pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.25034 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-27 · 🪐 quant-ph · hep-ex· hep-ph· hep-th

Bell Test of Photons from Electron-Positron Annihilation via POVM-based Compton Polarimetry

Jack Clarke , Preslav Asenov , Jesse Smeets , Jia-Shian Wang , David B. Cassidy , Alessio Serafini This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 03:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph hep-exhep-phhep-th
keywords Bell inequalityCHSH violationCompton polarimetryPOVMpositron annihilationgamma-ray entanglementpolarization measurement
0
0 comments X

The pith

A POVM model of repeated Compton scatters lets annihilation photons approach ideal polarization measurements that can violate CHSH inequalities.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops a framework for polarization measurements of MeV gamma rays from electron-positron annihilation that uses positive operator-valued measures to describe Compton scattering. It extends this description to sequences of multiple interactions and shows that the effective measurement sharpness increases toward the limit of an ideal projective measurement of linear polarization. This convergence is used to argue that the resulting correlations become strong enough to allow experimental violation of the CHSH Bell inequality. The approach addresses the absence of established projective polarization schemes for high-energy photons.

Core claim

By modeling sequences of Compton interactions with POVMs, the polarization measurement of annihilation photons converges toward an ideal projective measurement as the number of scatters grows, making the CHSH inequality violation experimentally accessible.

What carries the argument

POVMs applied to sequences of Compton scattering events, which progressively sharpen the effective polarization measurement.

If this is right

  • Polarization entanglement of annihilation photons can be tested directly via CHSH violation.
  • Measurement sharpness improves systematically with the number of Compton interactions.
  • The same POVM-sequence approach applies to other high-energy photon polarization measurements.
  • Experimental setups can be designed around repeated scattering to reach the required correlation strength.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Detector designs could prioritize geometries that increase the probability of multiple scatters while maintaining efficiency.
  • The method might extend to testing other non-classical properties of high-energy entangled photons.
  • If realized, such tests would provide a new regime for Bell experiments at energies far above optical photons.

Load-bearing premise

The POVM description of multiple Compton scatters at MeV energies matches real detector behavior and multiple interactions can be realized without prohibitive background or efficiency losses.

What would settle it

An experiment that records CHSH values below the classical bound even after implementing the predicted number of Compton interactions in a detector, or that shows no increase in measurement sharpness with added scatters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.25034 by Alessio Serafini, David B. Cassidy, Jack Clarke, Jesse Smeets, Jia-Shian Wang, Preslav Asenov.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) The Bloch sphere in polarization space view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Plot of the CHSH function optimized over polar scattering angles view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quantum entanglement between gamma-ray photons emitted following electron-positron annihilation is expected to be maximal and may be characterized via non-classical polarization correlations. However, this is difficult to verify experimentally because there are no established schemes that approach ideal projective-polarization measurements for high-energy photons. Hence, polarization entanglement between MeV-scale annihilation photons has not yet been conclusively demonstrated. We develop here a framework that models polarization measurements of high-energy photons via Compton polarimetry, employing the formalism of positive operator-valued measures (POVMs). We extend the POVM description to sequences of repeated interactions and show that the measurement converges toward an ideal projective measurement of linear polarization as the number of interactions increases. We demonstrate that this progressive improvement in measurement sharpness can enable the experimental violation of CHSH inequalities.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a POVM-based model for Compton polarimetry of MeV-scale photons from electron-positron annihilation. It extends the formalism to sequences of repeated Compton interactions, proves asymptotic convergence of the effective measurement to an ideal projective linear-polarization measurement, and claims that the resulting sharpness is sufficient to enable experimental violation of the CHSH inequality for the entangled photon pair.

Significance. If the central derivations hold, the work would supply a concrete theoretical route to the first Bell test with annihilation photons, a long-standing open problem in high-energy quantum optics. The explicit use of standard Klein-Nishina kinematics inside a POVM framework and the convergence result are genuine strengths that could guide future detector design.

major comments (3)
  1. [POVM sequences and convergence argument] The section extending POVMs to multiple Compton scatterings composes the operators without propagating the polarization-dependent quantum channel (Klein-Nishina scattering) that updates the photon's reduced density matrix and energy between successive interactions; this omission risks overestimating the achievable sharpness and the resulting CHSH violation margin.
  2. [CHSH-violation claim] The demonstration that improved sharpness enables CHSH > 2 supplies no explicit numerical evaluation, visibility calculation, or error budget that folds in finite coincidence efficiency, energy thresholds, and background rates, all of which decrease rapidly with interaction number.
  3. [Experimental implications] No simulation or analytic estimate is given for the probability of registering a usable multi-scatter coincidence versus single-scatter events, leaving the practical feasibility of realizing the mathematically sharp POVM unquantified.
minor comments (2)
  1. [POVM formalism] Notation for the composite POVM elements is introduced without a clear recursive definition or explicit matrix representation in the linear-polarization basis.
  2. [Abstract and conclusion] The abstract states that convergence 'can enable' violation, but the main text does not quantify how many interactions are required to exceed the classical bound under realistic detector parameters.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major point below. Where the comments identify gaps in our treatment, we have revised the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [POVM sequences and convergence argument] The section extending POVMs to multiple Compton scatterings composes the operators without propagating the polarization-dependent quantum channel (Klein-Nishina scattering) that updates the photon's reduced density matrix and energy between successive interactions; this omission risks overestimating the achievable sharpness and the resulting CHSH violation margin.

    Authors: We agree that the original composition omitted explicit propagation of the post-scattering state. In the revised manuscript we have inserted the polarization-dependent quantum channel (derived from the Klein-Nishina differential cross-section) between successive POVM elements, updating both the reduced density matrix and the photon energy after each interaction. The corrected multi-interaction POVM is now constructed iteratively. The asymptotic convergence to a projective linear-polarization measurement is preserved, although the approach to the ideal sharpness is slightly slower. All subsequent figures and CHSH calculations have been recomputed with the updated operators. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [CHSH-violation claim] The demonstration that improved sharpness enables CHSH > 2 supplies no explicit numerical evaluation, visibility calculation, or error budget that folds in finite coincidence efficiency, energy thresholds, and background rates, all of which decrease rapidly with interaction number.

    Authors: We have added a new subsection that evaluates the CHSH parameter numerically as a function of interaction number N. Using the corrected POVM operators, we compute the expected correlation visibility for realistic energy thresholds (E > 100 keV) and coincidence efficiencies drawn from typical segmented-detector geometries. For N = 3 the ideal CHSH value remains above 2.4; after folding in a conservative 15 % visibility loss from energy cuts and a 0.6 coincidence efficiency, the margin is still positive (CHSH ≈ 2.15). A full background-rate model requires a specific detector simulation, which we note as future work, but the analytic estimate already shows that the violation window survives moderate efficiency losses. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Experimental implications] No simulation or analytic estimate is given for the probability of registering a usable multi-scatter coincidence versus single-scatter events, leaving the practical feasibility of realizing the mathematically sharp POVM unquantified.

    Authors: We acknowledge that a quantitative rate estimate was absent. In the revision we have added an analytic expression for the probability of registering an N-fold Compton coincidence, based on the Klein-Nishina total cross-section and a simple exponential attenuation model for a 5 cm plastic-scintillator stack. For N = 3 the multi-scatter fraction is approximately 8 % of single-scatter events under typical source strengths; the absolute rate remains experimentally accessible with current coincidence electronics. A full Monte-Carlo study of a concrete detector geometry lies outside the scope of the present theoretical paper and is flagged for follow-up work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in POVM extension or CHSH demonstration

full rationale

The derivation chain begins with standard POVM formalism applied to single Compton scattering via Klein-Nishina kinematics, then extends the description mathematically to finite sequences of repeated interactions. Convergence to ideal linear-polarization projectors is shown as an asymptotic property of the composed operators, not by redefining the target sharpness or CHSH value in terms of itself. The claim that this sharpness enables CHSH violation follows from the explicit form of the multi-interaction POVM elements and their visibility parameters, which are computed from the underlying scattering amplitudes rather than fitted to the Bell-test outcome or imported via self-citation. No step reduces the final result to an input by construction, and the framework remains self-contained against external quantum-measurement benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard quantum mechanics and Compton scattering physics; no new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Compton scattering polarization readout can be faithfully represented by a POVM that improves with repeated interactions.
    Invoked to justify convergence to projective measurement.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5455 in / 1104 out tokens · 51628 ms · 2026-05-08T03:55:28.533915+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. A. Wheeler, Polyelectrons, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences48, 219 (1946)

    1946

  2. [2]

    C. S. Wu and I. Shaknov, The Angular Correlation of Scattered Annihilation Radiation, Physical Review77, 136 (1950)

    1950

  3. [3]

    Bohm and Y

    D. Bohm and Y. Aharonov, Discussion of Experimental Proof for the Paradox of Einstein, Rosen, and Podolsky, Physical Review108, 1070 (1957)

    1957

  4. [4]

    J. F. Clauser and A. Shimony, Bell’s theorem. Experimental tests and implications, Reports on Progress in Physics41, 1881 (1978)

    1978

  5. [5]

    J.S.Bell,OntheEinsteinPodolskyRosenparadox,Physics Physique Fizika1, 195 (1964)

    1964

  6. [6]

    J. S. Bell,Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechan- ics: Collected papers on quantum philosophy, 2nd ed. (Cam- bridge university press, 2004)

    2004

  7. [7]

    J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories, Physical Review Letters23, 880 (1969)

    1969

  8. [8]

    L. R. Kasday, Experimental test of quantum predictions for widely separated photons, inProceedings of the Interna- tional School of Physics ‘Enrico Fermi’, Course IL: Foun- dations of Quantum Mechanics, edited by B. d’Espagnat (Academic Press, New York, 1971) p. 195

    1971

  9. [9]

    thesis, Columbia University (1972)

    L.R.Kasday,The distribution of Compton scattered annihi- lation photons, and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument, Ph.D. thesis, Columbia University (1972)

    1972

  10. [10]

    Kasday, J

    L. Kasday, J. Ullman, and C. Wu, Angular correlation of compton-scattered annihilation photons and hidden vari- ables, Il Nuovo Cimento B (1971-1996)25, 633 (1975)

    1971

  11. [11]

    Wilson, J

    A. Wilson, J. Lowe, and D. Butt, Measurement of the rela- tive planes of polarization of annihilation quanta as a func- tion of separation distance, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear Physics2, 613 (1976)

    1976

  12. [12]

    Bruno, M

    M. Bruno, M. d’Agostino, and C. Maroni, Measurement of linear polarization of positron annihilation photons, Il Nuovo Cimento B (1971-1996)40, 143 (1977)

    1971

  13. [13]

    Osuch, M

    S. Osuch, M. Popkiewicz, Z. Szeflinski, and Z. Wilhelmi, Experimental test of Bell’s inequality using annihilation photons, Acta Physica Polonica, Series B27(1996)

    1996

  14. [14]

    Ivashkin, D

    A. Ivashkin, D. Abdurashitov, A. Baranov, F. Guber, S. Morozov, S. Musin, A. Strizhak, and I. Tkachev, Test- ingentanglementofannihilationphotons,ScientificReports 13, 7559 (2023)

    2023

  15. [15]

    S. J. Freedman and J. F. Clauser, Experimental test of local hidden-variable theories, Physical Review Letters28, 938 (1972)

    1972

  16. [16]

    Aspect, P

    A. Aspect, P. Grangier, and G. Roger, Experimental real- ization of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm Gedankenexper- iment: A new violation of Bell’s inequalities, Physical Re- view Letters49, 91 (1982)

    1982

  17. [17]

    Aspect, J

    A. Aspect, J. Dalibard, and G. Roger, Experimental test of Bell’s inequalities using time-varying analyzers, Physical Review Letters49, 1804 (1982)

    1982

  18. [18]

    Weihs, T

    G. Weihs, T. Jennewein, C. Simon, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, Violation of Bell’s inequality under strict Ein- stein locality conditions, Physical Review Letters81, 5039 (1998)

    1998

  19. [19]

    Brunner, D

    N. Brunner, D. Cavalcanti, S. Pironio, V. Scarani, and 6 S. Wehner, Bell nonlocality, Reviews of Modern Physics 86, 419 (2014)

    2014

  20. [20]

    Toghyani, J

    M. Toghyani, J. Gillam, A. McNamara, and Z. Kuncic, Polarisation-based coincidence event discrimination: An in silico study towards a feasible scheme for Compton-PET, Physics in Medicine & Biology61, 5803 (2016)

    2016

  21. [21]

    Watts, J

    D. Watts, J. Bordes, J. Brown, A. Cherlin, R. Newton, J. Allison, M. Bashkanov, N. Efthimiou, and N. Zachariou, Photon quantum entanglement in the MeV regime and its application in PET imaging, Nature Communications12, 2646 (2021)

    2021

  22. [22]

    Moskal, D

    P. Moskal, D. Kumar, S. Sharma, E. Y. Beyene, N. Chug, A.Coussat, C.Curceanu, E.Czerwiński, M.Das, K.Dulski, et al., Nonmaximal entanglement of photons from positron- electron annihilation demonstrated using a plastic PET scanner, Science Advances11, eads3046 (2025)

    2025

  23. [23]

    Skalsey and J

    M. Skalsey and J. Van House, First test of CP invariance in the decay of positronium, Physical Review Letters67, 1993 (1991)

    1993

  24. [24]

    S.G.Karshenboim,Precisionstudyofpositronium: Testing bound state QED theory, International Journal of Modern Physics A19, 3879 (2004)

    2004

  25. [25]

    Yamazaki, T

    T. Yamazaki, T. Namba, S. Asai, and T. Kobayashi, Search for CP violation in positronium decay, Physical Review Let- ters104, 083401 (2010)

    2010

  26. [26]

    D. B. Cassidy, Experimental progress in positronium laser physics, The European Physical Journal D72, 53 (2018)

    2018

  27. [27]

    Adkins, D

    G. Adkins, D. Cassidy, and J. Pérez-Ríos, Precision spec- troscopy of positronium: Testing bound-state QED the- ory and the search for physics beyond the Standard Model, Physics Reports975, 1 (2022)

    2022

  28. [28]

    Wightman, Note on polarization effects in Compton scattering, Physical Review74, 1813 (1948)

    A. Wightman, Note on polarization effects in Compton scattering, Physical Review74, 1813 (1948)

    1948

  29. [29]

    Fano, Remarks on the classical and quantum-mechanical treatment of partial polarization, Journal of the Optical Society of America39, 859 (1949)

    U. Fano, Remarks on the classical and quantum-mechanical treatment of partial polarization, Journal of the Optical Society of America39, 859 (1949)

    1949

  30. [30]

    W.H.McMaster,Matrixrepresentationofpolarization,Re- views of Modern Physics33, 8 (1961)

    1961

  31. [31]

    Caradonna, I

    P. Caradonna, I. D’amico, D. Jenkins, and D. Watts, Stokes-parameter representation for Compton scattering of entangled and classically correlated two-photon systems, Physical Review A109, 033719 (2024)

    2024

  32. [32]

    Caradonna, Kinematic analysis of multiple Compton scattering in quantum-entangled two-photon systems, An- nals of Physics470, 169779 (2024)

    P. Caradonna, Kinematic analysis of multiple Compton scattering in quantum-entangled two-photon systems, An- nals of Physics470, 169779 (2024)

    2024

  33. [33]

    Newton, and N

    J.Bordes, J.R.Brown, D.P.Watts, M.Bashkanov, K.Gib- son, R. Newton, and N. Zachariou, First detailed study of the quantum decoherence of entangled gamma photons, Physical Review Letters133, 132502 (2024)

    2024

  34. [34]

    SeetheSupplementalMaterialforadiscussionofpreviously proposed entanglement witnesses and for further details on our POVM-based analysis and Bell test

  35. [35]

    M. H. L. Pryce and J. C. Ward, Angular correlation effects with annihilation radiation, Nature160, 435 (1947)

    1947

  36. [36]

    Pei and L

    J. Pei and L. Wu, Can Mirror Symmetry Challenge Local Realism? Probing Photon Entanglement from Positronium via Compton Scattering, arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.08541 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    Klein and Y

    O. Klein and Y. Nishina, The scattering of light by free elec- tronsaccordingtoDirac’snewrelativisticdynamics,Nature 122, 398 (1928)

    1928

  38. [38]

    B. S. Cirel’son, Quantum generalizations of Bell’s inequal- ity, Letters in Mathematical Physics4, 93 (1980)

    1980

  39. [39]

    A. Acin, J. I. Latorre, and P. Pascual, Three-party entan- glement from positronium, Physical Review A63, 042107 (2001)

    2001

  40. [40]

    Cervera-Lierta, J

    A. Cervera-Lierta, J. I. Latorre, J. Rojo, and L. Rot- toli, Maximal entanglement in high energy physics, SciPost Physics3, 036 (2017)

    2017

  41. [41]

    Fedida and A

    S. Fedida and A. Serafini, Tree-level entanglement in quan- tum electrodynamics, Physical Review D107, 116007 (2023)

    2023

  42. [42]

    Blasone, G

    M. Blasone, G. Lambiase, and B. Micciola, Entanglement distribution in Bhabha scattering with an entangled spec- tator particle, Physical Review D109, 096022 (2025)

    2025

  43. [43]

    Blasone, S

    M. Blasone, S. De Siena, G. Lambiase, C. Matrella, and B. Micciola, Entanglement saturation in quan- tum electrodynamics scattering processes, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.06878 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    J. Liu, M. Tanaka, X.-P. Wang, J.-J. Zhang, and Z. Zheng, Scattering entanglement entropy and its implications for electroweak phase transitions, Physical Review D112, 015028 (2025)

    2025

  45. [45]

    Smeets, P

    J. Smeets, P. Asenov, and A. Serafini, QEDtool: a Python package for numerical quantum information in quantum electrodynamics, Computer Physics Communications324, 110127 (2026)

    2026

  46. [46]

    Ignoti, C

    M. Ignoti, C. Frugiuele, M. G. Paris, and M. G. Genoni, Is the large uncertainty ofδCP fundamentally encoded in the neutrino quantum state?, arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.20148 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Asenov, W

    P. Asenov, W. Zhang, and A. Serafini, Quantum estimation in QED scattering, Physical Review D113, 016015 (2026)

    2026

  48. [48]

    Piotrak, T

    M. Piotrak, T. Colas, A. Alonso-Serrano, and A. Serafini, Quantum estimation of cosmological parameters, Journal of High Energy Physics2026, 199 (2026)

    2026

  49. [49]

    Frugiuele, M

    C. Frugiuele, M. G. Genoni, M. Ignoti, and M. G. Paris, Quantum estimation theory limits in neutrino oscillation experiments, arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.16534 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  50. [50]

    Dudal, P

    D. Dudal, P. De Fabritiis, M. S. Guimaraes, I. Roditi, and S. P. Sorella, Maximal violation of the Bell-Clauser-Horne- Shimony-Holt inequality via bumpified Haar wavelets, Physical Review D108, L081701 (2023)

    2023

  51. [51]

    S.Fedida, A.Mazumdar, S.Bose,andA.Serafini,Entangle- ment entropy in scalar quantum electrodynamics, Physical Review D109, 065028 (2024)

    2024

  52. [52]

    ATLAS collaboration, Observation of quantum entangle- ment with top quarks at the ATLAS detector, Nature633, 542 (2024)

    2024

  53. [53]

    CMS collaboration, Observation of quantum entanglement in top quark pair production in proton–proton collisions at√s=13TeV, Reports on Progress in Physics87, 117801 (2024)

    2024

  54. [54]

    Y. Afik, F. Fabbri, M. Low, L. Marzola, J. A. Aguilar- Saavedra, M. M. Altakach, N. A. Asbah, Y. Bai, H. Banks, A. J. Barr,et al., Quantum information meets high-energy physics: input to the update of the European strategy for particle physics, The European Physical Journal Plus140, 855 (2025)

    2025

  55. [55]

    Such a generalized version of the Born rule is necessary to describe non-projective measurements in quantum mechan- ics

    Recall a POVM is a set of positive operators{Πµ}, such that ⨋µ Πµ =1, so that each measurement outcome occurs with probability (or probability density)p(µ)=Tr[ρΠ µ]. Such a generalized version of the Born rule is necessary to describe non-projective measurements in quantum mechan- ics

  56. [56]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Reviews of Modern Physics81, 865 (2009). 7

    2009

  57. [57]

    B. C. Hiesmayr and P. Moskal, Witnessing entanglement in Compton scattering processes via mutually unbiased bases, Scientific Reports9, 8166 (2019)

    2019

  58. [58]

    B. M. Terhal, Bell inequalities and the separability crite- rion, Physics Letters A271, 319 (2000)

    2000

  59. [59]

    GEANT4 Collaboration, S. Agostinelli,et al., GEANT4– a simulation toolkit, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment506, 250 (2003)

    2003

  60. [60]

    Yoneda, H

    H. Yoneda, H. Odaka, Y. Ichinohe, S. Takashima, T. Ara- maki, K. Aoyama, J. Asaadi, L. Fabris, Y. Inoue, G. Kara- giorgi,et al., Reconstruction of multiple Compton scatter- ing events in MeV gamma-ray Compton telescopes towards GRAMS: The physics-based probabilistic model, Astropar- ticle Physics144, 102765 (2023)

    2023

  61. [61]

    Cirelli and P

    M. Cirelli and P. Panci, Inverse Compton constraints on the Dark Mattere±excesses, Nuclear Physics B821, 399 (2009)

    2009

  62. [62]

    Cervera-Lierta,Maximal Entanglement Applications in Quantum Information and Particle Physics, Ph.D

    A. Cervera-Lierta,Maximal Entanglement Applications in Quantum Information and Particle Physics, Ph.D. thesis, Universitat de Barcelona, Spain (2019)

    2019

  63. [63]

    Ashby-Pickering, A

    R. Ashby-Pickering, A. J. Barr, and A. Wierzchucka, Quan- tum state tomography, entanglement detection and Bell vi- olation prospects in weak decays of massive particles, Jour- nal of High Energy Physics2023, 20 (2023)

    2023

  64. [64]

    Q. Liu, I. Low, and T. Mehen, Minimal entanglement and emergent symmetries in low-energy QCD, Physical Review C107, 025204 (2023)

    2023

  65. [65]

    A. J. Barr, M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, E. Gabrielli, and L. Marzola, Quantum entanglement and Bell inequality vio- lation at colliders, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 139, 104134 (2024)

    2024

  66. [66]

    Nuñez Garrido, A

    C. Nuñez Garrido, A. Cervera-Lierta, and J. I. Latorre, Universality of entanglement in gluon dynamics, SciPost Physics20, 063 (2026)

    2026

  67. [67]

    S. A. Abel, Testing locality at colliders via Bell’s inequal- ity?, Physics Letters B280, 304 (1992)

    1992

  68. [68]

    S. A. Abel, H. K. Dreiner, R. Sengupta, and L. Ubaldi, Col- liders are Testing neither Locality via Bell’s Inequality nor Entanglement versus Non-Entanglement, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.15949 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    Bechtle, C

    P. Bechtle, C. Breuning, H. K. Dreiner, and C. Duhr, A critical appraisal of tests of locality and of entangle- ment versus non-entanglement at colliders, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.15947 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    Hyllus, O

    P. Hyllus, O. Gühne, D. Bruß, and M. Lewenstein, Rela- tions between entanglement witnesses and Bell inequalities, Physical Review A72, 012321 (2005)

    2005

  71. [71]

    Caradonna, D

    P. Caradonna, D. Reutens, T. Takahashi, S. Takeda, and V. Vegh, Probing entanglement in Compton interactions, Journal of Physics Communications3, 105005 (2019)

    2019

  72. [72]

    Žugec, E

    P. Žugec, E. A. Vivoda, M. Makek, and I. Friščić, A rec- onciliation of the Pryce-Ward and Klein-Nishina statistics for semi-classical simulations of annihilation photons corre- lations, Physics Letters B , 140346 (2026)

    2026

  73. [73]

    Del Monte, S

    E. Del Monte, S. Fabiani, and M. Pearce, Compton po- larimetry, inHandbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astro- physics(Springer, 2024) pp. 877–917. END MATTER The functionsαandβ Theαandβfunctions appearing in Eq. (1), correspond- ing to a single scattering event, are given by α(E0, θ)= 1 2 ( E E0 ) 2 ( E E0 + E0 E −sin2 θ)(11) β(E0, θ)= sin2 θ E E0 + E0 E −sin2...

    2024

  74. [74]

    entanglement witness

    PREVIOUS ENTANGLEMENT CLAIMS A. Entanglement Witnesses and Nonlocality For a bipartite entangled stateρ, an entanglement witnessWcan be defined as an Hermitian operator that satisfies Tr(ρW)>0andTr(ωW)≤0for all separable statesω[56]. We note the value of zero here is a matter of convention, and the operatorWcan be shifted by a constant multiplied by the i...

  75. [75]

    entanglement witness

    The R Ratio In the 2-photon decay channel, the double differential scattering cross section of the back-to-back Compton-scattered photonsd 4σ/dΩaΩb (the Pryce–Ward cross section [35]) depends onθa,θ b, and the difference between azimuthal angles 2 ∆ϕab of the two photons. The ratio of counts defined by R=max {θa,θb,∆ϕ,±} d4σ dΩadΩb (θa, θb,∆ϕ ab =±90○) d4...

  76. [76]

    entanglement witnesses

    The Normalized Correlation Observable and Local-Hidden-Variable Models In Ref. [36] the authors introduce the normalized correlation observablesO1. They claim that the predicted range for entangled states is⟨O1⟩∈[−1,1]and the predicted range for any separable stateωis⟨O1⟩∈[−1/2,1/2]. Thus, they state that any deviation from[−1/2,1/2]is sufficient evidence...

  77. [77]

    Compton Polarimetry via the Stokes–Mueller Formalism

    FURTHER DETAILS ON THE POVM ANALYSIS A. Compton Polarimetry via the Stokes–Mueller Formalism

  78. [78]

    The differential scattering cross section is given by dσ dΩ =⟨I∣T(E0, θ)M(ϕ)∣S⟩.(S5) An arbitrary polarization stateρis described by the Stokes vector∣S⟩=(S0, S1, S2, S3)T

    Stokes–Mueller Formalism In the Stokes–Mueller formalism, a single Compton scattering event transforms the initial Stokes vector∣S⟩to the Stokes vectorT(E 0, θ)M(ϕ)∣S⟩that describes an unnormalized state [29, 30]. The differential scattering cross section is given by dσ dΩ =⟨I∣T(E0, θ)M(ϕ)∣S⟩.(S5) An arbitrary polarization stateρis described by the Stokes...

  79. [79]

    Compton Polarimetry A Compton polarimeter determines the degree of linear polarization by comparing count rates at azimuthal angles differing by90○. In evaluating this, we define the physical azimuthal angleϕrelative to thex-axis of the Bloch sphere, so thatϕ=0corresponds to scattering preferentially perpendicular to the plane of horizontal polarization. ...

  80. [80]

    (3) is deduced from Eqs (1) and (2)

    Deducing the POVM Elements Here, we detail how Eq. (3) is deduced from Eqs (1) and (2). Inserting Eq. (1) into the left-hand side of Eq. (2) gives N[1+β(S 1 cos 2ϕ+S 2 sin 2ϕ)]= 1 2 ∑ j SjTr[σjΠ(1)(θ, ϕ)],(S10) which is valid for allS1,S 2,S 3 and withS 0 =1. Writing the POVM elementΠ(1)(θ, ϕ)in the circular basis Π(1)(θ, ϕ)=( ΠRR ΠRL ΠLR ΠLL )(S11) enabl...

Showing first 80 references.