature of the uncertainty principle, as being an inevitable effect of the disturbance of the measured system by the measuring apparatus. In this experiment the impact parameter of an incident photon with the centerline of the slit is an uncontrollable parameter of each individual photon scattering event; this impact parameter is variable for every incident photon, the variations being a statistical aspect of the beam of photons produced by the experimental arrangement. These experimental results are also in accord with the proposition of Einstein, Podolski and Rosen’s 1935 paper: that quantum mechanics provides only a statistical, physically incomplete, theory of microscopic physical processes, for the quantum mechanical description of the experiment does not describe or explain the individual photon scattering events that are actually observed; the angle by which an individual photon is scattered is not predictable, because the photon’s impact parameter with the centerline of the slit is not observable, and because the electromagnetic interaction between the photon and the matter forming the walls of the slit is not calculable.

DOI
10.1063/1.1524580

Related papers

Realism in the Realized Popper's Experiment

Geoffrey Hunter

The realization of Karl Popper's experiment by Shih and Kim (published 1999) produced the result that Popper hoped for: no ``action at a distance'' on one photon of an entangled pair when a measurement is made on the other photon. This experimental result is interpretable in local realistic terms: each photon has a definite position and transverse momentum most of the time; the position measurement on one photon (localization in a slit) disturbs the transverse momentum of that photon in a non-predictable way in accordance with the uncertainty principle; however, there is no effect on the other photon (the photon that is not in a slit) no action at a distance. The position measurement (localization within a slit) of the one photon destroys the coherence (entanglement) between the photons; i.e. decoherence occurs. This can be understood physically as an electromagnetic interaction between the photon in the slit and the electrons of the atoms in the surface of the solid that forms the slit.

arXiv:quant-ph/0507009•Jul 1, 2005•1 citation

Experimental realization of Popper's experiment

Y.-H. Kim, Yanhua H. Shih

Summary form only given. In early 1930's, Karl Popper, a metaphysical realist, proposed a thought experiment to support his realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics, which shared the same goal of the EPR gedankenexperiment. Based on the same EPR two-particle entangled state, Popper asked: if the precise position of particle 2 is known due to the precise measurement of the position for its entangled twin particle 1, does particle 2 experience a greater uncertainty in its momentum? This question has been ignored for many years. One may not like Popper's philosophy of quantum mechanics; however, his question is closely related to an important problem in recent hot applications: what one can predict for the remaining parts of an entangled state if one of the subsystems is measured alone? We have realized Popper's experiment with the use of entangled two-photon source of spontaneous parametric down conversion. We conclude from this experiment: in an entangled two-particle system, the precise knowledge of the position of a particle, which is determined by the two-particle entanglement, does not necessarily produce an uncertainty in its momentum.

Quantum Electronics and Laser Science Conference•Jan 20, 2003•0 citations

Experimental Realization of Popper’s Experiment: Violation of Uncertainty Principle?

Yoon-Ho Kim, Rong Yu, Yanhua H. Shih

An entangled pair of photon 1 and 2 are emitted in opposite directions along the positive and negative x -axis. A narrow slit is placed in the path of photon 1 which provides precise knowledge about its position along the y -axis and because of the quantum entanglement this in turn provides precise knowledge of the position y of its twin, photon 2. Does photon 2 experience a greater uncertainty in its momentum, i.e., a greater Δ p y , due to the precise knowledge of its position y ? This is the historical thought experiment of Sir Karl Popper which was aimed to undermine the Copenhagen interpretation in favor of a realistic viewpoint of quantum mechanics. Thispaper reports an experimental realization of the Popper’s experiment. One may not agree with Popper’s position on quantum mechanics; however, it calls for a correct understanding and interpretation of the experimental results. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Kluwer Academic Publishers eBooks•Dec 19, 2005•3 citations

Experimental investigation of Popper’s proposed ghost-diffraction experiment

Eliot Bolduc, Ebrahim Karimi, Kevin Piché +2 more

Abstract In an effort to challenge the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, Karl Popper proposed an experiment involving spatially separated entangled particles. In this experiment, one of the particles passes through a very narrow slit, and thereby its position becomes well-defined. This particle therefore diffracts into a large divergence angle; this effect can be understood as a consequence of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Popper further argued that its entangled partner would become comparably localized in position, and that, according to his understanding of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the ‘mere knowledge’ of the position of this particle would cause it also to diffract into a large divergence angle. Popper recognized that such behavior could violate the principle of causality in that the slit could be removed and the partner particle would be expected to respond instantaneously. Popper thus concluded that it was most likely the case that, in an actual experiment, the partner photon would not undergo increased diffractive spreading and thus that the Copenhagen interpretation is incorrect. Here, we report and analyze the results of an implementation of Popper’s proposal. We find that the partner beam does not undergo increased diffractive spreading. Our work helps to clarify the issues raised in Popper’s proposal, and it provides further insight into the nature of entanglement and its relation to the uncertainty principle as applied to correlated particles.

arXiv:1612.06826•Journal of Optics•Jul 26, 2017•4 citations

Local reality and the Einstein–Bohr debate

Ta-Pei Cheng

According to the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics (Bohr being its leading voice), the attributes of a physical object (position, momentum, spin, etc.) can be assigned only when they have been measured. Einstein advocated the local realist viewpoint that an object had definite attributes whether they had been measured or not. The Copenhagen school view that measurement actually produces an object’s property would imply that the measurement of one part of an entangled quantum state can instantaneously fix the value of another part, no matter how far the two parts have been separated. Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen devised a thought experiment to shine a light on this “spooky action-at-a-distance” feature; its discussion and debate have illuminated the meaning of quantum mechanics (QM). It led later to Bell’s theorem showing that these seemingly philosophical questions can lead to observable results. The experimental vindication of the orthodox theory has sharpened our appreciation of the nonlocal features of quantum mechanics. Nevertheless, the counter-intuitive QM picture of objective reality still troubles many, leaving one to wonder whether quantum mechanics is ultimately a complete theory.

Oxford University Press eBooks•Jan 31, 2013•0 citations

EPR Paradox, Locality and Completeness of Quantum Theory

Marian Kupczyński, Guillaume Adenier, Andrei Yu. Khrennikov +3 more

The quantum theory (QT) and new stochastic approaches have no deterministic prediction for a single measurement or for a single time‐series of events observed for a trapped ion, electron or any other individual physical system. The predictions of QT being of probabilistic character apply to the statistical distribution of the results obtained in various experiments. The Copenhagen interpretation (CI) of QT acknowledged the abstract and statistical character of the predictions of QT but at the same time claimed that a state vector Ψ provided complete description of each individual physical system. The assigning the state vector to an individual physical system together with a postulate of its instantaneous reduction in the measurements was shown by Einstein Podolski and Rosen to lead to so called EPR paradox for the experiments with the entangled pairs of the particles. EPR concluded that a state vector could not provide a complete description of the individual systems and the question arose whether the probabilistic predictions of QT could be derived from some more fundamental spatio‐temporal deterministic description of the invisible sub‐phenomena by introduction of supplementary parameters. The experimental violation of the Bell inequalities in the spin polarization correlation experiments (SPCE) which were the implementations of Bohm and EPR gedanken experiments eliminated so called local and realistic models of the sub‐phenomena. Quite often the violation of these inequalities has been incorrectly interpreted as a proof of the completeness of QT or as the violation of the locality and causality in the micro‐world. The local and realistic models overlooked the fact that an experimental outcome is only the information about a particular system‐system or system‐instrument interaction. Namely the quantum phenomena are described in terms of the probabilities. It is well known that the probability distribution is not an attribute of a dice but it is a characteristic of a whole random experiment: “rolling a dice”. In this paper we will underline: that the quantum probabilities do not describe the lack of knowledge about the physical systems but the lack of knowledge about the experiments and therefore they are “contextual” and that the statistical long range correlations between two random variables X and Y are not a proof of any causal relation between these variables. Moreover any probabilistic model used to described a random experiment is consistent only with a specific protocol telling how the random experiment has to be performed. The probabilistic model used to prove Bell inequalities implied a protocol completely inappropriate and impossible to implement for SPCE . We conclude that the meaningful question about the predictable completeness of QT is still open and it should be answered by a careful and unconventional analysis of the experimental data. The correct understanding of statistical and contextual character of QT is essential for the research in the domain of quantum information and quantum computing.

arXiv:0710.3510•AIP conference proceedings•Jan 1, 2007•20 citations
The realization of Karl Popper’s EPR‐like experiment by Shih and Kim (published 1999) produced the result that Popper hoped for: no “action at a distance” on one photon of an entangled pair when a measurement is made on the other photon. This experimental result is interpretable in local realistic terms: each photon has a definite position and transverse momentum most of the time; the position measurement on one photon (localization within a slit) disturbs the transverse momentum of that photon in a non‐predictable way in accordance with the uncertainty principle; however, there is no effect on the other photon (the photon that is not in a slit) no action at a distance. The position measurement (localization within a slit) of the one photon destroys the coherence (entanglement) between the photons; i.e. decoherence occurs. This realistic (albeit retrodictive) interpretation of the Shih‐Kim realization of what Popper called his “crucial experiment” is in accord with Bohr’s original concept of the nature of the uncertainty principle, as being an inevitable effect of the disturbance of the measured system by the measuring apparatus. In this experiment the impact parameter of an incident photon with the centerline of the slit is an uncontrollable parameter of each individual photon scattering event; this impact parameter is variable for every incident photon, the variations being a statistical aspect of the beam of photons produced by the experimental arrangement. These experimental results are also in accord with the proposition of Einstein, Podolski and Rosen’s 1935 paper: that quantum mechanics provides only a statistical, physically incomplete, theory of microscopic physical processes, for the quantum mechanical description of the experiment does not describe or explain the individual photon scattering events that are actually observed; the angle by which an individual photon is scattered is not predictable, because the photon’s impact parameter with the centerline of the slit is not observable, and because the electromagnetic interaction between the photon and the matter forming the walls of the slit is not calculable.
The realization of Karl Popper's experiment by Shih and Kim (published 1999) produced the result that Popper hoped for: no ``action at a distance'' on one photon of an entangled pair when a measurement is made on the other photon. This experimental result is interpretable in local realistic terms: each photon has a definite position and transverse momentum most of the time; the position measurement on one photon (localization in a slit) disturbs the transverse momentum of that photon in a non-predictable way in accordance with the uncertainty principle; however, there is no effect on the other photon (the photon that is not in a slit) no action at a distance. The position measurement (localization within a slit) of the one photon destroys the coherence (entanglement) between the photons; i.e. decoherence occurs. This can be understood physically as an electromagnetic interaction between the photon in the slit and the electrons of the atoms in the surface of the solid that forms the slit.
Summary form only given. In early 1930's, Karl Popper, a metaphysical realist, proposed a thought experiment to support his realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics, which shared the same goal of the EPR gedankenexperiment. Based on the same EPR two-particle entangled state, Popper asked: if the precise position of particle 2 is known due to the precise measurement of the position for its entangled twin particle 1, does particle 2 experience a greater uncertainty in its momentum? This question has been ignored for many years. One may not like Popper's philosophy of quantum mechanics; however, his question is closely related to an important problem in recent hot applications: what one can predict for the remaining parts of an entangled state if one of the subsystems is measured alone? We have realized Popper's experiment with the use of entangled two-photon source of spontaneous parametric down conversion. We conclude from this experiment: in an entangled two-particle system, the precise knowledge of the position of a particle, which is determined by the two-particle entanglement, does not necessarily produce an uncertainty in its momentum.
An entangled pair of photon 1 and 2 are emitted in opposite directions along the positive and negative x -axis. A narrow slit is placed in the path of photon 1 which provides precise knowledge about its position along the y -axis and because of the quantum entanglement this in turn provides precise knowledge of the position y of its twin, photon 2. Does photon 2 experience a greater uncertainty in its momentum, i.e., a greater Δ p y , due to the precise knowledge of its position y ? This is the historical thought experiment of Sir Karl Popper which was aimed to undermine the Copenhagen interpretation in favor of a realistic viewpoint of quantum mechanics. Thispaper reports an experimental realization of the Popper’s experiment. One may not agree with Popper’s position on quantum mechanics; however, it calls for a correct understanding and interpretation of the experimental results. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Abstract In an effort to challenge the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, Karl Popper proposed an experiment involving spatially separated entangled particles. In this experiment, one of the particles passes through a very narrow slit, and thereby its position becomes well-defined. This particle therefore diffracts into a large divergence angle; this effect can be understood as a consequence of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Popper further argued that its entangled partner would become comparably localized in position, and that, according to his understanding of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the ‘mere knowledge’ of the position of this particle would cause it also to diffract into a large divergence angle. Popper recognized that such behavior could violate the principle of causality in that the slit could be removed and the partner particle would be expected to respond instantaneously. Popper thus concluded that it was most likely the case that, in an actual experiment, the partner photon would not undergo increased diffractive spreading and thus that the Copenhagen interpretation is incorrect. Here, we report and analyze the results of an implementation of Popper’s proposal. We find that the partner beam does not undergo increased diffractive spreading. Our work helps to clarify the issues raised in Popper’s proposal, and it provides further insight into the nature of entanglement and its relation to the uncertainty principle as applied to correlated particles.
According to the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics (Bohr being its leading voice), the attributes of a physical object (position, momentum, spin, etc.) can be assigned only when they have been measured. Einstein advocated the local realist viewpoint that an object had definite attributes whether they had been measured or not. The Copenhagen school view that measurement actually produces an object’s property would imply that the measurement of one part of an entangled quantum state can instantaneously fix the value of another part, no matter how far the two parts have been separated. Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen devised a thought experiment to shine a light on this “spooky action-at-a-distance” feature; its discussion and debate have illuminated the meaning of quantum mechanics (QM). It led later to Bell’s theorem showing that these seemingly philosophical questions can lead to observable results. The experimental vindication of the orthodox theory has sharpened our appreciation of the nonlocal features of quantum mechanics. Nevertheless, the counter-intuitive QM picture of objective reality still troubles many, leaving one to wonder whether quantum mechanics is ultimately a complete theory.
The quantum theory (QT) and new stochastic approaches have no deterministic prediction for a single measurement or for a single time‐series of events observed for a trapped ion, electron or any other individual physical system. The predictions of QT being of probabilistic character apply to the statistical distribution of the results obtained in various experiments. The Copenhagen interpretation (CI) of QT acknowledged the abstract and statistical character of the predictions of QT but at the same time claimed that a state vector Ψ provided complete description of each individual physical system. The assigning the state vector to an individual physical system together with a postulate of its instantaneous reduction in the measurements was shown by Einstein Podolski and Rosen to lead to so called EPR paradox for the experiments with the entangled pairs of the particles. EPR concluded that a state vector could not provide a complete description of the individual systems and the question arose whether the probabilistic predictions of QT could be derived from some more fundamental spatio‐temporal deterministic description of the invisible sub‐phenomena by introduction of supplementary parameters. The experimental violation of the Bell inequalities in the spin polarization correlation experiments (SPCE) which were the implementations of Bohm and EPR gedanken experiments eliminated so called local and realistic models of the sub‐phenomena. Quite often the violation of these inequalities has been incorrectly interpreted as a proof of the completeness of QT or as the violation of the locality and causality in the micro‐world. The local and realistic models overlooked the fact that an experimental outcome is only the information about a particular system‐system or system‐instrument interaction. Namely the quantum phenomena are described in terms of the probabilities. It is well known that the probability distribution is not an attribute of a dice but it is a characteristic of a whole random experiment: “rolling a dice”. In this paper we will underline: that the quantum probabilities do not describe the lack of knowledge about the physical systems but the lack of knowledge about the experiments and therefore they are “contextual” and that the statistical long range correlations between two random variables X and Y are not a proof of any causal relation between these variables. Moreover any probabilistic model used to described a random experiment is consistent only with a specific protocol telling how the random experiment has to be performed. The probabilistic model used to prove Bell inequalities implied a protocol completely inappropriate and impossible to implement for SPCE . We conclude that the meaningful question about the predictable completeness of QT is still open and it should be answered by a careful and unconventional analysis of the experimental data. The correct understanding of statistical and contextual character of QT is essential for the research in the domain of quantum information and quantum computing.