That’s because, in the quantum domain, opponents can always figure out what choice the other made when the game is over, thanks to superpositions of their actions. In the classical version of the “Pick the Winning Box” game, for example, a casino operator hides a ball in either box A or box B, and a player guesses the box that contains the ball in order to win. If the game were played remotely, the casino operator could easily lie about which box the ball was in if the player chose the winning box. Or, if the boxes were with the player, he could cheat by claiming that he found the ball when he did not.
But in quantum gambling, this kind of cheating is impossible, opening up the possibility for remote gambling. Researchers Yong-Sheng Zhang and colleagues from the University of Science and Technology of China have built such a quantum gambling machine using optical elements, which they describe in a recent issue of
Europhysics Letters.
“As far as I know, this is the first demonstration of a quantum gambling machine since L. Goldenberg et al. presented it in 1999,” Zhang told
PhysOrg.com. “It is a toy model of applications of quantum mechanics, and it may be used in real gambling.”
First, the machine generates a photon, which has a definite polarization state of either vertical or horizontal. Then, to represent Alice the casino operator, a half wave plate transfers the photon into a superposition of horizontal and vertical states. In an equally distributed state, the photon would be half vertically polarized and half horizontally polarized. Then, a beam splitter splits the photon beam into beam A and beam B. At the end of the machine, there will be a 50-50 chance of the photon ending up in the player Bob’s “box” (his detector, B) or Alice’s detector, A.
But the game offers other variables. To alter that 50-50 probability, for instance, Alice has the option of preparing a biased superposition state – for example, one that is more vertically polarized than horizontally polarized, or vice versa. Then, there would be a smaller chance that the photon would end up in Bob’s detector than in Alice’s detector.
However, Bob has another option besides passively waiting to see if his detector gets the photon. Like Alice, Bob also has a half wave plate, and he can use it to split his beam B into two parts according to a splitting parameter of his choice. Then, one path of his split beam, B’, is superposed back with beam A. He would probably choose a higher splitting parameter if he thought that Alice had chosen a superposition state that was highly biased against putting the photon in his beam. In a sense, splitting his beam B gives Bob a second chance of winning, and – depending on the bet – winning a greater amount.
If Bob’s detector doesn’t get the photon, then it will go to either Alice’s detector A or a third detector, B’. If Bob bet on the photon landing in detector A, and it does, then Bob wins a previously agreed sum, while a photon in detector B means Bob loses that sum (i.e. he chose the wrong box, in the classical analogy). Similarly, if he had bet on detector B, and the photon was detected there, he would win that bet, too. But he cannot bet on detector B’.
So Bob and Alice both have sway over where the photon ends up. If Bob chooses a high splitting parameter and Alice had chosen a greatly biased superposition state (so that she increased the chance of having the photon in beam A), the photon would be more likely to go to detector A than B’, and Bob would win. But if Alice had chosen a more equal superposition state (so that beam B was just as likely to have the photon), the photon would be more likely to go to detector B’ than detector A, and Bob would lose. In this case, Bob would have been better off choosing a lower splitting parameter, or not splitting his beam at all.
In a sense, Bob’s choice of his splitting parameter depends on how equally he thinks Alice prepared the original photon. The researchers figured out the optimal splitting parameter for Bob that would make him the most money for any superposition state that Alice chooses, for a game when Bob’s winnings would be 5 for detector A and 1 for detector B (and losing the same amount if his bet is wrong). They also found that Bob has a greater chance of losing than winning.
As the researchers explain, this demonstration of a quantum gambling machine shows that quantum mechanics could have interesting implications in traditional game theory. For instance, quantum gambling might reveal insights into the foundations of game theory, survival games, and quantum communication. And quantum mechanics could also ensure fairness in remote gambling.
“It is not clear how this gambling machine can affect people’s lives,” Zhang said. “However, with more and more things being used in gambling and trade [Super Tuesday: Markets Predict Outcome Better Than Polls,
Scientific American, Feb. 2008], it can be conjectured that a quantum gambling machine whose security is guaranteed by the laws of physics may have some role in the future.”
More information: Zhang, P.; Zhang, Y.-S.; Huang, Y.-F.; Peng, L.; Li, C.-F., and Guo, G.-C. “Optical realization of quantum gambling machine.”
Europhysics Letters, 82, (2008) 30002.
Copyright 2008 PhysOrg.com.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or part without the express written permission of PhysOrg.com.
Related stories:
'Dead time' limits quantum cryptography speeds
Quantum cryptography is potentially the most secure method of sending encrypted information, but does it have a speed limit" According to a new paper by researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Joint Quantum Institute, technological and security issues will stall maximum transmission rates at levels comparable to that of a single broadband connection, such as a cable modem, unless researchers reduce “dead times” in the detectors that receive quantum-encrypted messages. The JQI is a research partnership that includes NIST and the University of Maryland.
AMANDA's First Six Years
The most recent results from the Antarctic Muon and Neutrino Detector Array, or AMANDA, located a mile under the ice at the South Pole, have yielded the most stringent prediction yet for the highest possible rate that neutrinos from deep-space gamma-ray bursts can reach Earth—even though AMANDA did not conclusively detect even one neutrino from any astronomical sources during its first six years. The analysis is published in the February 10, 2008, edition of
The Astrophysical Journal.
The key to a more efficient nanolaser?
“There are some discussions about the recent applications on photonic nanolasers and photonic integrated circuits based on photonic crystals,” Toshihiko Baba tells
PhysOrg.com in an email. Baba, a scientist at the Yokohama National University in Japan, has been working on improving the efficiency of photonic crystal nanolasers.
The world's lowest noise laser: Researchers outsmart quantum physics
Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics and Leibniz University of Hanover have produced a laser beam of especially high quality. In doing so, they have achieved a new world record in the control of photons by precisely placing the photons in a specific order.
Axions Not Cause of Unexpected Observation
Scientists from France have shown that hypothetical axion-like particles cannot explain some unexpected observations in an Italian experiment carried out last year. Ruling out axions will likely subdue some of the renewed interest in axion searches, currently underway at several major institutions.
Nonlocality of a Single Particle Demonstrated Without Objections
Usually when physicists talk about nonlocality in quantum mechanics, they’re referring to the fact that two particles can have immediate effects on each other, even when separated by large distances. Einstein famously called the phenomena “spooky interaction at a distance” because information about a particle seems to be traveling faster than the speed of light, violating the laws of causality.
The world's smallest double slit experiment
The big world of classical physics mostly seems sensible: waves are waves and particles are particles, and the moon rises whether anyone watches or not. The tiny quantum world is different: particles are waves (and vice versa), and quantum systems remain in a state of multiple possibilities until they are measured -- which amounts to an intrusion by an observer from the big world -- and forced to choose: the exact position or momentum of an electron, say.
New Quantum Dot Transistor Counts Individual Photons
A transistor containing quantum dots that can count individual photons (the smallest particles of light) has been designed and demonstrated at the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
