Entangled States and the Mystery of Wave Function Collapse

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter edpell
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Entanglement Spin
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the nature of entangled states in quantum mechanics, specifically questioning whether spin is the only physical parameter that can be entangled and exploring the broader implications of entanglement across various observables. The conversation touches on theoretical aspects, conceptual clarifications, and the implications of wave function collapse.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that entanglement is not limited to spin, suggesting that nearly any observable can be entangled, depending on the experimental setup and what states can be prepared.
  • One participant emphasizes the distinction between "parameters" and "observables," defining observables as quantum mechanical operators that can be entangled, with the choice of observables affecting the description of the quantum state.
  • Another participant discusses the abstract nature of entanglement, arguing that it relates more to our representation of quantum states rather than an inherent property of reality.
  • A hypothetical analogy involving color representation is used to illustrate how changing the basis of measurement does not alter the actual state, but rather our understanding of it.
  • One participant connects the mysteries of entangled states to the broader issue of wave function collapse, suggesting that these mysteries persist regardless of whether entangled states are involved.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of entanglement and its relationship to observables, with no consensus reached on whether spin is uniquely special or if other observables can also exhibit entanglement.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes various assumptions regarding the compatibility of observables and the implications of measurement choices, which remain unresolved.

edpell
Messages
282
Reaction score
4
Is spin the only physical parameter that can be entangled? If not, what else? If so, it seems there is something special about spin?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
edpell said:
Is spin the only physical parameter that can be entangled? If not, what else? If so, it seems there is something special about spin?

No, not at all. In principle just about any observable can be entangled, and in practice we're limited only by what states are easily prepared. Most of the Bell experiments have been done with polarized photons, because they are easier to produce and to measure than spin pairs. The original EPR paper considered position and momentum.
 
Last edited:
edpell said:
Is spin the only physical parameter that can be entangled? If not, what else? If so, it seems there is something special about spin?
I would not call it "parameter" but obervable.

An observable is a quantum mechanical operator with eigenvalues and eigenstates which can be used to label the results of measuments. In quantum mechanics we can have several obsvables, not all of them are mutually "compatible", but assume we have a maximal set of compatible observables {A, B, C, ...}. Then a quantum state is something like a set of labels |a, b, c, ...) with eigenvalues a, b, c, ... of the observables. Having such a state means that we can be sure that measuring A, B, C, ... will have the results a, b, c, ...

An entangled state w.r.t. an observable A is nothing else but a linear combination p|a, b, c, ...) + q|a', b, c, ...) where we have the probability p^2 to find a and the probability q^2 to find a' as result of the measurement on A.

So entanglement depends on the set of obsvables you chose to describe the system; and this depends e.g. on the experimental setup, what you want to measure. Observables can be energy, momentum, angular momentum, spin, ... (not all of them being mutually compatible!)
 
Entanglement has more to do with our abstract representation than reality itself.

When we describe some state in quantum mechanics, we have to choose some basis to label the state with. For a simple non-quantum analogy, consider colors. We might describe the color brown as "0.3*red + 0.25*green + 0.03*blue", using the red-green-blue basis. Or, this color can be expressed as something like "0.4*yellow + 0.1*magenta - 0.04*cyan" (I made up the numbers. Don't check them for correctness.). By changing the basis, we didn't change the state at all, only our abstract representation.

Now, consider we have a hypothetical green filter, which blocks the green portion of a color and let's the blue and red pass through. (We are talking about the color green, not the wavelength green, so such a filter probably doesn't exist in real life.) If we pass a random color through the green filter, we gained some information about the state. We know 1 out of three numbers that describe the state, and so there are 2 unknowns. If we switch over to the cyan-magenta-yellow basis, we can no longer write the state in terms of 1 number we know and 2 unknowns, because we don't know the value of any of the three numbers. But, we didn't actually lose any information about the state since we only made an abstract representation change. So we represent the state as a linear combination of states--an entangled state.

All of the mysteries regarding entangled states are actually mysteries of wave function collapse, and this weirdness persists whether or not we use entangled states. Using entangled states just makes it easier to see this weirdness in some circumstances.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
6K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K