How do you know when two objects are so called entangled?How are atoms entangled, and can it be done remotely?What laser and BBO are needed to create entangled laser streams?How can we know that all of the results for entangled photons are not chosen when the pair is created?how are quantum entangled states mantained?Determining if two qubits in an ensemble are entangledAre particles entangled after beta decay?How can we know if a pair of particles are entangled?Would it be possible to quantum entangle two large objects?Quantum-entangled macroscopic objectsHow do we know that two quantum states are entangled?
Accidentally deleted the "/usr/share" folder
Unidentified items in bicycle tube repair kit
Binary Numbers Magic Trick
Why do computer-science majors learn calculus?
What was the state of the German rail system in 1944?
Why does my Macbook overheat and use so much CPU and energy when on YouTube?
Was Hulk present at this event?
Which skill should be used for secret doors or traps: Perception or Investigation?
Pressure to defend the relevance of one's area of mathematics
I caught several of my students plagiarizing. Could it be my fault as a teacher?
How can I close a gap between my fence and my neighbor's that's on his side of the property line?
What happened to Ghost?
Pigeonhole Principle Problem
Would "lab meat" be able to feed a much larger global population
What happened to Rhaegal?
Why do money exchangers give different rates to different bills
CRT Oscilloscope - part of the plot is missing
Stark VS Thanos
Why are notes ordered like they are on a piano?
Field Length Validation for Desktop Application which has maximum 1000 characters
Write to EXCEL from SQL DB using VBA script
Attending a conference where my ex-supervisor and his collaborator are present, should I attend?
Did we get closer to another plane than we were supposed to, or was the pilot just protecting our delicate sensibilities?
Was Unix ever a single-user OS?
How do you know when two objects are so called entangled?
How are atoms entangled, and can it be done remotely?What laser and BBO are needed to create entangled laser streams?How can we know that all of the results for entangled photons are not chosen when the pair is created?how are quantum entangled states mantained?Determining if two qubits in an ensemble are entangledAre particles entangled after beta decay?How can we know if a pair of particles are entangled?Would it be possible to quantum entangle two large objects?Quantum-entangled macroscopic objectsHow do we know that two quantum states are entangled?
$begingroup$
I’m not asking how would you entangle two objects. I want to know how would you know they are entangled?
quantum-mechanics quantum-entanglement
edited Mar 29 at 7:13
Qmechanic♦
108k122021255
asked Mar 29 at 6:10
Bill AlseptBill Alsept
2,0541723
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I’m not asking how would you entangle two objects. I want to know how would you know they are entangled?
quantum-mechanics quantum-entanglement
edited Mar 29 at 7:13
Qmechanic♦
108k122021255
asked Mar 29 at 6:10
Bill AlseptBill Alsept
2,0541723
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
van Enk et al (2007), "Experimental procedures for entanglement verification," Physical Review A 75, 052318 (authors.library.caltech.edu/8289) reviews a few methods, with emphasis on methods that are sufficient if we assume that quantum theory is correct. This is a superset of methods that are sufficient for ruling out local hidden variables.
$endgroup$
– Chiral Anomaly
Mar 29 at 15:45
$begingroup$
@ChiralAnomaly thanks, this Looks like a very thorough article and I will read through it.
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 18:01
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I’m not asking how would you entangle two objects. I want to know how would you know they are entangled?
quantum-mechanics quantum-entanglement
edited Mar 29 at 7:13
Qmechanic♦
108k122021255
asked Mar 29 at 6:10
Bill AlseptBill Alsept
2,0541723
$endgroup$
I’m not asking how would you entangle two objects. I want to know how would you know they are entangled?
quantum-mechanics quantum-entanglement
quantum-mechanics quantum-entanglement
edited Mar 29 at 7:13
Qmechanic♦
108k122021255
asked Mar 29 at 6:10
Bill AlseptBill Alsept
2,0541723
edited Mar 29 at 7:13
Qmechanic♦
108k122021255
asked Mar 29 at 6:10
Bill AlseptBill Alsept
2,0541723
edited Mar 29 at 7:13
Qmechanic♦
108k122021255
edited Mar 29 at 7:13
Qmechanic♦
108k122021255
edited Mar 29 at 7:13
Qmechanic♦
108k122021255
108k122021255
asked Mar 29 at 6:10
Bill AlseptBill Alsept
2,0541723
asked Mar 29 at 6:10
Bill AlseptBill Alsept
2,0541723
asked Mar 29 at 6:10
Bill AlseptBill Alsept
2,0541723
2,0541723
$begingroup$
van Enk et al (2007), "Experimental procedures for entanglement verification," Physical Review A 75, 052318 (authors.library.caltech.edu/8289) reviews a few methods, with emphasis on methods that are sufficient if we assume that quantum theory is correct. This is a superset of methods that are sufficient for ruling out local hidden variables.
$endgroup$
– Chiral Anomaly
Mar 29 at 15:45
$begingroup$
@ChiralAnomaly thanks, this Looks like a very thorough article and I will read through it.
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 18:01
add a comment |
$begingroup$
van Enk et al (2007), "Experimental procedures for entanglement verification," Physical Review A 75, 052318 (authors.library.caltech.edu/8289) reviews a few methods, with emphasis on methods that are sufficient if we assume that quantum theory is correct. This is a superset of methods that are sufficient for ruling out local hidden variables.
$endgroup$
– Chiral Anomaly
Mar 29 at 15:45
$begingroup$
@ChiralAnomaly thanks, this Looks like a very thorough article and I will read through it.
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 18:01
$begingroup$
van Enk et al (2007), "Experimental procedures for entanglement verification," Physical Review A 75, 052318 (authors.library.caltech.edu/8289) reviews a few methods, with emphasis on methods that are sufficient if we assume that quantum theory is correct. This is a superset of methods that are sufficient for ruling out local hidden variables.
$endgroup$
– Chiral Anomaly
Mar 29 at 15:45
$begingroup$
van Enk et al (2007), "Experimental procedures for entanglement verification," Physical Review A 75, 052318 (authors.library.caltech.edu/8289) reviews a few methods, with emphasis on methods that are sufficient if we assume that quantum theory is correct. This is a superset of methods that are sufficient for ruling out local hidden variables.
$endgroup$
– Chiral Anomaly
Mar 29 at 15:45
$begingroup$
@ChiralAnomaly thanks, this Looks like a very thorough article and I will read through it.
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 18:01
$begingroup$
@ChiralAnomaly thanks, this Looks like a very thorough article and I will read through it.
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 18:01
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In general you can't. That is, if you have just two particles you cannot tell whether they are entangled or not.
Entanglement reveals itself by correlations. For example if you take many pairs of particles you may find that their properties are always correlated, e.g. their spins are always opposite, and this tells you that whatever mechanism is generating the pairs of particles is entangling them. But this shows up only with repeated measurements. A single measurement cannot tell you the particles are correlated since their spins could have the values you observe just by chance.
answered Mar 29 at 6:41
John RennieJohn Rennie
281k45563811
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks john, I assumed it involved measuring many pairs. I just wanted to confirm if correlation was the main thing we were looking for. Has anyone ever correlated two large objects which produced measurements of cos2?
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 7:06
$begingroup$
@BillAlsept That's very technically complicated. Measurement affects the object (as does any other interaction). The bigger the object, the harder it is to isolate from all those influences, and the harder it is to have any confidence in your measurement. There's no reason to expect entanglement "stops" at some scale, but there's many reasons to expect that the bigger the object, the harder it gets to prove entanglement. But we do know it works on a macroscopic scale, because quantum computers are macroscopic (without relying on entanglement of every individual atom involved).
$endgroup$
– Luaan
Mar 29 at 9:21
$begingroup$
@BillAlsept as far as I know this expt is the largest objects ever entangled
$endgroup$
– John Rennie
Mar 29 at 12:07
$begingroup$
@JohnRennie The article is very interesting but it says the two objects are coupled to a circuit and that the circuit keeps the two objects so called entangled. Isn’t that still just a local process? This is probably more of a question for chat But the only correlations I can think of are mirrored variables from a common source. Which is not really entanglement and why I say so called entanglement. I guess what I’m saying is I could draw up an experiment where many pairs of large objects are correlated with given variables that when tested would give the results of cos2. Thanks
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 15:24
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f469308%2fhow-do-you-know-when-two-objects-are-so-called-entangled%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In general you can't. That is, if you have just two particles you cannot tell whether they are entangled or not.
Entanglement reveals itself by correlations. For example if you take many pairs of particles you may find that their properties are always correlated, e.g. their spins are always opposite, and this tells you that whatever mechanism is generating the pairs of particles is entangling them. But this shows up only with repeated measurements. A single measurement cannot tell you the particles are correlated since their spins could have the values you observe just by chance.
answered Mar 29 at 6:41
John RennieJohn Rennie
281k45563811
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks john, I assumed it involved measuring many pairs. I just wanted to confirm if correlation was the main thing we were looking for. Has anyone ever correlated two large objects which produced measurements of cos2?
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 7:06
$begingroup$
@BillAlsept That's very technically complicated. Measurement affects the object (as does any other interaction). The bigger the object, the harder it is to isolate from all those influences, and the harder it is to have any confidence in your measurement. There's no reason to expect entanglement "stops" at some scale, but there's many reasons to expect that the bigger the object, the harder it gets to prove entanglement. But we do know it works on a macroscopic scale, because quantum computers are macroscopic (without relying on entanglement of every individual atom involved).
$endgroup$
– Luaan
Mar 29 at 9:21
$begingroup$
@BillAlsept as far as I know this expt is the largest objects ever entangled
$endgroup$
– John Rennie
Mar 29 at 12:07
$begingroup$
@JohnRennie The article is very interesting but it says the two objects are coupled to a circuit and that the circuit keeps the two objects so called entangled. Isn’t that still just a local process? This is probably more of a question for chat But the only correlations I can think of are mirrored variables from a common source. Which is not really entanglement and why I say so called entanglement. I guess what I’m saying is I could draw up an experiment where many pairs of large objects are correlated with given variables that when tested would give the results of cos2. Thanks
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 15:24
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In general you can't. That is, if you have just two particles you cannot tell whether they are entangled or not.
Entanglement reveals itself by correlations. For example if you take many pairs of particles you may find that their properties are always correlated, e.g. their spins are always opposite, and this tells you that whatever mechanism is generating the pairs of particles is entangling them. But this shows up only with repeated measurements. A single measurement cannot tell you the particles are correlated since their spins could have the values you observe just by chance.
answered Mar 29 at 6:41
John RennieJohn Rennie
281k45563811
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks john, I assumed it involved measuring many pairs. I just wanted to confirm if correlation was the main thing we were looking for. Has anyone ever correlated two large objects which produced measurements of cos2?
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 7:06
$begingroup$
@BillAlsept That's very technically complicated. Measurement affects the object (as does any other interaction). The bigger the object, the harder it is to isolate from all those influences, and the harder it is to have any confidence in your measurement. There's no reason to expect entanglement "stops" at some scale, but there's many reasons to expect that the bigger the object, the harder it gets to prove entanglement. But we do know it works on a macroscopic scale, because quantum computers are macroscopic (without relying on entanglement of every individual atom involved).
$endgroup$
– Luaan
Mar 29 at 9:21
$begingroup$
@BillAlsept as far as I know this expt is the largest objects ever entangled
$endgroup$
– John Rennie
Mar 29 at 12:07
$begingroup$
@JohnRennie The article is very interesting but it says the two objects are coupled to a circuit and that the circuit keeps the two objects so called entangled. Isn’t that still just a local process? This is probably more of a question for chat But the only correlations I can think of are mirrored variables from a common source. Which is not really entanglement and why I say so called entanglement. I guess what I’m saying is I could draw up an experiment where many pairs of large objects are correlated with given variables that when tested would give the results of cos2. Thanks
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 15:24
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In general you can't. That is, if you have just two particles you cannot tell whether they are entangled or not.
Entanglement reveals itself by correlations. For example if you take many pairs of particles you may find that their properties are always correlated, e.g. their spins are always opposite, and this tells you that whatever mechanism is generating the pairs of particles is entangling them. But this shows up only with repeated measurements. A single measurement cannot tell you the particles are correlated since their spins could have the values you observe just by chance.
answered Mar 29 at 6:41
John RennieJohn Rennie
281k45563811
$endgroup$
In general you can't. That is, if you have just two particles you cannot tell whether they are entangled or not.
Entanglement reveals itself by correlations. For example if you take many pairs of particles you may find that their properties are always correlated, e.g. their spins are always opposite, and this tells you that whatever mechanism is generating the pairs of particles is entangling them. But this shows up only with repeated measurements. A single measurement cannot tell you the particles are correlated since their spins could have the values you observe just by chance.
answered Mar 29 at 6:41
John RennieJohn Rennie
281k45563811
answered Mar 29 at 6:41
John RennieJohn Rennie
281k45563811
answered Mar 29 at 6:41
John RennieJohn Rennie
281k45563811
answered Mar 29 at 6:41
John RennieJohn Rennie
281k45563811
281k45563811
$begingroup$
Thanks john, I assumed it involved measuring many pairs. I just wanted to confirm if correlation was the main thing we were looking for. Has anyone ever correlated two large objects which produced measurements of cos2?
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 7:06
$begingroup$
@BillAlsept That's very technically complicated. Measurement affects the object (as does any other interaction). The bigger the object, the harder it is to isolate from all those influences, and the harder it is to have any confidence in your measurement. There's no reason to expect entanglement "stops" at some scale, but there's many reasons to expect that the bigger the object, the harder it gets to prove entanglement. But we do know it works on a macroscopic scale, because quantum computers are macroscopic (without relying on entanglement of every individual atom involved).
$endgroup$
– Luaan
Mar 29 at 9:21
$begingroup$
@BillAlsept as far as I know this expt is the largest objects ever entangled
$endgroup$
– John Rennie
Mar 29 at 12:07
$begingroup$
@JohnRennie The article is very interesting but it says the two objects are coupled to a circuit and that the circuit keeps the two objects so called entangled. Isn’t that still just a local process? This is probably more of a question for chat But the only correlations I can think of are mirrored variables from a common source. Which is not really entanglement and why I say so called entanglement. I guess what I’m saying is I could draw up an experiment where many pairs of large objects are correlated with given variables that when tested would give the results of cos2. Thanks
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 15:24
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thanks john, I assumed it involved measuring many pairs. I just wanted to confirm if correlation was the main thing we were looking for. Has anyone ever correlated two large objects which produced measurements of cos2?
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 7:06
$begingroup$
@BillAlsept That's very technically complicated. Measurement affects the object (as does any other interaction). The bigger the object, the harder it is to isolate from all those influences, and the harder it is to have any confidence in your measurement. There's no reason to expect entanglement "stops" at some scale, but there's many reasons to expect that the bigger the object, the harder it gets to prove entanglement. But we do know it works on a macroscopic scale, because quantum computers are macroscopic (without relying on entanglement of every individual atom involved).
$endgroup$
– Luaan
Mar 29 at 9:21
$begingroup$
@BillAlsept as far as I know this expt is the largest objects ever entangled
$endgroup$
– John Rennie
Mar 29 at 12:07
$begingroup$
@JohnRennie The article is very interesting but it says the two objects are coupled to a circuit and that the circuit keeps the two objects so called entangled. Isn’t that still just a local process? This is probably more of a question for chat But the only correlations I can think of are mirrored variables from a common source. Which is not really entanglement and why I say so called entanglement. I guess what I’m saying is I could draw up an experiment where many pairs of large objects are correlated with given variables that when tested would give the results of cos2. Thanks
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 15:24
$begingroup$
Thanks john, I assumed it involved measuring many pairs. I just wanted to confirm if correlation was the main thing we were looking for. Has anyone ever correlated two large objects which produced measurements of cos2?
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 7:06
$begingroup$
Thanks john, I assumed it involved measuring many pairs. I just wanted to confirm if correlation was the main thing we were looking for. Has anyone ever correlated two large objects which produced measurements of cos2?
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 7:06
$begingroup$
@BillAlsept That's very technically complicated. Measurement affects the object (as does any other interaction). The bigger the object, the harder it is to isolate from all those influences, and the harder it is to have any confidence in your measurement. There's no reason to expect entanglement "stops" at some scale, but there's many reasons to expect that the bigger the object, the harder it gets to prove entanglement. But we do know it works on a macroscopic scale, because quantum computers are macroscopic (without relying on entanglement of every individual atom involved).
$endgroup$
– Luaan
Mar 29 at 9:21
$begingroup$
@BillAlsept That's very technically complicated. Measurement affects the object (as does any other interaction). The bigger the object, the harder it is to isolate from all those influences, and the harder it is to have any confidence in your measurement. There's no reason to expect entanglement "stops" at some scale, but there's many reasons to expect that the bigger the object, the harder it gets to prove entanglement. But we do know it works on a macroscopic scale, because quantum computers are macroscopic (without relying on entanglement of every individual atom involved).
$endgroup$
– Luaan
Mar 29 at 9:21
$begingroup$
@BillAlsept as far as I know this expt is the largest objects ever entangled
$endgroup$
– John Rennie
Mar 29 at 12:07
$begingroup$
@BillAlsept as far as I know this expt is the largest objects ever entangled
$endgroup$
– John Rennie
Mar 29 at 12:07
$begingroup$
@JohnRennie The article is very interesting but it says the two objects are coupled to a circuit and that the circuit keeps the two objects so called entangled. Isn’t that still just a local process? This is probably more of a question for chat But the only correlations I can think of are mirrored variables from a common source. Which is not really entanglement and why I say so called entanglement. I guess what I’m saying is I could draw up an experiment where many pairs of large objects are correlated with given variables that when tested would give the results of cos2. Thanks
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 15:24
$begingroup$
@JohnRennie The article is very interesting but it says the two objects are coupled to a circuit and that the circuit keeps the two objects so called entangled. Isn’t that still just a local process? This is probably more of a question for chat But the only correlations I can think of are mirrored variables from a common source. Which is not really entanglement and why I say so called entanglement. I guess what I’m saying is I could draw up an experiment where many pairs of large objects are correlated with given variables that when tested would give the results of cos2. Thanks
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 15:24
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f469308%2fhow-do-you-know-when-two-objects-are-so-called-entangled%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
van Enk et al (2007), "Experimental procedures for entanglement verification," Physical Review A 75, 052318 (authors.library.caltech.edu/8289) reviews a few methods, with emphasis on methods that are sufficient if we assume that quantum theory is correct. This is a superset of methods that are sufficient for ruling out local hidden variables.
$endgroup$
– Chiral Anomaly
Mar 29 at 15:45
$begingroup$
@ChiralAnomaly thanks, this Looks like a very thorough article and I will read through it.
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 18:01