Bell's inequality experimental data

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on Bell's inequality and its implications for quantum entanglement, specifically addressing the measurement setup involving 120-degree angles between measurement axes. Participants clarify that while a 50% correlation is observed, this does not definitively prove entanglement, as similar results can occur with non-entangled particles. The quantum probability for entangled particles measured at 120 degrees is actually 1/4 for opposite spins. A reference to figure 3 in a specific arXiv paper is provided as a resource for further understanding the data related to measurement outcomes.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Bell's inequality
  • Familiarity with quantum entanglement concepts
  • Knowledge of quantum measurement theory
  • Ability to interpret scientific data and figures
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the arXiv paper referenced: arXiv:1508.05949
  • Study the mathematical representation of entangled states
  • Explore quantum probability calculations in entangled systems
  • Investigate different measurement setups in quantum experiments
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, quantum mechanics students, and researchers interested in the nuances of quantum entanglement and Bell's inequality experiments.

Nivloc
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Everything I've seen about Bell's inequality has had the setup of 120 degree angles between the axis of measurements. The experiment then proves that the basic hidden variable theory can't be true. But the actual measurement has always been told to me as a 0.5 correlation. 50% of the time the two particles are reported in the opposite state, 50% of the time they are not. Which is exactly what entanglement predicts.

But it's also what you'd expect to see if the particles were not entangled.

First question, and the easiest way around this: Do the experiments keep track of individual results at individual measurement settings? Collectively, it's 50%. But can we look at the data and see that anytime the measurement axis line up the entanglement is 100%? If the particles are entangled, and the axis of measurement is the same, then the measurements will give the opposite value. Do we have that data? Do you know where I can see it for myself?

If we don't have that data, then I'm quickly going to despair of ever understanding why we're so convinced that the particles are still entangled at the time of measurement. I do not have a doctorate in theoretical physics, and I'm not about to get one. I don't even understand how we write entangled states or how to do math with them. The other option is if we know exactly what it takes to break an entangled state, such that we could be certain that the particles were entangled at the time of measurement.

So, essentially: If the only way to know whether or not two particles are entangled is to measure them both, then a 50-50 split in a two-state system doesn't prove that they are entangled.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Nivloc said:
Everything I've seen about Bell's inequality has had the setup of 120 degree angles between the axis of measurements. The experiment then proves that the basic hidden variable theory can't be true. But the actual measurement has always been told to me as a 0.5 correlation. 50% of the time the two particles are reported in the opposite state, 50% of the time they are not. Which is exactly what entanglement predicts.

But it's also what you'd expect to see if the particles were not entangled.
That's not correct. With entangled particles in a Bell state and 120° between the detectors, the quantum probability that the particles are measured with opposite spins is 1/4. Edit: to clarify, I am talking about measurement pairs along different angles.

Nivloc said:
Do the experiments keep track of individual results at individual measurement settings? Collectively, it's 50%. But can we look at the data and see that anytime the measurement axis line up the entanglement is 100%? If the particles are entangled, and the axis of measurement is the same, then the measurements will give the opposite value. Do we have that data? Do you know where I can see it for myself?
Have a look at figure 3 in https://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.05949.pdf
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Nivloc
Yup, that answers my question. Fig 3 (C) is what I was looking for. Thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K