Entanglement – the order of measurements can be important

In summary: Bohr?) - I give a counterexample (I believe) - a variant type of FTL-gedanken experiment1. A stream of entangled photons is created - k*( lp1, x> + lp1,y> )2. Half of these goes to an observer (observer A) and the rest to another observer (observer B).3. Observer A measures the photons with a PBS (0) - polarize horizontally / vertically. Only those horizontally polarized are detected - lp1,x>.4. Observer B measures the remaining photons with a PBS (45) - polarization diagonal positive / negative. Both the diagonal positive and negative are detected - lp1,+> and lp1,->
  • #1
UChr
60
0
Entanglement – the order of measurements can be important.
I try now with some formulas - hope it's reasonably understandable:

First known substance - unless I am floundering in it:
I imagine that the p - photons is measured first (p1) and meets a PBS (0) (x = horizontal and y = vertical). We can then describe the measuring state with regard to polarization by:

k*( lp1,x> ls2,y> + lp1,y> ls2,x> ) - where k = 1 / sqrt (2) (scale factor).

Next s - photons are measured (s2) with a PBS (+45) (+=+45 degrees and - = - 45 degrees).

Change of base: ls2,x> = k*( ls2,+> + ls2,->) and ls2,y> = k*( ls2,+> - ls2,->) and inserted:

k*k*( lp1,x> ( ls2,+> - ls2,->) + lp1,y> ( ls2,+> + ls2,->))

= k * k * (( lp1,x> ls2,+> - lp1,x> ls2,-> + lp1,y> ls2,+> + lp1,y> ls2,->)

= k*(k*( lp1,x> ls2,+> + lp1,y> ls2,+>) + k*(lp1,y> ls2,-> - lp1,x> ls2,->))



There are detectors at 0, 90 and -45 degrees, so that only photons with +45 degrees continues - equivalent to: k*( lp1,x> ls2,+> + lp1,y> ls2,+>)
which corresponds to the expected: that half of the photons continue on + 45 were measured horizontally and half comes from the vertical (at p).


s measured before p: k*( lp2,-> ls1,+> + lp2,+> ls1,->)

Change of base: lp2,+> = k*( lp2,x> + lp2,y>) and lp2,-> = k*( lp2,x> - lp2,y>) and inserted:

k*( k*( lp2,x> - lp2,y>) ls1,+> + k*( lp2,x> + lp2,y>) ls1,->)

Only photons with +45 degrees continues - equivalent to:

k*( lp2,x>ls1,+> - lp2,y> ls1,+>)
a small difference (+ / -) - but measurable would be that half of those who continue will later be measured 'horizontal' and half 'vertical'


And then finally something perhaps not totally trivial?

When the photon passes a PBS changed the reflected photons a half wave = 1/2. No significant change = 0/2. Used entanglement with respect to time, we get:

k*( lp1,x>lp1, 0/2> ls2,y>ls2, 0/2> + lp1,y>lp1, 1/2> ls2,x>ls2, 1/2> )

and the ‘+45’-photons:

k*( lp1,x> lp1, 0/2> ls2,+> ls2, 0/2> + lp1,y> lp1, 1/2> ls2,+> ls2, 1/2>)

So half = the measured 'vertical' - is shifted half-wave


OR

k*( lp2,-> lp2, 0/2> ls1,+> ls1, 0/2> + lp2,+> lp2, 1/2> ls1,-> ls1, 1/2>)

And the ‘+45’-photons now:

k*( lp2,x> lp2, 0/2> ls1,+> ls1, 0/2> - lp2,y> lp2, 0/2> ls1,+> ls1, 0/2>)

So now they are similar with respect to time.
The difference between p1 and p2-s2-s1 should be measurable with a double slit or a suitable interferometer.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Could you give a synopsis of what you are saying? I don't follow this.

Thanks.
 
  • #3
DrChinese said:
Could you give a synopsis of what you are saying? I don't follow this.

Thanks.

Re: FTL-gedanken experiment

but the s and p swapped - I try with formulas to show that it should give a difference.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why I think the order may be important in some types of experiments:

S-photons encounter a PBS (0) - polarize horizontally / vertically (and the vertically are detected).
P-photon encounters a PBS (45) - polarization diagonal positive / negative (and both the diagonal positive and negative are detected).
Both interrupts entanglement and both causes in addition a difference of half a wave between the transmitted and reflected.

If s first meetings PBS (0): It will transmit Beam with roughly the same wavelength shift as before for all.

If p first meetings PBS (45): s-beam will be oriented diagonally negative / positive - with a difference of half a wave - and when this beam subsequent meetings PBS (0): half of each type will be transmitted - so this time the resulting beam consists of a fifty-fifty blend with a half wave difference.
 
  • #4
Could you say that once again in more ordered way?
With some drawings of the experimental setup (at least reference to) you say about?
There are tens of FTL-gedanken experiments, differing in such details, so it is really hard to follow you...

Anyway, the answer is: no, the order of measurements doesn't matter.
If you want me to point a flaw in your view (as I understand you believe it matters) - give a clear setup and description.
 
  • #5
UChr said:
Re: FTL-gedanken experiment

but the s and p swapped - I try with formulas to show that it should give a difference.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why I think the order may be important in some types of experiments:

S-photons encounter a PBS (0) - polarize horizontally / vertically (and the vertically are detected).
P-photon encounters a PBS (45) - polarization diagonal positive / negative (and both the diagonal positive and negative are detected).
Both interrupts entanglement and both causes in addition a difference of half a wave between the transmitted and reflected.

If s first meetings PBS (0): It will transmit Beam with roughly the same wavelength shift as before for all.

If p first meetings PBS (45): s-beam will be oriented diagonally negative / positive - with a difference of half a wave - and when this beam subsequent meetings PBS (0): half of each type will be transmitted - so this time the resulting beam consists of a fifty-fifty blend with a half wave difference.

So we are going to see a series of clicks on each side. Is there some ratio which you assert will change? Perhaps the ratio of p=V to s=+ ?

Because that will stay constant regardless of the order. Not sure what the "half wave" thing is you are trying to pitch.
 
  • #6
xts said:
Could you say that once again in more ordered way?
With some drawings of the experimental setup (at least reference to) you say about?
There are tens of FTL-gedanken experiments, differing in such details, so it is really hard to follow you...

Anyway, the answer is: no, the order of measurements doesn't matter.
If you want me to point a flaw in your view (as I understand you believe it matters) - give a clear setup and description.

'FTL - gedanken experiment' is a topic in this forum - where this was post # 13

Argument against was that this kind never gave any difference.
I think it does in this case - and therefore I have tried to follow the experiment via formulas in the hope of obtaining a concrete discussion of this particular experiment.
 
  • #7
DrChinese said:
So we are going to see a series of clicks on each side. Is there some ratio which you assert will change? Perhaps the ratio of p=V to s=+ ?

Because that will stay constant regardless of the order. Not sure what the "half wave" thing is you are trying to pitch.

No not the rate of p = V to s = + - but the connection between polarizing and 'half wave' difference.
The 'half wave' difference are the difference between transmission with the PBS and reflection.
 
  • #8
Ouch?
I can't find such topic using simple search.
I would really advice you to give easy to follow references, rather than puzzles, and write your math in an ordered, easily readable [itex]\TeX[/itex] way.
 
  • #9
UChr said:
No not the rate of p = V to s = + - but the connection between polarizing and 'half wave' difference.
The 'half wave' difference are the difference between transmission with the PBS and reflection.

I believe you are saying that there are differences in individual cases but that the statistical ratios do not change in the aggregate. Am I close?

If so, then you acknowledge there is no observable experimental difference. Which is what I am saying. :smile: (Because one can always assert X is important or Y is important for anything when there is no observable difference in outcomes. And this is that case.)
 
  • #10
xts said:
Ouch?
I can't find such topic using simple search.
I would really advice you to give easy to follow references, rather than puzzles, and write your math in an ordered, easily readable [itex]\TeX[/itex] way.

Last submit at Jul27-11 / p 4 at PFQ or search on UChr.
OK the math could be more readable - but hopefully understandable with a little patience.
 
  • #11
DrChinese said:
I believe you are saying that there are differences in individual cases but that the statistical ratios do not change in the aggregate. Am I close?

no statistical difference
 
  • #12
A simpler version:

The p - photons are measured horizontally / vertically = x/y.

The sister - photons s are measured at + 45 / - 45 degrees = +/-.

The measuring state with regard to polarization is describe by base x/y for p and +/- for s.

I start with the first measured and then change base for the other.

There are detectors at 0, 90 and -45 degrees, so only s-photons with +45 degrees continue.

With p first and s second - state of s photons that continue:

1) k*( lp1,x> ls2,+> + lp1,y> ls2,+>)

, - where k = scale factor - or more simple without p1, s2 and k just:

2) lx> l+> + ly> l+>

With p second and s first - ie s measured but p not measured yet :

3) lx> l+> - ly> l+>

A difference (+ / -), but not measurable.


Using entanglement with respect to time:

When the photon passes a PBS changed the reflected photons a half wave = 1/2. No significant change = 0/2.

With p first and s second:

4) lx> l+> + ly> l+>

p measured ==>

5) lx, 0/2 > l+> + ly, 1/2> l+>

time entanglement ==>

6) lx, 0/2 > l+,0/2> + ly, 1/2> l+,1/2>

s measured ==>

7) lx, 0/2 > l+,0/2 +0/2> + ly, 1/2> l+,1/2 +0/2>

So half = the measured 'vertical' - is shifted half-wave


With s first measured:

8) lx> l+,0/2 > - ly> l+,0/2> time entanglement ==>

9) lx,0/2> l+,0/2 > - ly,0/2> l+,0/2>

If the s+ is detected before p it should change anything for s+.

When later measuring p:

10) lx,0/2+0/2> l+,0/2 > - ly,0/2+1/2> l+,0/2>

The difference between ‘p first’ or ‘s first and detected before p’ should be measurable with a double slit or maybe better a suitable interferometer.
 

1. What is entanglement?

Entanglement refers to a phenomenon in quantum physics where two or more particles become connected in such a way that the state of one particle is dependent on the state of the other, even when separated by large distances.

2. How does entanglement work?

Entanglement occurs when two or more particles interact with each other, causing their quantum states to become correlated. This correlation remains even when the particles are separated, and any change to the state of one particle will affect the state of the other.

3. Why is the order of measurements important in entanglement?

In entanglement, the order in which measurements are made on the particles can affect the outcome. This is because the act of measuring one particle will collapse its quantum state and therefore affect the state of the other particle, which is entangled with it.

4. How is entanglement useful?

Entanglement has many potential applications in quantum computing and communication. It allows for the transmission of information and the processing of data at incredibly fast speeds, making it a promising technology for the future.

5. Can entanglement be explained by classical physics?

No, entanglement is a purely quantum phenomenon and cannot be explained by classical physics. It is one of the many counterintuitive aspects of quantum mechanics that have yet to be fully understood.

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
748
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
3
Replies
87
Views
5K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
898
Replies
3
Views
924
Replies
20
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top