B How can you ensure that the particle has already been entangled?

Click For Summary
To determine if a particle or a pair of particles is entangled, it is essential to know the preparation method used. If only one or two particles are provided without preparation details, entanglement cannot be confirmed. However, with multiple particles or pairs prepared identically, entanglement can be assessed with greater certainty. Theoretical and mathematical methods can be employed to analyze entanglement, particularly through the behavior of emitted photons from particles transitioning between energy levels. Understanding these principles is crucial for verifying entanglement in quantum systems.
Hououin Kyouma
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
There are several questions I am wondering.
1. If I give you a particle, how can you ensure that the particle has already been entangled?
2. If I give you a pair of particles, how can you ensure that these particles have already been entangled?

In how many ways, e.g. in the theoretical/mathematical method can be used to solve the problem?

Thank you all for answering.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you give me one or two particles and don't tell me how did you prepared them, then I cannot determine that they are entangled. However, if you give me many particles, or many pairs of particles, which are all prepared in the same way, then I can determine whether they are entangled. The more particles you give me, I can determine it with better certainty.
 
  • Like
Likes jfizzix
Hououin Kyouma said:
There are several questions I am wondering.
1. If I give you a particle, how can you ensure that the particle has already been entangled?
2. If I give you a pair of particles, how can you ensure that these particles have already been entangled?

In how many ways, e.g. in the theoretical/mathematical method can be used to solve the problem?

Thank you all for answering.
If an electron at a higher energy level, it downward transition twice and emit one photon at each downward transition, the two photons created this way entangled each other , their spins always opposite.
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
First, I need to check that I have the 3 notations correct for an inner product in finite vector spaces over a complex field; v* means: given the isomorphism V to V* then: (a) physicists and others: (u,v)=v*u ; linear in the second argument (b) some mathematicians: (u,v)=u*v; linear in the first argument. (c) bra-ket: <v|u>= (u,v) from (a), so v*u . <v|u> is linear in the second argument. If these are correct, then it would seem that <v|u> being linear in the second...

Similar threads

Replies
27
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
32
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
35
Views
3K