Scribd
Upload
80 views4 pages

Entanglement Made Simple

1) The document discusses the concepts of quantum entanglement and complementarity in simple terms using classical examples like cakes or "c-ons". It explains that entanglement means a lack of independence between two systems, where knowledge about one system provides information about the other. 2) It then describes two classic quantum effects - the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect and Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger effect - which illustrate entanglement and complementarity. The EPR effect shows that measuring one member of an entangled pair determines the outcome of measuring the other, even at a distance. 3) However, the document argues this does not require faster-than-light communication and is simply a result of the

Uploaded by

Milan Basu
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
80 views4 pages

Entanglement Made Simple

1) The document discusses the concepts of quantum entanglement and complementarity in simple terms using classical examples like cakes or "c-ons". It explains that entanglement means a lack of independence between two systems, where knowledge about one system provides information about the other. 2) It then describes two classic quantum effects - the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect and Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger effect - which illustrate entanglement and complementarity. The EPR effect shows that measuring one member of an entangled pair determines the outcome of measuring the other, even at a distance. 3) However, the document argues this does not require faster-than-light communication and is simply a result of the

Uploaded by

Milan Basu
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Entanglement Made Simple

Quantum entanglement is thought to be one of the trickiest concepts in


science, but the core issues are simple. And once understood, entanglement
opens up a richer understanding of concepts such as the “many worlds” of
quantum theory.

49

Read Later

James O’Brien for Quanta Magazine


An aura of glamorous mystery attaches to the concept of quantum
entanglement, and also to the (somehow) related claim that quantum theory
requires “many worlds.” Yet in the end those are, or should be, scientific
ideas, with down-to-earth meanings and concrete implications. Here I’d like
to explain the concepts of entanglement and many worlds as simply and
clearly as I know how.
I.
Entanglement is often regarded as a uniquely quantum-mechanical
phenomenon, but it is not. In fact, it is enlightening, though somewhat
unconventional, to consider a simple non-quantum (or “classical”) version of
entanglement first. This enables us to pry the subtlety of entanglement itself
apart from the general oddity of quantum theory.
Quantized
A monthly column in which top researchers explore the process of discovery.
This month’s columnist, Frank Wilczek, is a Nobel Prize-winning physicist at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Entanglement arises in situations where we have partial knowledge of the
state of two systems. For example, our systems can be two objects that we’ll
call c-ons. The “c” is meant to suggest “classical,” but if you’d prefer to have
something specific and pleasant in mind, you can think of our c-ons as
cakes.
Our c-ons come in two shapes, square or circular, which we identify as their
possible states. Then the four possible joint states, for two c-ons, are
(square, square), (square, circle), (circle, square), (circle, circle). The
following tables show two examples of what the probabilities could be for
finding the system in each of those four states.

Olena Shmahalo/Quanta Magazine


We say that the c-ons are “independent” if knowledge of the state of one of
them does not give useful information about the state of the other. Our first
table has this property. If the first c-on (or cake) is square, we’re still in the
dark about the shape of the second. Similarly, the shape of the second does
not reveal anything useful about the shape of the first.
On the other hand, we say our two c-ons are entangled when information
about one improves our knowledge of the other. Our second table
demonstrates extreme entanglement. In that case, whenever the first c-on
is circular, we know the second is circular too. And when the first c-on is
square, so is the second. Knowing the shape of one, we can infer the shape
of the other with certainty.

The quantum version of entanglement is essentially the same phenomenon


— that is, lack of independence. In quantum theory, states are described by
mathematical objects called wave functions. The rules connecting wave
functions to physical probabilities introduce very interesting complications,
as we will discuss, but the central concept of entangled knowledge, which we
have seen already for classical probabilities, carries over.
Cakes don’t count as quantum systems, of course, but entanglement
between quantum systems arises naturally — for example, in the aftermath
of particle collisions. In practice, unentangled (independent) states are rare
exceptions, for whenever systems interact, the interaction creates
correlations between them.
Consider, for example, molecules. They are composites of subsystems,
namely electrons and nuclei. A molecule’s lowest energy state, in which it is
most usually found, is a highly entangled state of its electrons and nuclei, for
the positions of those constituent particles are by no means independent. As
the nuclei move, the electrons move with them.
Returning to our example: If we write Φ ■, Φ● for the wave functions
describing system 1 in its square or circular states, and ψ ■, ψ● for the wave
functions describing system 2 in its square or circular states, then in our
working example the overall states will be
Independent: Φ■ ψ■ + Φ■ ψ● + Φ● ψ■ + Φ● ψ●
Entangled: Φ■ ψ■ + Φ● ψ●
We can also write the independent version as
(Φ■ + Φ●)(ψ■ + ψ●)
Note how in this formulation the parentheses clearly separate systems 1 and
2 into independent units.
There are many ways to create entangled states. One way is to make a
measurement of your (composite) system that gives you partial information.
We can learn, for example, that the two systems have conspired to have the
same shape, without learning exactly what shape they have. This concept
will become important later.
The more distinctive consequences of quantum entanglement, such as the
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) and Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ)
effects, arise through its interplay with another aspect of quantum theory
called “complementarity.” To pave the way for discussion of EPR and GHZ,
let me now introduce complementarity.
Previously, we imagined that our c-ons could exhibit two shapes (square and
circle). Now we imagine that it can also exhibit two colors — red and blue. If
we were speaking of classical systems, like cakes, this added property would
imply that our c-ons could be in any of four possible states: a red square, a
red circle, a blue square or a blue circle.
Yet for a quantum cake — a quake, perhaps, or (with more dignity) a q-on
— the situation is profoundly different. The fact that a q-on can exhibit, in
different situations, different shapes or different colors does not necessarily
mean that it possesses both a shape and a color simultaneously. In fact,
that “common sense” inference, which Einstein insisted should be part of any
acceptable notion of physical reality, is inconsistent with experimental facts,
as we’ll see shortly.
We can measure the shape of our q-on, but in doing so we lose all
information about its color. Or we can measure the color of our q-on, but in
doing so we lose all information about its shape. What we cannot do,
according to quantum theory, is measure both its shape and its color
simultaneously. No one view of physical reality captures all its aspects; one
must take into account many different, mutually exclusive views, each
offering valid but partial insight. This is the heart of complementarity, as
Niels Bohr formulated it.
As a consequence, quantum theory forces us to be circumspect in assigning
physical reality to individual properties. To avoid contradictions, we must
admit that:
A property that is not measured need not exist.
Measurement is an active process that alters the system being measured.

II.
Now I will describe two classic — though far from classical! — illustrations of
quantum theory’s strangeness. Both have been checked in rigorous
experiments. (In the actual experiments, people measure properties like the
angular momentum of electrons rather than shapes or colors of cakes.)
Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (EPR) described a startling
effect that can arise when two quantum systems are entangled. The EPR
effect marries a specific, experimentally realizable form of quantum
entanglement with complementarity.
An EPR pair consists of two q-ons, each of which can be measured either for
its shape or for its color (but not for both). We assume that we have access
to many such pairs, all identical, and that we can choose which
measurements to make of their components. If we measure the shape of
one member of an EPR pair, we find it is equally likely to be square or
circular. If we measure the color, we find it is equally likely to be red or blue.
The interesting effects, which EPR considered paradoxical, arise when we
make measurements of both members of the pair. When we measure both
members for color, or both members for shape, we find that the results
always agree. Thus if we find that one is red, and later measure the color of
the other, we will discover that it too is red, and so forth. On the other hand,
if we measure the shape of one, and then the color of the other, there is no
correlation. Thus if the first is square, the second is equally likely to be red
or to be blue.
We will, according to quantum theory, get those results even if great
distances separate the two systems, and the measurements are performed
nearly simultaneously. The choice of measurement in one location appears
to be affecting the state of the system in the other location. This “spooky
action at a distance,” as Einstein called it, might seem to require
transmission of information — in this case, information about what
measurement was performed — at a rate faster than the speed of light.
But does it? Until I know the result you obtained, I don’t know what to
expect. I gain useful information when I learn the result you’ve measured,
not at the moment you measure it. And any message revealing the result
you measured must be transmitted in some concrete physical way, slower
(presumably) than the speed of light.
Upon deeper reflection, the paradox dissolves further. Indeed, let us
consider again the state of the second system, given that the first has been
measured to be red. If we choose to measure the second q-on’s color, we
will surely get red. But as we discussed earlier, when introducing
complementarity, if we choose to measure a q-on’s shape, when it is in the
“red” state, we will have equal probability to find a square or a circle. Thus,
far from introducing a paradox, the EPR outcome is logically forced. It is, in
essence, simply a repackaging of complementarity.
Nor is it paradoxical to find that distant events are correlated. After all, if I
put each member of a pair of gloves in boxes, and mail them to opposite
sides of the earth, I should not be surprised that by looking inside one box I
can determine the handedness of the glove in the other. Similarly, in all
known cases the correlations between an EPR pair must be imprinted when
its members are close together, though of course they can survive
subsequent separation, as though they had memories. Again, the peculiarity
of EPR is not correlation as such, but its possible embodiment in
complementary forms.

You might also like