Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

I Are entanglement correlations truly random?

  1. Dec 6, 2017 #81
    From the data of my computer code :biggrin:
    Well, I can reassure you that was not my angle of approach. The cherry-picking part I introduced to illustrate how improbable it is to get a correlation out of pure randomness.
    That's not entirely fair - I think it is a matter of starting point.
     
  2. Dec 6, 2017 #82

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    But you still haven't really explained what you mean by this.
     
  3. Dec 6, 2017 #83
    Well, I am afraid I can't do better than this currently. I will ponder some more.
     
  4. Dec 6, 2017 #84

    Mentz114

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    You should stsrt by finding out the customary meanings of randomness and also how to calculate a correlation.
     
  5. Dec 7, 2017 #85

    Zafa Pi

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    A major problem in getting your question answered is that your terminology is sloppy, in fact truly sloppy.
    You failed to make a definition. The terms "random" and "truly random" are neither used nor defined in probability texts. And after reading more of your posts it is not clear to me what you mean.

    Let me give a simple concrete QM example:
    Given an entangled pair from state √½(|00⟩ + |11⟩), we let A measure one of the pair at angle 0º, i.e. with measurement operator/observable ##Z =\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\0&-1 \end {pmatrix}##.
    We let B measure the other at 30°, i.e. with observable ##½Z + √¾X =\begin{pmatrix}½&√¾\\√¾&-½\end{pmatrix}##.

    The joint probability density of (A,B) is (1,1) with prob ⅜, (1,-1) with prob ⅛, (-1,1) with prob ⅛, (-1,-1) with prob ⅜. (1 & -1 are eigenvalues of the observables)
    We see A and B agree with prob = ¾ = cos²30º, as usual.
    The correlation coefficient is ½.
    The marginal density of A is 1 with prob ½, -1 with prob ½. Same for B. A and B are not independent.

    All of this is justified by repeated trials in the lab.

    Can you ask your question from the above formulation?
     
  6. Dec 7, 2017 #86
    I thought I remembered the basics, but this morning my meds demand my brain, so I would have to look it up.
     
  7. Dec 7, 2017 #87
    If the term is not defined in scientific literature, then why are you asking me, a layman, to define it? By the way, I gave one:
    Anyway, I will think about what I mean by 'truly' random.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2017
  8. Dec 7, 2017 #88

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Because you used it. We need to know what you meant by it.
     
  9. Dec 7, 2017 #89

    Zafa Pi

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I don't know what you mean by fragment. Do you have a link?
    If a1,a2, ... ,al with l=20 is a binary sequence, what is a fragment of 10 bits? Is it a subset of size 10? Is it a contiguous subset like a7,a8, ... ,a16? Or what?
     
  10. Dec 8, 2017 #90

    Zafa Pi

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I now think you were trying to define a binary normal sequence, but failed.

    "A sequence of bits is random if there exists no Program shorter than it which can produce the same sequence." ~ Kolmogorov
    So obviously it is impossible to exhibit a Kolmogorov random sequence.

    Neither normality or K-random imply one another. But all of this should be in the Probability section of PF. And none of this is relevant to QM.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Are entanglement correlations truly random?
  1. Truly Random? (Replies: 4)

  2. Truly Random? (Replies: 23)

Loading...