REVIEW 1 cited by
Entanglement of annihilation photons
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
We present the results of a new experimental study of the quantum entanglement of photon pairs produced in positron-electron annihilation at rest. The experimental setup includes a system of Compton polarimeters to measure the Compton scattering of annihilation photons in entangled and decoherent states. Decoherent states are prepared by pre-scattering of one of the initial photons prior to measurements in polarimeters. For the first time, a direct comparison of the polarization correlations of annihilation photons in the entangled and thus prepared separable states has been carried out. The angular distributions of scattered photons turned out to be the same in both quantum states, which is an unexpected discovery for the quantum-entangled positron emission tomography. Moreover, the correlation function in the Bell's inequality is also the same for entangled and separable states. It follows that, despite numerous measurements in a series of experiments, there is still no experimental proof of the entanglement of annihilation photons. These results are in line with recent theoretical predictions of an identical Compton scattering cross-section for entangled and specific mixed separable quantum states and cast doubt on the universality of the Bell's theorem for testing the entanglement and nonlocality in quantum theory.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
An accelerator-based source of high-intensity quantum-entangled annihilation gamma photons
A proposal for an accelerator-driven source of high-intensity entangled 511 keV gamma pairs at Jefferson Lab, with the flux advantage asserted but not yet quantitatively demonstrated.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.