Does quantum entanglement depend on the chosen basis?

In summary: Please correct me if I am wrong.In the first example the observables under consideration are either polarization in 0 and 90-degree direction (relative to an arbitrary direction in the plane perpendicular to the photons' momenta) vs. polarization in ##\pm 45^{\circ}##. In the latter case the state is obviously entangled, while it's not in the former.This is what I meant.
  • #1
microsansfil
325
43
Hi,

In this presentation about quantum optics it is mentioned that the same quantum state |Ψ> has different expressions in different mode bases : factorized state or entangled state.

This presentation is related to this video :

upload_2018-12-26_20-31-57.png


In some way entanglement isn't intrinsic. It depend on the way you look at the mode !

/Patrick
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-12-26_20-31-57.png
    upload_2018-12-26_20-31-57.png
    66 KB · Views: 974
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The factorized states consist of multiple particles. The property "the states of the two particles are entangled" is independent of the basis. You are just hiding it in the base chosen.

I discussed a similar example here where you can hide the time-evolution of a system by a clever choice of coordinates.
 
  • #3
mfb said:
The factorized states consist of multiple particles.
Yes, Claude Fabre speak about Fock state : |p1 : f1, p2 : f2, ...> with pi number of photon.

However, in the example given :

|Ψ> = |1 : fx> ⊗ |1 : fy> which is not entangled state on the basis of polarization modes fx fy
The same state |Ψ> can also be written : |2 : g45>⊗ |0 : g-45> - |0 : g45>⊗ |1 : g-45> which is an entangled state on the basis of polarization modes g45 g-45

upload_2018-12-26_21-21-22.png


/Patrick
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-12-26_21-21-22.png
    upload_2018-12-26_21-21-22.png
    27.6 KB · Views: 896
Last edited:
  • #4
I would say that two subsystems are entangled if there is no way to write the state as a product of states. So if there is some basis in which the systems are not entangled, then they are not entangled in any basis.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #5
That's what I understood too. Now, Claude Fabre of the LKB is not a novice in this field, hence my astonishment.

In the context of quantum optics, the notion of entanglement would be more subtle ?

/Patrick
 
  • #6
Entanglement can be basis dependent or basis independent, depending on the definition. I'll add references later.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba and king vitamin
  • #7
stevendaryl said:
So if there is some basis in which the systems are not entangled, then they are not entangled in any basis.

Note sure if this is what you are referring to or not. I believe there can be photons pairs that are momentum entangled, but not polarization entangled. Type I SPDC using only a single crystal would do that. See Figure 8, left diagram. (Not entirely clear that it is type I here.)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2186486_Photonic_Entanglement_for_Fundamental_Tests_and_Quantum_Communication

Please correct me if needed.
 
  • #8
DrChinese said:
Note sure if this is what you are referring to or not.
I don't think that's what he means. Take two quibits in the state ##\psi=|-\rangle |-\rangle-|-\rangle |+\rangle+|+\rangle |-\rangle-|+\rangle |+\rangle##. It may look entangled but in the bases ##\{|0\rangle,|1\rangle\}##, defined by ##|0\rangle=|-\rangle+|+\rangle## and ##|1\rangle=|-\rangle-|+\rangle##, the state is ##\psi=|0\rangle|1\rangle##. That's why the definition says that the state is not entangled if there is a basis in which the state is a pure tensor (product).
 
  • #9
martinbn said:
Take two quibits in the state ##\psi=|-\rangle |-\rangle-|-\rangle |+\rangle+|+\rangle |-\rangle-|+\rangle |+\rangle##. It may look entangled
it seems to me that it isn't entangled because it could be factorized ##\psi=(|-\rangle +|+\rangle)(|-\rangle -|+\rangle)##

/Patrick
 
  • #10
Yes, that's the point I am making. And that's what stevendaryl said.
 
  • #11
I'd also say that it doesn't make the slightest sense to say something is "entangled". It's analogous to the sentence "Alice is bigger", which makes no sense of its own, because it doesn't say in which sense "Alice is bigger". You may immediately ask, "bigger compared to what?".

The same holds for "entanglement". You have to tell which observables of the quantum system under investigation are entangled to make sense of "entanglement". E.g., in the Stern-Gerlach apparatus the magnetic moment of an uncharged particle (or atom in the original setup of 1922) in quantization direction (i.e., in direction of the large homogeneous part of the magnetic field) gets entangled with the position of the particle.

Another often used example (because it's so easily experimentally realizable these days) are the polarizations of two photons in a single-photon state.

This shows that there's no more confusion about the choice of basis to decide whether a (pure) states describes "entanglement" or "no entanglement", because it's clear that you have to use the eigenbasis of the self-adjoint operators describing the observables to express the state in question to see whether it's describing entanglement between the observables in question or not, and then it's unique, whether these observables are entangled or not. By definition two observables are entangled in a given state if the state is not a pure product state in the uniquely defined orthonormal basis of the putatively entangled observables.

I haven't fully understood the above example of polarization states, but I guess it's the following: In the first example the observables under consideration are either polarization in 0 and 90-degree direction (relative to an arbitrary direction in the plane perpendicular to the photons' momenta) vs. polarization in ##\pm 45^{\circ}##. In the latter case the state is obviously entangled, while it's not in the former. Of course, there's no contradiction in this, because the measurement of polarization in 0 and ##90^{\circ}## direction is incompatible with the measurement of polarization in ##\pm 45^{\circ}## direction. The most simple experimental setup is to use a polaroid foil directed in ##0## direction or ##45^{\circ}## direction. You cannot have both direction in the same setup. In the first setup, if the measured photon gets through its polarization is in ##0^{\circ}## direction with certainty, but it's polarized with 50% in ##45^{\circ}## and with 50% in ##-45^{\circ}## direction an vice versa. That's why there's no contradiction in the observation that the above discussed two-photon state is not entangled with respect to the observable "single-photon polarizations in ##0## or ##90^{\circ}## direction" but that it is entangled with respect to the observable "single-photon polarizations in ##+45^{\circ}## or ##-45^{\circ}## direction.

Of course, things become more involved if the eigenvalues of the involved observable operators are degenerate. Then I'd define that the observables are entangled if and only if there's no complete orthonormal basis wrt. which the state is a product state.
 
  • #12
vanhees71 said:
I'd also say that it doesn't make the slightest sense to say something is "entangled". It's analogous to the sentence "Alice is bigger", which makes no sense of its own, because it doesn't say in which sense "Alice is bigger". You may immediately ask, "bigger compared to what?".

The same holds for "entanglement". You have to tell which observables of the quantum system under investigation are entangled to make sense of "entanglement". E.g., in the Stern-Gerlach apparatus the magnetic moment of an uncharged particle (or atom in the original setup of 1922) in quantization direction (i.e., in direction of the large homogeneous part of the magnetic field) gets entangled with the position of the particle.

Well, the definition that two systems are entangled if their state cannot be written as a product makes some sense as a definition. However, spatially separated identical particles are always entangled by this definition. Two electrons will always have a composite state that looks like ##\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} ( |\psi\rangle |\phi\rangle - |\phi\rangle |\psi\rangle)##.
 
  • Like
Likes akvadrako
  • #13
stevendaryl said:
Well, the definition that two systems are entangled if their state cannot be written as a product
I learned the same mathematical definition.

vanhees71 said:
You have to tell which observables of the quantum system under investigation are entangled to make sense of "entanglement".

What can be the definition of entanglement concerning observables? It is about Operators' tensor product ? Two observables are entangled if they cannot be written as a product ?

/Patrick
 
  • #14
stevendaryl said:
Well, the definition that two systems are entangled if their state cannot be written as a product makes some sense as a definition. However, spatially separated identical particles are always entangled by this definition. Two electrons will always have a composite state that looks like ##\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} ( |\psi\rangle |\phi\rangle - |\phi\rangle |\psi\rangle)##.
As I tried to explain above your first sentence is at best incomplete. You have to state with respect to which basis, i.e., with respect to which observables you are considering the question of entanglement, the pure-state-representing vector is a product state. Of course, indistinguishable paricle's state vectors are (almost) always entangled states with respect to any one-particle basis due to being fermions or bosons, since the Hilbert space is spanned by antisymmetrized or symmetrized products of single-particle basis vectors. Only bosons can be in unentangled states, namely the product state made of only one single-particle state.
 
  • #15
vanhees71 said:
As I tried to explain above your first sentence is at best incomplete. You have to state with respect to which basis,

Not if your definition is "Two subsystems are entangled if there does not exist a basis in which the state is a product state." That's not incomplete.
 
  • #16
That IS incomplete. You have to state with respect to which observables a given state of a system describes entanglement. The example, this entire thread is about is a simple example for that:

With respect to the single-photon polarization states ##|H \rangle##, ##|V \rangle##, which belong to the observable, say ##|H \rangle \langle H|##, which tests, whether a photon is horizontally polarized (it describes an ideal polarization filter, letting a photon with certainty through if it's horizontally polarized). Then the OP considered the two-photon-polarization state
$$|\Psi \rangle=|H \rangle \otimes |V \rangle,$$
which clearly shows that the two photons's ##H##-##V## polarization observables are not entangled, because it's a product state in the corresponding eigenbasis.

Now what about the "vertically" polarization observable? Its basis is
$$| \pm \rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (|H \rangle \pm |V \rangle).$$
Obviously we have
$$|\Psi \rangle=\frac{1}{2} (|+\rangle +|-\rangle) \otimes (|+\rangle - |- \rangle),$$
which obviously is not a product state in the ##|\pm \rangle## basis, and thus wrt. the "vertical polarization" observable the same state is entangled.
 
  • #17
vanhees71 said:
That IS incomplete. You have to state with respect to which observables a given state of a system describes entanglement.

No, you don't. You can say that if there exists a basis under which they can be written as a product state, then they are not entangled.
 
  • #18
Hm, that's not very concrete and adds to the confusion rather than helping with the somewhat unintuitive physics of entanglement, and then people again come and say QT is weird :-(.
 
  • #19
vanhees71 said:
Hm, that's not very concrete and adds to the confusion rather than helping with the somewhat unintuitive physics of entanglement, and then people again come and say QT is weird :-(.

I would say on the contrary that if something is only entangled in a particular basis, then none of the interesting properties of entanglement come into play.

The interesting thing about the state ##\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|u\rangle |d\rangle - |d\rangle |u\rangle)## is that it doesn't matter what basis you choose; the state cannot be written as a product state. In contrast, the state ##\frac{1}{2}(|u\rangle |u\rangle - |d\rangle |u\rangle - |u\rangle |d\rangle + |d\rangle |d\rangle)## may look entangled, but there are no interesting consequences of that entanglement.
 
  • Like
Likes zonde
  • #20
This is special, because it's a state of total angular momentum (or spin in this case) 0. Of course that's a rotaionally invariant state, and that's why it's entangled wrt. any angular-moment direction. I'd call this a "Bell state" or "maximally entangled" state because of this property. It's of course the most beautiful entangled state because of this high symmetry.
 
  • #21
vanhees71 said:
This is special, because it's a state of total angular momentum (or spin in this case) 0. Of course that's a rotaionally invariant state, and that's why it's entangled wrt. any angular-moment direction. I'd call this a "Bell state" or "maximally entangled" state because of this property. It's of course the most beautiful entangled state because of this high symmetry.

But there is nothing particularly interesting (as far as I know) about states that are only entangled with respect to a single basis. What's interesting about entanglement is that there is a state for the composite system, but the component systems cannot be said to have a state (unless you go to density matrices).
 
  • #22
vanhees71 said:
which obviously is not a product state in the ##|\pm \rangle## basis, and thus wrt. the "vertical polarization" observable the same state is entangled.

No, it isn't, because measuring, say, ##|+\rangle## on one subsystem tells you nothing about the state of the other subsystem: it's equally likely to be ##|+\rangle## or ##|-\rangle##. If the two were entangled, measuring one would give you at least some information about the other. This is obvious from the fact that the state factorizes into a tensor product of states on each subsystem. The fact that the two factor states are not single kets does not make the state as a whole entangled.
 
  • #23
stevendaryl said:
But there is nothing particularly interesting (as far as I know) about states that are only entangled with respect to a single basis. What's interesting about entanglement is that there is a state for the composite system, but the component systems cannot be said to have a state (unless you go to density matrices).
Well, take the SG experiment, where the entanglement of position and the spin component in direction of the field is the very point of the entire experiment, exemplifying the nature of measurement as an entanglement between pointer observables (position of the particle) and the measured quantity (spin/magnetic-moment component (which, BTW, is necessarily only FAPP as ideal as qualitatively (!) argued in textbooks!). I think entanglement (be it complete as in the Bell tests of the last decades or partial as in the SG experiment) is at the heart of understanding quantum theory!

Of course, a quantum state is always represented uniquely by a statistical operator (which in the position representation is the density matrix). Pure states are special cases, representing completely determined systems (i.e., systems prepared in a common eigenstate of a complete set of compatible observables).
 
  • #24
PeterDonis said:
No, it isn't, because measuring, say, ##|+\rangle## on one subsystem tells you nothing about the state of the other subsystem: it's equally likely to be ##|+\rangle## or ##|-\rangle##. If the two were entangled, measuring one would give you at least some information about the other. This is obvious from the fact that the state factorizes into a tensor product of states on each subsystem. The fact that the two factor states are not single kets does not make the state as a whole entangled.
Then I'd need a clear definition, what you mean by "entanglement". I've explained what I understand under "entanglement" above, but of course I can be wrong. It's interesting that there seems not to be a clear definition in the literature, such that we have to argue about its definition to begin with.
 
  • Like
Likes akvadrako
  • #25
vanhees71 said:
Then I'd need a clear definition, what you mean by "entanglement".

An entangled state is a state of a quantum system that cannot be factorized into a product of states of its subsystems. Writing a state in a different basis doesn't change whether this is true or not.

vanhees71 said:
It's interesting that there seems not to be a clear definition in the literature

The definition I've just given is the one I've seen in every piece of fairly recent literature I've read.
 
  • #26
Ok, I can live with that definition although I think it's not very clear.

First of all, "subsystem" can also refer to two (compatible) quantities for a single particle (as in the example of the SG experiment, where one spin component, usually ##\sigma_z##, and position are compatible observables), which define an orthonormal basis of common eigenvectors of the corresponding self-adjoint operators.

In this general sense for me still entanglement refers to entanglement with respect to a clearly given set of observables, and also the surprising implications of entanglement (or to put it in Einstein's words, inseparability) are in terms of "stronger-than-classical" correlations of observables on a quantum system.
 
  • #27
vanhees71 said:
Ok, I can live with that definition although I think it's not very clear.
Do you have a reference for a different definition?
 
  • #28
vanhees71 said:
"subsystem" can also refer to two (compatible) quantities for a single particle

Yes. Subsystems are best viewed as subsets of the degrees of freedom of the quantum system as a whole, not "particles".

vanhees71 said:
which define an orthonormal basis of common eigenvectors of the corresponding self-adjoint operators.

You don't need to choose a basis in order to pick out subsystems this way. For example, you don't need to choose which direction you are measuring spin or which basis you want to use for configuration space (position/momentum) in order to pick out spin and configuration as different subsystems. Nor do you need to choose a basis to know whether or not those subsystems are entangled.
 
  • #30
I stumble already over slide 4 on the first cited sources:

The general ket in ##\mathcal{H}_A \otimes \mathcal{H}_B## is
$$|Psi \rangle = \sum_{ij} c_{ij} |u_i \rangle \otimes |v_j \rangle,$$
where the ##|u_i \rangle## and ##|v_j \rangle## are CONSs of ##\mathcal{H}_A## and ##\mathcal{H}_B##. The notation on these slides don't make sense, as becomes clear if the dimension of the two Hilbert spaces are not the same. One example is my beloved Stern-Gerlach experiment, where ##\mathcal{H}_A## is the infinite dimensional (separable) Hilbert space realizing the Heisenberg algebra of position and momentum operators and ##\mathcal{H}_B## the ##(2s+1)##-dimensional Hilbert space describing spin for particles with spin ##s \in \{1/2,1,\ldots \}##.

If we stick to the definition that a pure state is non-entangled (I prefer to say it's separable) iff it can be written in terms of a product state
$$|\Psi \rangle = |\psi \rangle \otimes |\phi \rangle.$$
Then the decomposition in the arbitrary product basis reads
$$|\Psi \rangle = \sum_{ij} \psi_i \phi_j |u_i \rangle \otimes v_j \rangle.$$
That means in this sense of entanglement, a state is separable iff
$$c_{ij}=\psi_i \phi_j,$$
i.e., iff the coefficients are products of complex numbers depending only on ##i## and ##j## respectively.

A basis-independent characterization then should be: A pure state is separable iff the reduced state of either subsystem is itself a pure state again. From now on I write ##|u_i,v_j \rangle## for ##|u_i \rangle \otimes |v_j \rangle##. Then indeed one has
$$\hat{\rho}_A=\mathrm{Tr}_B \hat{\rho}=\sum_{i,j,k} \langle u_i,v_j|\hat{\rho}|u_k,v_j \rangle |u_i \rangle \langle u_k|.$$
For the above product state we indeed have
$$\hat{\rho}_A=\sum_{i,j,k} \langle u_i,v_j|\psi,\phi \rangle \langle \psi,\phi|u_k,v_j \rangle |u_i \rangle \langle u_k| = \sum_{i,j,k} \psi_i \psi_k^{*} |\phi_j|^2 |u_i \rangle \langle u_k|=|\phi \rangle \langle \phi|.$$
The other direction is proven in Ballentine Quantum Mechanics: If the partial trace of a pure state of a composite system is pure then necessarily this state is separable.

In other words: within this definition a pure state is entangled if its partial trace (on either of the subsystems) is mixed.

The paper by Sasaki et al seems to use my notion of entanglement, while their reference 3 (the RMP by Horodeki##^4##) takes the more general definition discussed above. I still think it's more clear to state entanglement with respect to a concrete measurement on subsystems. On the other hand the more general definition is easier to state (at least for pure states).
 
  • #31
vanhees71 said:
The notation on these slides don't make sense, as becomes clear if the dimension of the two Hilbert spaces are not the same.
Their notation does make sense. That's what the theorem they use says. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmidt_decomposition
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #34
atyy said:

Thank for the link. Now, just like Martinbn, I don't see where it is explicitly developed that an entangled pure state can be Basis-dependent.

The concept of entanglement is much more difficult to capture for a mixed state then for a pure state. Further, the mixed-state decomposition is not unique. Moreover, in realistic systems, a pure state inevitably falls into a mixed state.

If i understand the definition of entanglement given by vanhees71 : a pure state ρ ∈ HA⊗HB is entangled if and only if the reduced state ρA is not pure. Equivalently, ρ is separable if and only if ρA is pure. Here ρA is the reduced state defined as ρA≡TrBρ. However, this definition says nothing about whether or not a entanglement state could be Basis-dependent.

/Patrick
 
  • #35
microsansfil said:
Thank for the link. Now, just like Martinbn, I don't see where it is explicitly developed that an entangled pure state can be Basis-dependent.

The concept of entanglement is much more difficult to capture for a mixed state then for a pure state. Further, the mixed-state decomposition is not unique. Moreover, in realistic systems, a pure state inevitably falls into a mixed state.

If i understand the definition of entanglement given by vanhees71 : a pure state ρ ∈ HA⊗HB is entangled if and only if the reduced state ρA is not pure. Equivalently, ρ is separable if and only if ρA is pure. Here ρA is the reduced state defined as ρA≡TrBρ. However, this definition says nothing about whether or not a entanglement state could be Basis-dependent.

It's probably clearer to say "measurement setup" than "basis". Anyway, the Sasaki et al reference is pretty close to what vanhees71 has been saying (as he himself noted). They give explicit examples in section V. You can also find comments in section 1.2.4 of https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.4654.
 
<h2>1. What is quantum entanglement?</h2><p>Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon in which two or more particles become connected in such a way that the state of one particle is dependent on the state of the other, regardless of the distance between them.</p><h2>2. How does quantum entanglement work?</h2><p>Quantum entanglement occurs when two or more particles are created or interact in a way that their properties become correlated. This means that measuring the state of one particle will instantly determine the state of the other particle, even if they are separated by large distances.</p><h2>3. Does quantum entanglement depend on the chosen basis?</h2><p>Yes, quantum entanglement does depend on the chosen basis. The basis refers to the set of properties or measurements used to describe the state of a particle. The entanglement between two particles can only be observed if the chosen basis is compatible with the entangled state of the particles.</p><h2>4. Why is the chosen basis important in quantum entanglement?</h2><p>The chosen basis is important in quantum entanglement because it determines which properties of the particles are entangled. If the chosen basis is not compatible with the entangled state of the particles, the entanglement will not be observed.</p><h2>5. Can quantum entanglement be used for communication?</h2><p>No, quantum entanglement cannot be used for communication. While entangled particles can instantaneously affect each other's states, this effect cannot be used to transmit information faster than the speed of light. This is due to the no-communication theorem in quantum mechanics.</p>

1. What is quantum entanglement?

Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon in which two or more particles become connected in such a way that the state of one particle is dependent on the state of the other, regardless of the distance between them.

2. How does quantum entanglement work?

Quantum entanglement occurs when two or more particles are created or interact in a way that their properties become correlated. This means that measuring the state of one particle will instantly determine the state of the other particle, even if they are separated by large distances.

3. Does quantum entanglement depend on the chosen basis?

Yes, quantum entanglement does depend on the chosen basis. The basis refers to the set of properties or measurements used to describe the state of a particle. The entanglement between two particles can only be observed if the chosen basis is compatible with the entangled state of the particles.

4. Why is the chosen basis important in quantum entanglement?

The chosen basis is important in quantum entanglement because it determines which properties of the particles are entangled. If the chosen basis is not compatible with the entangled state of the particles, the entanglement will not be observed.

5. Can quantum entanglement be used for communication?

No, quantum entanglement cannot be used for communication. While entangled particles can instantaneously affect each other's states, this effect cannot be used to transmit information faster than the speed of light. This is due to the no-communication theorem in quantum mechanics.

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
729
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
890
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
5
Views
935
Replies
1
Views
783
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
7
Views
986
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
666
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
24
Views
594
Replies
18
Views
2K
Back
Top