- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review D

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Letter
  • Open Access

Measurement of Bell-type inequalities and quantum entanglement from Λ-hyperon spin correlations at high energy colliders

Wenjie Gong1,*, Ganesh Parida2,†, Zhoudunming Tu3,4,‡, and Raju Venugopalan3,§

  • 1Department of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA
  • 2Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, USA
  • 3Department of Physics, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973, USA
  • 4Center for Frontiers in Nuclear Science, Stony Brook, New York 11794, USA

  • *wenjiegong@college.harvard.edu
  • †parida@wisc.edu
  • ‡zhoudunming@bnl.gov
  • §rajuv@bnl.gov
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 106, L031501 – Published 15 August, 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.106.L031501

Abstract

Spin correlations of Λ-hyperons embedded in the QCD strings formed in high energy collider experiments provide unique insight into their locality and entanglement features. We show from general considerations that, while the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt inequality is less stringent for such states, they provide a benchmark for quantum-to-classical transitions induced by varying (i) the associated hadron multiplicity, (ii) the spin of nucleons, (iii) the separation in rapidity between pairs, and (iv) the kinematic regimes accessed. These studies also enable the extraction of quantitative measures of quantum entanglement. We first explore such questions within a simple model of a QCD string composed of singlets of two partial distinguishable fermion flavors and compare analytical results to those obtained on quantum hardware. We further discuss a class of spin Hamiltonians that model the dynamics of Λ spin correlations. Prospects for extracting quantum features of QCD strings from hyperon measurements at current and future colliders are outlined.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (88)

  1. J. Preskill, Simulating quantum field theory with a quantum computer, Proc. Sci., LATTICE2018 (2018) 024 [arXiv:1811.10085], https://pos.sissa.it/334/024.
  2. V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Observation of long-range, near-side angular correlations in proton-proton collisions at the LHC, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2010) 091.
  3. J. Berges, M. P. Heller, A. Mazeliauskas, and R. Venugopalan, QCD thermalization: Ab initio approaches and interdisciplinary connections, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 035003 (2021).
  4. S. R. Beane, D. B. Kaplan, N. Klco, and M. J. Savage, Entanglement Suppression and Emergent Symmetries of Strong Interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 102001 (2019).
  5. N. Mueller, A. Tarasov, and R. Venugopalan, Deeply inelastic scattering structure functions on a hybrid quantum computer, Phys. Rev. D 102, 016007 (2020).
  6. H. Lamm, S. Lawrence, and Y. Yamauchi (NuQS Collaboration), Parton physics on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 013272 (2020).
  7. B. Chakraborty, M. Honda, T. Izubuchi, Y. Kikuchi, and A. Tomiya, Digital quantum simulation of the Schwinger model with topological term via adiabatic state preparation, Phys. Rev. D 105, 094503 (2022).
  8. D. E. Kharzeev and Y. Kikuchi, Real-time chiral dynamics from a digital quantum simulation, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 023342 (2020).
  9. M. Kreshchuk, W. M. Kirby, G. Goldstein, H. Beauchemin, and P. J. Love, Quantum simulation of quantum field theory in the light-front formulation, Phys. Rev. A 105, 032418 (2022).
  10. J. Liu and Y. Xin, Quantum simulation of quantum field theories as quantum chemistry, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2020) 011.
  11. R. A. Briceño, J. V. Guerrero, M. T. Hansen, and A. M. Sturzu, Role of boundary conditions in quantum computations of scattering observables, Phys. Rev. D 103, 014506 (2021).
  12. Z. Davoudi, I. Raychowdhury, and A. Shaw, Search for efficient formulations for Hamiltonian simulation of non-Abelian lattice gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D 104, 074505 (2021).
  13. W. A. de Jong, K. Lee, J. Mulligan, M. Płoskoń, F. Ringer, and X. Yao, Quantum simulation of non-equilibrium dynamics and thermalization in the Schwinger model, arXiv:2106.08394.
  14. E. Gustafson, Y. Zhu, P. Dreher, N. M. Linke, and Y. Meurice, Real-time quantum calculations of phase shifts using wave packet time delays, Phys. Rev. D 104, 054507 (2021).
  15. J. a. Barata, N. Mueller, A. Tarasov, and R. Venugopalan, Single-particle digitization strategy for quantum computation of a ϕ4 scalar field theory, Phys. Rev. A 103, 042410 (2021).
  16. J. a. Barata and C. A. Salgado, A quantum strategy to compute the jet quenching parameter q^, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 862 (2021).
  17. T. Li, X. Guo, W. K. Lai, X. Liu, E. Wang, H. Xing, D.-B. Zhang, and S.-L. Zhu, Partonic Structure by Quantum Computing, Phys. Rev. D 105, L111502 (2022).
  18. M. Honda, E. Itou, Y. Kikuchi, L. Nagano, and T. Okuda, Digital quantum simulation for screening and confinement in gauge theory with a topological term, Phys. Rev. D 105, 014504 (2022).
  19. K. Ikeda, D. E. Kharzeev, and Y. Kikuchi, Real-time dynamics of Chern-Simons fluctuations near a critical point, Phys. Rev. D 103, L071502 (2021).
  20. N. Klco and M. J. Savage, Entanglement Spheres and a UV-IR Connection in Effective Field Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 211602 (2021).
  21. A. Dumitru, K. Dusling, F. Gelis, J. Jalilian-Marian, T. Lappi, and R. Venugopalan, The ridge in proton-proton collisions at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B 697, 21 (2011).
  22. A. Kovner and V. V. Skokov, Bose enhancement, the Liouville effective action and the high multiplicity tail in p-A collisions, Phys. Rev. D 98, 014004 (2018).
  23. J. B. Kogut and L. Susskind, Hamiltonian formulation of Wilson’s lattice gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D 11, 395 (1975).
  24. G. S. Bali, QCD forces and heavy quark bound states, Phys. Rep. 343, 1 (2001).
  25. B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, G. Ingelman, and T. Sjostrand, Parton fragmentation and string dynamics, Phys. Rep. 97, 31 (1983).
  26. K. Dusling, W. Li, and B. Schenke, Novel collective phenomena in high-energy proton-proton and proton-nucleus collisions, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 25, 1630002 (2016).
  27. B. Luca, M. Holten, R. Klemt, K. Subramanian, J. Bjerlin, S. M. Reimann, G. M. Bruun, P. M. Preiss, and S. Jochim, Observing the emergence of a quantum phase transition shell by shell, Nature (London) 587, 583 (2020).
  28. J. Berges, K. Boguslavski, S. Schlichting, and R. Venugopalan, Universality far from Equilibrium: From Superfluid Bose Gases to Heavy-Ion Collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 061601 (2015).
  29. M. Prüfer, P. Kunkel, H. Strobel, S. Lannig, D. Linnemann, C.-M. Schmied, J. Berges, T. Gasenzer, and M. K. Oberthaler, Observation of universal dynamics in a spinor Bose gas far from equilibrium, Nature (London) 563, 217 (2018).
  30. Y.-C. Chen, C.-W. Lin, Y.-J. Lee, and P. Chang (Belle Collaboration), Search for long range flow-like correlation in hadronic e+e− collisions with Belle, Proc. Sci., ICHEP2020 (2021) 541.
  31. V. Andreev et al. (H1 Collaboration), Measurement of charged particle multiplicity distributions in DIS at HERA and its implication to entanglement entropy of partons, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 212 (2021).
  32. Z. Tu (H1 and ZEUS Collaboration), HERA data on azimuthal decorrelation and charged particle multiplicity spectra probing QCD dynamics and quantum entanglement effects, Proc. Sci., ICHEP2020 (2021) 513, https://pos.sissa.it/390/513.
  33. Z. Tu, D. E. Kharzeev, and T. Ullrich, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox and Quantum Entanglement at Subnucleonic Scales, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 062001 (2020).
  34. J. Berges, S. Floerchinger, and R. Venugopalan, Thermal excitation spectrum from entanglement in an expanding quantum string, Phys. Lett. B 778, 442 (2018).
  35. J. Berges, S. Floerchinger, and R. Venugopalan, Dynamics of entanglement in expanding quantum fields, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2018) 145.
  36. M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Polarization and entanglement in baryon-antibaryon pair production in electron-positron annihilation, Nat. Phys. 15, 631 (2019).
  37. E. Commins and P. Bucksbaum, Weak Interactions of Leptons and Quarks (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1983).
  38. N. A. Tornqvist, Suggestion for Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiments using reactions like e+e−→ΛΛ¯→π−pπ+p¯, Found. Phys. 11, 171 (1981).
  39. X.-Q. Hao, H.-W. Ke, Y.-B. Ding, P.-N. Shen, and X.-Q. Li, Testing the Bell inequality at experiments of high energy physics, Chin. Phys. C 34, 1 (2010).
  40. A. Barr, Testing Bell inequalities in Higgs boson decays, Phys. Lett. B 825, 136866 (2022).
  41. M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, and G. Panizzo, Testing Bell Inequalities at the LHC with Top-Quark Pairs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 161801 (2021).
  42. D. Bohm, A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of hidden variables. 1., Phys. Rev. 85, 166 (1952).
  43. D. Bohm, A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of hidden variables. 2., Phys. Rev. 85, 180 (1952).
  44. A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935).
  45. J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Proposed Experiment to Test Local Hidden-Variable Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880 (1969).
  46. M. Giustina et al., Significant-Loophole-Free Test of Bell’s Theorem with Entangled Photons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 250401 (2015).
  47. B. Hensen, H. Bernien, A. E. Dréau, A. Reiserer, N. Kalb, M. S. Blok, J. Ruitenberg, R. F. L. Vermeulen, R. N. Schouten, C. Abellán, W. Amaya, V. Pruneri, M. W. Mitchell, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, D. Elkouss, S. Wehner, T. H. Taminiau, and R. Hanson, Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres, Nature (London) 526, 682 (2015).
  48. D. Rauch, J. Handsteiner, A. Hochrainer, J. Gallicchio, A. S. Friedman, C. Leung, B. Liu, L. Bulla, S. Ecker, F. Steinlechner, R. Ursin, B. Hu, D. Leon, C. Benn, A. Ghedina, M. Cecconi, A. H. Guth, D. I. Kaiser, T. Scheidl, and A. Zeilinger, Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 080403 (2018).
  49. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevD.106.L031501 for details of Positive Partial Transpose (PPT) criterion (Sec. 1), 2 flavors of spin chain model (Sec. 2), implementation of 2 flavors of spin chain model on the IBM Quantum Computer (Sec. 3), and experimental perspectives in high energy experiments (Sec. 4).
  50. X. H. Wu, H. S. Zong, H. R. Pang, and F. Wang, Bell inequality for Werner states, Phys. Rev. A 64, 3 (2001).
  51. V. A. Andreev and V. I. Man’ko, Bell’s inequality for two-particle mixed spin states, Theor. Math. Phys. 140, 1135 (2004).
  52. M. B. Plenio and S. Virmani, An introduction to entanglement measures, Quantum Inf. Comput. 7, 1 (2007).
  53. A. Peres, Separability Criterion for Density Matrices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1413 (1996).
  54. P. Horodecki, Separability criterion and inseparable mixed states with positive partial transposition, Phys. Lett. A 232, 333 (1997).
  55. J. Keeling, Lectures on Quantum Magnetism, https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~jmjk/keeling/teaching/magnetism-notes.pdf.
  56. M. Burkardt and R. L. Jaffe, Polarized q→Λ Fragmentation Functions from e+e−→Λ+X*, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2537 (1993).
  57. A. Moretti (COMPASS Collaboration), Transversity and Λ polarization at COMPASS, Proc. Sci., SPIN2018 (2018) 138 [arXiv:1901.01735].
  58. J. R. Schrieffer and P. A. Wolff, Relation between the Anderson and Kondo Hamiltonians, Phys. Rev. 149, 491 (1966).
  59. K. Hattori, K. Itakura, S. Ozaki, and S. Yasui, QCD Kondo effect: Quark matter with heavy-flavor impurities, Phys. Rev. D 92, 065003 (2015).
  60. M. A. Ruderman and C. Kittel, Indirect exchange coupling of nuclear magnetic moments by conduction electrons, Phys. Rev. 96, 99 (1954).
  61. T. Kasuya, Theory of metallic ferro- and antiferromagnetism on Zener’s model, Prog. Theor. Phys. 16, 45 (1956).
  62. K. Yoshida, Magnetic properties of Cu-Mn alloys, Phys. Rev. 106, 893 (1957).
  63. R. Žitko and J. Bonča, Multiple-impurity Anderson model for quantum dots coupled in parallel, Phys. Rev. B 74, 045312 (2006).
  64. F. Eickhoff and F. B. Anders, Strongly correlated multi-impurity models: The crossover from a single-impurity problem to lattice models, Phys. Rev. B 102, 205132 (2020).
  65. K. Wilson, The renormalization group: Critical phenomena and the Kondo problem, Rev. Mod. Phys. 47, 773 (1975).
  66. H. R. Krishna-Murthy, J. W. Wilkins, and K. Wilson, Renormalization-group approach to the Anderson model of dilute magnetic alloys. I. Static properties for the symmetric case, Phys. Rev. B 21, 1003 (1980).
  67. P. D. Sacramento and P. Schlottmann, Thermodynamics of the single-channel Kondo impurity of spin s(≤(7/2) in a magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B 40, 431 (1989).
  68. P. W. Anderson, A poor man’s derivation of scaling laws for the Kondo problem, J. Phys. C 3, 2436 (1970).
  69. G. Cohen, E. Gull, D. R. Reichman, and A. J. Millis, Taming the Dynamical Sign Problem in Real-Time Evolution of Quantum Many-Body Problems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 266802 (2015).
  70. A. Smith, M. S. Kim, F. Pollmann, and J. Knolle, Simulating quantum many-body dynamics on a current digital quantum computer, npj Quantum Inf. 5, 106 (2019).
  71. J. J. García-Ripoll, E. Solano, and M. A. Martin-Delgado, Quantum simulation of Anderson and Kondo lattices with superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. B 77, 024522 (2008).
  72. A. Asfaw et al., Learn quantum computation using qiskit (2020), https://qiskit.org/textbook/preface.html.
  73. IBM Quantum, https://quantum-computing.ibm.com (2021).
  74. Y. Guan et al. (Belle Collaboration), Observation of Transverse Λ/Λ¯ Hyperon Polarization in e+e− Annihilation at Belle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 042001 (2019).
  75. G. Bunce et al., Lambda0 Hyperon Polarization in Inclusive Production by 300-GeV Protons on Beryllium., Phys. Rev. Lett. 36, 1113 (1976).
  76. K. J. Heller et al., Polarization of Lambdas and anti-Lambdas Produced by 400-GeV Protons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 41, 607 (1978); 45, 1043(E) (1980).
  77. A. N. Aleev et al. (BIS-2 Collaboration), Polarization of Λ0 produced by neutrons with an energy of approximately 40-{GeV} on carbon nuclei, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 37, 880 (1983).
  78. P. Astier et al. (NOMAD Collaboration), Measurement of the Lambda polarization in nu/mu charged current interactions in the NOMAD experiment, Nucl. Phys. B588, 3 (2000).
  79. P. Astier et al. (NOMAD Collaboration), Measurement of the anti-Lambda polarization in muon-neutrino charged current interactions in the NOMAD experiment, Nucl. Phys. B605, 3 (2001).
  80. J. Felix et al. (E690 Collaboration), Λ0 Polarization in 800  GeV/c pp→pf(Λ0K+), Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 061801 (2002).
  81. M. I. Adamovich et al. (WA89 Collaboration), A measurement of Λ polarization in inclusive production by Σ− of 340-GeV/c in C and Cu targets, Eur. Phys. J. C 32, 221 (2004).
  82. I. Abt et al. (HERA-B Collaboration), Polarization of Lambda and anti-Lambda in 920-GeV fixed-target proton-nucleus collisions, Phys. Lett. B 638, 415 (2006).
  83. J. L. Sanchez-Lopez et al. (SELEX Collaboration), Polarization of Λ0 and Λ¯0 inclusively produced by 610-GeV/c Σ− and 525-GeV/c proton beams, arXiv:0706.3660.
  84. G. Agakishiev et al. (HADES Collaboration), Lambda hyperon production and polarization in collisions of p(3.5  GeV)+Nb, Eur. Phys. J. A 50, 81 (2014).
  85. A. Airapetian et al. (HERMES Collaboration), Transverse polarization of Λ and Λ¯ hyperons in quasireal photoproduction, Phys. Rev. D 76, 092008 (2007).
  86. F. Hauenstein et al. (COSY-TOF Collaboration), Measurement of polarization observables of the associated strangeness production in proton proton interactions, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 337 (2016).
  87. L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR Collaboration), Global Λ hyperon polarization in nuclear collisions: Evidence for the most vortical fluid, Nature (London) 548, 62 (2017).
  88. T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, A brief introduction to pythia8.1, Comput. Phys. Commun. 178, 852 (2008).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 106, L031501– Published 15 August, 2022
  • Received 16 August 2021
  • Revised 6 December 2021
  • Accepted 3 August 2022
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. Funded by SCOAP3.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation