Next Article in Journal
Mechanism of Proton Pumping in Complex I of the Mitochondrial Respiratory Chain
Previous Article in Journal
Generalized Probabilities in Statistical Theories
 
 
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

On Bell’s Inequality in PT-Symmetric Quantum Systems

1
Department of Physical Sciences, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Kolkata, Mohanpur 741246, India
2
Department of Physics, Maharaja Sriram Chandra Bhanja Deo University, Barupada 757003, India
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Quantum Rep. 2021, 3(3), 417-424; https://doi.org/10.3390/quantum3030026
Received: 1 May 2021 / Revised: 6 July 2021 / Accepted: 23 July 2021 / Published: 31 July 2021

Abstract

:
Bell’s inequality is investigated in parity-time ( PT ) symmetric quantum mechanics, using a recently developed form of the inequality by Maccone, with two PT -qubits in the unbroken phase with real energy spectrum. It is shown that the inequality produces a bound that is consistent with the standard quantum mechanics even after using Hilbert space equipped with CPT inner product and therefore, the entanglement has identical structure with standard quantum mechanics. Consequently, the no-signaling principle for a two-qubit system in PT -symmetric quantum theory is preserved.

1. Introduction

Bell’s inequality [1,2,3,4] has played a significant role in distinguishing the quantum theory and a classical theory with local hidden variables [2]. It has been studied extensively in many equivalent forms, involving the standard Dirac-von-Neumann inner product. The most familiar form of the Bell’s inequality is Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality [5], where expectation values of observables are calculated using bi-linear Pauli operators and if the local hidden variable assumption is considered, then the inequality has a bound of 2, while the maximum violation allowed by quantum mechanics is 2 2 , also known as Tsirelson’s bound [6]. There has been a large number of experimental tests of Bell’s inequality, where many subtle aspects of the underlying quantum correlations have been carefully probed [7,8,9,10,11,12]. It is important to note that, historically, the mathematical core of Bell’s theorem goes back to the derivation of Boole’s inequality in the probability theory [13,14]. Recently a simpler form of the inequality has been obtained in a succinct way by Maccone [15], following Preskill [16] and Mermin’s suggestion [17].
The proof of the inequality in [15] considers two identical objects with the same values of all properties and takes Einstein’s arguments [18] into account, implying that, the values of properties are initially known i.e., predetermined (or counterfactual-definite). Furthermore, it assumes that the values are independent of measurements, which suggests measuring a property of one object will not affect the measurement of the second object’s property (i.e., locality). Assuming three, arbitrary two-valued properties A, B, C, satisfying both locality and counterfactual-definiteness and that each observer has two such objects, the Bell’s inequality in Maccone’s form [15] states that,
P s a m e ( A , B ) + P s a m e ( A , C ) + P s a m e ( B , C ) 1 .
Here, P s a m e ( A , B ) is the probability that the property A of the first object and B of the second have the same values. If the probability sum is greater than or equal to one, it will indicate that, the theory will obey both locality and counterfactual-definiteness. However, quantum theory violates the Bell’s inequality showing that, it is either non-local e.g., de Broglie-Bohm interpretation [19] or non-counterfactual-definite e.g., Copenhagen interpretation [15] and it indicates that a deterministic quantum theory encompassing local hidden variables can not account for observations made from quantum physics [20].
In standard quantum mechanics, to obtain real energy eigenvalues and to maintain the unitarity of the evolution, the condition of the Hermiticity of the Hamiltonian (i.e., H = H ) is indispensable. Although in the past few years, it has been predicted that this requirement of Hermiticity which is generally stated as an axiom in quantum theory, can be replaced by the less mathematical and more physical conditions on Hamiltonians without compromising on the physical core of the quantum theory. Recently, the complex extension of quantum mechanics has been put forward by Bender, Brody, and Jones [21], which includes replacement of mathematical condition of Hermiticity of Hamiltonians by the condition of PT -symmetry, to obtain the corresponding real energy eigenvalue spectrum [22]. Physically, the PT -symmetric Hamiltonians are not isolated like Hermitian Hamiltonians; rather, they are in contact with the environment leading to the non-Hermiticity character. If this contact is constrained such that the gain from the environment is exactly balanced by the loss, then the PT -symmetric Hamiltonians will have real energy eigenvalues, leading to the unbroken PT -symmetric phase. Consequently, the PT -symmetric quantum theory behaves like Hermitian quantum theory in equilibrium. For the general case, it can have complex eigenvalues, in the broken PT -symmetric phase, and in this case, the PT -symmetric systems behave like out of equilibrium systems.
The unique feature of the non-Hermitian system is merging different eigenvalues and eigenvectors. This singularity in parametric space, where this merging happens, is known as an Exceptional point. Additionally, non-Hermitian systems do not obey conservation laws as they exchange energy with the surroundings. To understand such systems, PT -symmetric Hamiltonians play a crucial role. Physically, the PT -symmetric Hamiltonians are being used to understand optical gain and loss in photonics by treating them as non-conservative ingredients [23]. The first experimental realization of PT -symmetric systems was observed in an electrical circuit system [24]. Consequently, it was further explored into conservative coupled systems, which consists of balanced gain and loss, e.g., optical microcavities [25], optical systems with atomic media [26], optical waveguides [27] and mechanical systems [28].
It has been previously shown that, the basic properties of entanglement can be violated under local PT -symmetric operations [29,30,31,32,33] i.e., if one qubit is subjected to PT -symmetric Hamiltonian evolution and the other is in the conventional world, then entanglement increases under local operation. We use the version of Bell’s inequality from [15,16] and consider both the qubits in PT -symmetric framework along with CPT inner product, which results in obtaining a consistent Bell’s bound as in Hermitian quantum mechanics. It needs to be emphasised that, the Bell’s inequality is a fundamental measure of non-locality and it becomes evident from our result that, the non-locality is consistent in PT -symmetric quantum theoretic framework. It is worth pointing out that, in the unbroken PT -symmetric phase, Bell-CHSH inequality has been found to be consistent with Hermitian quantum mechanics [34].
The paper is organized as follows: In Section 2 we discuss the general PT -symmetric Hamiltonian, the corresponding eigenvectors and introduce CPT inner product with the individual definitions of C , P , T operators. We deduce the proof of Bell’s inequality for PT -symmetric quantum systems and show that the bound is independent of non-hermiticity parameter (which further leads to the conservation of no-signaling theorem) in Section 3. In Section 4 we summarize our findings, compare with the previous works and conclude with the future directions.

2. PT -Symmetric Qubits

For the purpose of illustration, we consider the PT -symmetric Hamiltonian [21],
H = r e i θ s s r e i θ ,
with the eigenvalues,
E ± = r c o s θ ± s 2 r 2 s i n 2 θ .
Based on the above eigenvalues, there are two parametric regions, the broken PT -symmetric region in which energy eigenvalues form a complex conjugate pair since, s 2 < r 2 s i n 2 θ and the region of unbroken PT -symmetry, where energy eigenvalues are real because, s 2 r 2 s i n 2 θ [21]. The eigenvectors for the unbroken PT -symmetric case are,
| a 0 = | ψ + = 1 2 c o s α e i α / 2 e i α / 2 ,
| a 1 = | ψ = i 2 c o s α e i α / 2 e i α / 2 .
Following [21], we have set s i n α = ( r / s ) s i n θ , where, α is the non-Hermiticy parameter. It is noted that, the condition s 2 = r 2 s i n 2 θ yields the PT -symmetric degenerate states.
The CPT inner product is defined as [21],
ψ + | = [ CPT | ψ + ] t ,
where, C is the charge conjugation operator and t is the matrix transposition operation. The operator C has eigenvalues ± 1 and it yields the sign of the PT -norm of the state.
This follows,
CPT | ψ ± = ± | ψ ±
It is seen that C 2 = 1 , provided;
C = 1 c o s α i s i n α 1 1 i s i n α .
The parity operator is defined as [21],
P = 0 1 1 0 ,
with, P 2 = 1 . Operators P and C do not commute with each other and if the non-Hermiticity parameter α 0 then C P .
The time reversal operator T is an anti-linear operator, which changes i to i i.e., T implements the action of complex conjugation. It is important to note that, T belongs to the class of operators known “involutional” operators [35];
T 2 = η I , η = ± 1 ,
provided, T explicitly satisfies, T i T 1 = i .
Using above definition of inner product and C , P , T operators, one observes that the orthonormality conditions are satisfied for eigenvectors of PT -symmetric Hamiltonian;
a 0 | a 0 = a 1 | a 1 = ψ + | ψ + = ψ | ψ = 1 . a 0 | a 1 = ψ + | ψ = 0 .
This immediately follows,
b 0 | b 1 = 0 = c 0 | c 1

3. Proof of Bell’s Inequality in PT -Symmetric Quantum Theory

To obtain Bell’s inequality in PT -symmetric quantum theory, we consider a quantum system that violates inequality (1). Consider three objects A, B and C having two valued properties defined by the following set of eigenstates [15].
For A, we define the two valued properties as states | a 0 and | a 1 , while for B and C we define their corresponding two valued properties in terms of states given as,
| b 0 = 1 2 | ψ + + 3 2 | ψ , | b 1 = 3 2 | ψ + 1 2 | ψ , | c 0 = 1 2 | ψ + 3 2 | ψ , | c 1 = 3 2 | ψ + + 1 2 | ψ .
Consider two level systems ( PT -qubits) in the joint entangled state,
| ψ A B = 1 2 2 [ | a 0 ( | b 0 + 3 | b 1 ) + | a 1 ( 3 | b 0 | b 1 ) ] .
With the corresponding bra vector for the above PT -symmetric joint entangled state; [30,31,36],
ψ A B | = [ ( CPT CPT ) | ψ A B ] t .
where, t is the matrix transposition operation.
Similarly, | ψ A C and | ψ B C are defined as,
| ψ A C = 1 2 2 [ | a 0 ( | c 0 + 3 | c 1 ) | a 1 ( 3 | c 0 | c 1 ) ] , | ψ B C = 1 4 2 [ ( | b 0 + 3 | b 1 ) ( | c 0 + 3 | c 1 ) ( 3 | b 0 | b 1 ) ( 3 | c 0 | c 1 ) ] .
The corresponding bra vectors are,
ψ A C | = [ ( CPT CPT ) | ψ A C ] t , ψ B C | = [ ( CPT CPT ) | ψ B C ] t .
Using the CPT inner product defined in (15), one obtains,
ψ A B | ψ A B = ψ A C | ψ A C = ψ B C | ψ B C = 1 .
We now calculate the probability amplitude of obtaining 0 or 1, for both the properties A and B or A and C or B and C (for example the property can be the results of any dichotomic systems), by using CPT inner product. Given all the above prerequisites (The explicit calculation for one case is provided in the Appendix A), one obtains,
a 0 b 0 | ψ A B = [ ( CPT CPT ) | a 0 b 0 ] t | ψ A B = 1 2 2 , a 1 b 1 | ψ A B = [ ( CPT CPT ) | a 1 b 1 ] t | ψ A B = 1 2 2 , a 0 c 0 | ψ A C = [ ( CPT CPT ) | a 0 c 0 ] t | ψ A C = 1 2 2 , a 1 c 1 | ψ A C = [ ( CPT CPT ) | a 1 c 1 ] t | ψ A C = 1 2 2 , b 0 c 0 | ψ B C = [ ( CPT CPT ) | b 0 c 0 ] t | ψ B C = 1 2 2 , b 1 c 1 | ψ B C = [ ( CPT CPT ) | b 1 c 1 ] t | ψ B C = 1 2 2 .
Using,
P = | ψ | ϕ | 2 ,
the probabilities of obtaining 0 or 1 for both the properties are,
P ( a 0 b 0 ) = P ( a 1 b 1 ) = P ( a 0 c 0 ) = P ( a 1 c 1 ) = P ( b 0 c 0 ) = P ( b 1 c 1 ) = 1 8 .
Therefore,
P s a m e ( A , B ) + P s a m e ( A , C ) + P s a m e ( B , C ) = 3 4 .
This is the Bell’s bound for PT -symmetric quantum mechanics using Maccone’s form and it identically matches with the Hermitian quantum mechanics. Remarkably, the above equation has no dependence on non-Hermiticity parameter.

4. Conclusions

To summarize, we show that, in the unbroken phase of PT -symmetry, using the PT -symmetric qubits and physically accepted CPT inner product, the Bell’s inequality will be violated exactly in the same manner as in the conventional quantum mechanics. This verifies that PT -symmetric quantum theory is a genuine complex extension of conventional quantum mechanics. Further, it signifies that, the no-signaling theorem is not violated under PT -symmetric operations if both qubits are taken as PT -qubits along with the consistent definition of CPT inner product. Our result is consistent with [34] using a much more simpler setting of Bell’s inequality. Hence, PT -symmetric Hamiltonians can be used as a powerful tool for quantum information, quantum computing and quantum communications. In short, if Alice and Bob both live in a PT -symmetric quantum world, and use PT -symmetric qubits and properly defined CPT inner product, then they will find that, the extent of violation for Bell’s inequality is same as that in standard Hermitian quantum mechanical world. Analysing Bell’s inequality for the broken PT -symmetric case [37] and the dependence of the Bell’s bound on the dimension of the PT -symmetric systems are works in progress. The experimental realization of our result on IBM quantum experience will be the matter of forthcoming research.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology and writing done by S.S.B.; B.R. and P.K.P. supervised the research. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

DST/ICPS/QuST/Theme-1/2019/2020-21/01.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not Applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not Applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not Applicable.

Acknowledgments

S.S.B. acknowledges the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Kolkata for support. S.S.B. thanks Swati Kumari for fruitful discussions. S.S.B. and P.K.P. acknowledge support from DST, India through Grant No.: DST/ICPS/QuST/Theme-1/2019/2020-21/01.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Appendix A

We begin with the PT -symmetric eigenvectors of the Hamiltonian in (2).
The two orthonormal states of the properties A and B are respectively given as,
| a 0 = 1 2 c o s α e i α / 2 e i α / 2 | a 1 = i 2 c o s α e i α / 2 e i α / 2 .
| b 0 = 1 2 c o s α 3 2 e i α / 2 + 1 2 e i α / 2 1 2 e i α / 2 3 2 i e i α / 2 | b 1 = 1 2 c o s α 1 2 e i α / 2 + 3 2 e i α / 2 3 2 e i α / 2 + 1 2 i e i α / 2 .
The joint entangled state for A and B is then,
| ψ A B = 1 2 1 2 | a 0 b 0 + 3 2 | a 0 b 1 + 3 2 | a 1 b 0 1 2 | a 1 b 1 = 1 32 c o s α ( 3 i + e i α s e c α ) s e c α + 3 ( i + t a n α ) s e c α + 3 ( i + t a n α ) ( 3 i + e i α ) s e c α e i α / 2 + ( 3 i + e i α s e c α ) s e c α + 3 ( i + t a n α ) s e c α + 3 ( i + t a n α ) ( 3 i + e i α ) s e c α e i α / 2 + 1 32 c o s α ( i 3 e i α ) s e c α s e c α + 3 ( i + t a n α ) ( i + 3 + s e c α + t a n α ) ( i + 3 e i α ) s e c α e i α / 2 + ( 3 i + e i α ) s e c α s e c α + 3 ( i + t a n α ) ( i + 3 e i α ) s e c α ( 1 + 3 e i α ) s e c α e i α / 2 = i t a n α 2 s e c α 2 s e c α 2 i t a n α 2 t
Then inner product can be obtained as,
a 0 b 0 | = [ ( CPT CPT ) | a 0 b 0 ] t , a 1 b 1 | = [ ( CPT CPT ) | a 1 b 1 ] t .
The quantity a 0 b 0 | ψ A B yields the probability amplitude for obtaining 0 for both A and B;
a 0 b 0 | ψ A B = [ ( CPT CPT ) | a 0 b 0 ] t · | ψ A B = 1 2 ( 2 + 2 e 2 i α ) 1 4 ( 1 3 i s e c α + i t a n α ) ( 2 + 2 e 2 i α ) 1 e i α + 3 i e 2 i α 3 i + e i α 1 + 3 i e i α t · i t a n α s e c α s e c α i t a n α = 1 2 2 .
Therefore, the probability is,
P ( a 0 b 0 ) = 1 8 .
Similarly, the probability amplitude for getting 1 for both A and B as,
a 1 b 1 | ψ A B = 1 2 2 .
The total probability of obtaining the same property for both A and B is found as,
P ( a 0 b 0 ) + P ( a 1 b 1 ) = 1 4
Likewise, the total probability of getting same property for both A and C or B and C, can be calculated;
P s a m e ( A , B ) + P s a m e ( A , C ) + P s a m e ( B , C ) = 3 4 .

References

  1. Bell, J.S. On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox. Phys. Phys. Fiz. 1964, 1, 195–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  2. Bell, J.S.; Aspect, A. Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected Papers on Quantum Philosophy, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bell, J.S. On the Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 1966, 38, 447–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Blaylock, G. The EPR paradox, Bell’s inequality, and the question of locality. Am. J. Phys. 2010, 78, 111–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Clauser, J.F.; Horne, M.A.; Shimony, A.; Holt, R.A. Proposed Experiment to Test Local Hidden-Variable Theories. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1969, 23, 880–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  6. Cirel’Son, B.S. Quantum generalizations of Bell’s inequality. Lett. Math. Phys. 1980, 4, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Aspect, A.; Grangier, P.; Roger, G. Experimental Realization of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm Gedankenexperiment: A New Violation of Bell’s Inequalities. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1982, 49, 91–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  8. Aspect, A. Bell’s inequality test: More ideal than ever. Nature 1999, 398, 189–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Aspect, A.; Dalibard, J.; Roger, G. Experimental Test of Bell’s Inequalities Using Time-Varying Analyzers. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1982, 49, 1804–1807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  10. Gröblacher, S.; Paterek, T.; Kaltenbaek, R.; Brukner, Č.; Żukowski, M.; Aspelmeyer, M.; Zeilinger, A. An experimental test of non-local realism. Nature 2007, 446, 871–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  11. Giustina, M.; Versteegh, M.A.M.; Wengerowsky, S.; Handsteiner, J.; Hochrainer, A.; Phelan, K.; Steinlechner, F.; Kofler, J.; Larsson, J.A.; Abellán, C.; et al. Significant-Loophole-Free Test of Bell’s Theorem with Entangled Photons. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2015, 115, 250401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Rauch, D.; Handsteiner, J.; Hochrainer, A.; Gallicchio, J.; Friedman, A.S.; Leung, C.; Liu, B.; Bulla, L.; Ecker, S.; Steinlechner, F.; et al. Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2018, 121, 080403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  13. Boole, G. XII. On the theory of probabilities. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 1862, 152, 225–252. [Google Scholar]
  14. Boole, G. An Investigation of the Laws of Thought: On Which Are Founded the Mathematical Theories of Logic and Probabilities; Cambridge Library Collection—Mathematics; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Maccone, L. A simple proof of Bell’s inequality. Am. J. Phys. 2013, 81, 854–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  16. Preskill, J. Lecture Notes for ph219/cs219: Quantum Information and Computation. Available online: http://theory.caltech.edu/~preskill/ph219/ph219_2020-21.html (accessed on 30 July 2021).
  17. Mermin, N. Bringing Home the Atomic World: Quantum Mysteries for Anybody. Am. J. Phys. 1981, 49, 940–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Einstein, A.; Podolsky, B.; Rosen, N. Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 1935, 47, 777–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  19. Bohm, D. Quantum Theory; Courier Corporation: Chelmsford, MA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  20. Walleczek, J.; Grössing, G. The Non-Signalling theorem in generalizations of Bell’s theorem. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2014, 504, 012001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  21. Bender, C.M.; Brody, D.C.; Jones, H.F. Erratum: Complex Extension of Quantum Mechanics [Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 270401 (2002)]. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2004, 92, 119902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bender, C.M.; Boettcher, S. Real Spectra in Non-Hermitian Hamiltonians Having PT Symmetry. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1998, 80, 5243–5246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  23. Miri, M.A.; Alù, A. Exceptional points in optics and photonics. Science 2019, 363, 7709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  24. Schindler, J.; Li, A.; Zheng, M.C.; Ellis, F.M.; Kottos, T. Experimental study of active LRC circuits with PT symmetries. Phys. Rev. A 2011, 84, 040101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  25. Rüter, C.E.; Makris, K.G.; El-Ganainy, R.; Christodoulides, D.N.; Segev, M.; Kip, D. Observation of parity-time symmetry in optics. Nat. Phys. 2010, 6, 192–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  26. Hang, C.; Huang, G.; Konotop, V.V. PT Symmetry with a System of Three-Level Atoms. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2013, 110, 083604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  27. Guo, A.; Salamo, G.J.; Duchesne, D.; Morandotti, R.; Volatier-Ravat, M.; Aimez, V.; Siviloglou, G.A.; Christodoulides, D.N. Observation of PT -Symmetry Breaking in Complex Optical Potentials. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2009, 103, 093902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  28. Bender, C.M.; Berntson, B.K.; Parker, D.; Samuel, E. Observation of PT phase transition in a simple mechanical system. Am. J. Phys. 2013, 81, 173–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  29. Chen, S.L.; Chen, G.Y.; Chen, Y.N. Increase of entanglement by local PT-symmetric operations. Phys. Rev. A 2014, 90, 054301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  30. Pati, A.K. Violation of Invariance of Entanglement Under Local PT Symmetric Unitary. arXiv 2014, arXiv:1404.6166. [Google Scholar]
  31. Pati, A.K. Entanglement in non-Hermitian quantum theory. Pramana 2009, 73, 485–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  32. Lee, Y.C.; Hsieh, M.H.; Flammia, S.T.; Lee, R.K. Local PT Symmetry Violates the No-Signaling Principle. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2014, 112, 130404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  33. Dogra, S.; Melnikov, A.A.; Paraoanu, G.S. Quantum simulation of parity-time symmetry breaking with a superconducting quantum processor. Commun. Phys. 2021, 4, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Japaridze, G.; Pokhrel, D.; Wang, X.Q. No-signaling principle and Bell inequality in-symmetric quantum mechanics. J. Phys. A 2017, 50, 185301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  35. Sachs, R.G. The Physics of Time Reversal; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  36. Zhu, X.Y.; Tao, Y.H. Conventional Bell Basis in PT-symmetric Quantum Theory. Int. J. Theor. Phys. 2018, 57, 3839–3849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bender, C.M.; Hassanpour, N.; Hook, D.W.; Klevansky, S.P.; Sünderhauf, C.; Wen, Z. Behavior of eigenvalues in a region of broken PT symmetry. Phys. Rev. A 2017, 95, 052113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bhosale, S.S.; Rath, B.; Panigrahi, P.K. On Bell’s Inequality in PT-Symmetric Quantum Systems. Quantum Rep. 2021, 3, 417-424. https://doi.org/10.3390/quantum3030026

AMA Style

Bhosale SS, Rath B, Panigrahi PK. On Bell’s Inequality in PT-Symmetric Quantum Systems. Quantum Reports. 2021; 3(3):417-424. https://doi.org/10.3390/quantum3030026

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bhosale, Sarang S., Biswanath Rath, and Prasanta K. Panigrahi. 2021. "On Bell’s Inequality in PT-Symmetric Quantum Systems" Quantum Reports 3, no. 3: 417-424. https://doi.org/10.3390/quantum3030026

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop