Interactions that cause entanglement

In summary: The strong force doesn't seem amenable to similar testing. Perhaps you would try to create a gluon detector, not sure but I assume they could exist in the wild. I don't know enough about the strong force to speculate how that would happen. I think it is generally conceded that free quarks don't exist long enough to do much with them. You end up with pions (quark-antiquark pairs) instead, and I think they decay rather quickly as well.
  • #1
RabitHolRules
12
0
I would like to know what are some examples of what two nuclei would have to experience in order to become entangled. Could being part of the same molecule yield such a state? or would they have to be, say, daughter products of a nuclear reaction, etc?

big thanks,
Mark
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I'm pretty sure that entanglement can only arise as a result of fundamental conservation laws such as pair production in the weak decay of neutral meson.

It can be proven that Coulomb interactions do not lead to entanglement.
 
  • #3
It can be proven that Coulomb interactions do not lead to entanglement.
Could you elaborate? If two protons collide like billiard balls with the same energy, why are they not entangled afterwards? Conservation of energy applies.
 
  • #4
jdstokes said:
I'm pretty sure that entanglement can only arise as a result of fundamental conservation laws such as pair production in the weak decay of neutral meson.

It can be proven that Coulomb interactions do not lead to entanglement.

Surely all well understood physical systems obey fundamental conservation laws?
 
  • #5
peter0302 said:
Could you elaborate? If two protons collide like billiard balls with the same energy, why are they not entangled afterwards? Conservation of energy applies.

To be honest I'm not sure about this myself but it's what I've been told by more knowledgeable people than myself at my University. I do believe this is part of what makes quantum computing so difficult.
 
  • #6
neu said:
Surely all well understood physical systems obey fundamental conservation laws?

I meant along the lines of particle creation/annihilation processes. In other words, you need quantum field theory to get entanglement. In nonrelativistic quantum mechanics entanglement is added a priori.
 
  • #7
Actually, almost any interaction leads to entanglement. The problem with quantum computing is that the system entangles with the environment, which you then can't measure effectively. The system you are interested in is then left in a (classical) statistical state as far as you can measure.

Entanglement refers to the inability to factor a combined state into a tensor product of states of the separate systems. Very few interactions actually produce states which are factorisable even if you start with factorisable ones.
 
  • #8
jdstokes said:
It can be proven that Coulomb interactions do not lead to entanglement.

There are plenty of systems that use electromagnetic interactions (capacitive, inductive, photon mediated etc) to entangle two quantum systems. This is e.g. the only way to entangle two solid-state qubits.
 
  • #9
f95toli said:
There are plenty of systems that use electromagnetic interactions (capacitive, inductive, photon mediated etc) to entangle two quantum systems. This is e.g. the only way to entangle two solid-state qubits.

Please pardon my extreme ignorance of this subject, but would such interactions also entangle the nuclei of atoms? or does nuclear entanglement require nuclear processes?

:redface:
 
  • #10
jdstokes said:
I'm pretty sure that entanglement can only arise as a result of fundamental conservation laws such as pair production in the weak decay of neutral meson.

It can be proven that Coulomb interactions do not lead to entanglement.

After seeking clarification it turns out that the statements are not correct. You can entangle two qubits by e.g. driving them in a common laser field until they are in the same quantum state and then allowing them to interact via electrostatic dipole interactions.

I'm not sure what the situation is like for nuclei but I imagine it would be similar.
 
  • #11
jdstokes said:
You can entangle two qubits by e.g. driving them in a common laser field until they are in the same quantum state and then allowing them to interact via electrostatic dipole interactions.

I'm not sure what the situation is like for nuclei but I imagine it would be similar.

Very interesting! How might that work for nuclei? What, for example, might be analogous to a laser insofar as a few nuclei are concerned? x-ray laser? neutrons in some kind of coherent wave?
 
  • #12
RabitHolRules said:
Very interesting! How might that work for nuclei? What, for example, might be analogous to a laser insofar as a few nuclei are concerned? x-ray laser? neutrons in some kind of coherent wave?

I guess an analog *might* be the decay of a free neutron. Spin would presumably be conserved (in the output particles) and maybe you could figure out a way to come up with a Bell Inequality there too.

The strong force doesn't seem amenable to similar testing. Perhaps you would try to create a gluon detector, not sure but I assume they could exist in the wild. I don't know enough about the strong force to speculate how that would happen. I think it is generally conceded that free quarks don't exist long enough to do much with them. You end up with pions (quark-antiquark pairs) instead, and I think they decay rather quickly as well. So you end up with a particle soup, nothing simple enough to test really.
 
  • #13
jdstokes said:
I meant along the lines of particle creation/annihilation processes. In other words, you need quantum field theory to get entanglement. In nonrelativistic quantum mechanics entanglement is added a priori.

Not at all. For example, the EPR experiment is non-relativistic. The entanglement comes from conservation of angular momentum. Given that the spin state's magnetic quantum numbers must add to zero -- zero angular total spin state --, only one measurement is required to determine the entire state, complete set of states and all that standard QM stuff. No a priori assignation of entanglement in non relativistic QM.

That being said, relativistic QM supports the idea of entanglement. In fact virtually the entire kinematical structure of high energy physics experiments, and also low energy particle experiments are highly dependent upon the phenomena of entanglement. It's kind of like, "Buy a dozen, and get one free."

That entanglement happens is no big deal, but the dynamics of entanglement presents us with some tricky problems. And, naturally, entanglement occurs in classical systems as well.


Entanglement by interaction; beyond my pay grade.
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson
 

1. What is entanglement?

Entanglement is a phenomenon in quantum physics where particles become connected in a way that their states are dependent on each other, even when separated by large distances.

2. How do interactions cause entanglement?

Interactions between particles, such as collisions or exchanges of energy, can lead to entanglement. When particles interact, their quantum states become correlated, resulting in entanglement.

3. What are the implications of entanglement?

Entanglement has important implications for quantum computing and communication. It allows for the transfer of information between particles instantaneously, even when separated by large distances, making it a potential tool for secure communication.

4. Can entanglement be observed in everyday life?

No, entanglement is a phenomenon that occurs at the quantum level and is not observable in our everyday lives. It requires highly controlled laboratory conditions to be created and detected.

5. How is entanglement measured?

Entanglement can be measured through various methods, such as Bell inequality tests or quantum state tomography. These techniques involve manipulating and measuring the quantum states of particles to determine their level of entanglement.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
770
Replies
3
Views
629
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
23
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
9
Views
265
Replies
4
Views
620
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
966
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
22
Views
1K
Back
Top