Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Ion entanglmet!

  1. Oct 20, 2011 #1
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/31068

    I thought only elctrons could be entangled but now atoms and even ions can be entangled. Would this suggest that it could work its way to the macro levels. Could two diffrent rocks or soccer balls become entangled?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 26, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 20, 2011 #2

    DrChinese

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You can entangle a lot of different subatomic and atomic particles. And you can entangle more than 2. Keep in mind that the rules for the possible outcomes vary substantially in these cases. So even if you entangled macro-sized objects, that would not mean that you could see the collapse of their states or similar.
     
  4. Oct 20, 2011 #3
    I thought for objects to be entangled they have to be exactly the same structuraly.
     
  5. Oct 20, 2011 #4

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 26, 2017
  6. Oct 20, 2011 #5

    xts

    User Avatar

    Not necessirilly, although it is most common, as it is easiest experimentally.

    You must remember that those are not 'particles' entangled, but their 'properties'. You may have (actually - that's a case of most of photon entangled experiments) photons having entangled spins (polarisation), but their other properties (momentum, energy, position) are not entangled. Photons are so simple, that you may create a pair of them entangled regarding all their properties (spins, momentum/position, energy). But in case of more complex structures, like ions, atoms, etc. - if you read about 'entangled ions', entanglement refer only to single property (e.g. excitement state, or spin)
     
  7. Oct 20, 2011 #6

    DrChinese

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Nope. They normally follow a conservation rule. Example: total spin=0, total momentum=x, total charge=y, etc.

    Because of the ease of creation, identification, and handling, entangled photon pairs created by PDC are most commonly used for entanglement studies. But that is simply a practical consideration.

    If you take a free neutron, it will decay into a proton and an electron (plus a bit more which I ignore for this example) in an average of about 15 minutes. The proton and electron will be entangled as to spin and momentum.
     
  8. Oct 20, 2011 #7
    So can macro objects become entangled or are there limitations?
     
  9. Oct 20, 2011 #8

    DrChinese

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There are some practical limitations on the size of entangled objects, as you might guess. First, you need a conserved observable. Then you need a way to test the entanglement. Because of the large number of eigenstates those objects could have, this becomes exponentially difficult.
     
  10. Oct 20, 2011 #9
    Scuese my ignorance, but a conserved observable is? Also what logisticlly is it about the number of eigenstates that limits an objects probability of entangling?
     
  11. Oct 20, 2011 #10

    xts

    User Avatar

    You can't ignore this little brother - they won't be!
    The whole triplet of proton, electron and antineutrino will be triple entangled.
    Especially regarding spin - proton and electron won't be correlated at all (if you analyse them ignoring antineutrino), as antineutrino tooks -1/2 or +1/2 with equal probabilities.
     
  12. Oct 20, 2011 #11
    Wait dont you entangle things by splitting a bigger thing in two? I know what a hillbilley way to ask a question.
     
  13. Oct 20, 2011 #12

    xts

    User Avatar

    That's the easiest way, but you may entangle their properties (not them!!!) on many other ways, e.g. scattering one particle on another, or causing any kind of interaction between two particles such, that some property is preserved (e.g. momentum - due to conservation principle), but which may be exchanged between particles during interaction in an unpredictable way.
     
  14. Oct 20, 2011 #13
    Wait is quantum entanglemt instentanous or just faster than the speed of light?
     
  15. Oct 20, 2011 #14

    DrChinese

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Of course you are correct about them, I was simply trying to give a simplified example. Although I oversimplified, since (anti)neutrino spin can be + or - and therefore there are more permutations to consider for spin.

    At any rate, the whole example should show Thenewdeal38 how complex things can get quickly. This is just for a neutron. Imagine 2 (magically) entangled molecules, and how many states they could be in, and how you would attempt to observe experimentally the state for one alone (which would collapse the other).
     
  16. Oct 20, 2011 #15

    DrChinese

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    An interesting article appeared yesterday essentially indicating that collapse cannot occur at a finite speed (or else FTL signaling would be possible).

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3795

    "The experimental violation of Bell inequalities using spacelike separated measurements precludes the explanation of quantum correlations through causal influences propagating at subluminal speed. Yet, it is always possible, in principle, to explain such experimental violations through models based on hidden influences propagating at a finite speed v>c, provided v is large enough. Here, we show that for any finite speed v>c, such models predict correlations that can be exploited for faster-than-light communication. This superluminal communication does not require access to any hidden physical quantities, but only the manipulation of measurement devices at the level of our present-day description of quantum experiments. Hence, assuming the impossibility of using quantum non-locality for superluminal communication, we exclude any possible explanation of quantum correlations in term of finite-speed influences. "
     
  17. Oct 20, 2011 #16
    Wait as objects get bigger is it harder for them to entangle or is it harder to measure their entanglment or probably both. But what speccificly make it harder for bigger objects to entangle?
     
  18. Oct 20, 2011 #17

    xts

    User Avatar

    I see I must repeat: entanglement is not an objective property of a single object (so you could not say: Mickey is entangled, but Minnie is not) - it is a measure of correlations which may be possibly found between the particle and its "entangled twin" (or entangled siblings - possibly many). Neither Mickey nor Minnie wear their entanglement rings. You must analyse them both to find they were entangled. And it may occur they were entangled regarding some property, but not entangled regarding other properties.
    Actually, except of trivial cases (Bertleman's socks) you can't even tell that a pair of particles were entangled. You may found mysterious statistical correlations only if you analyse multiple pairs.

    Bigger the object is, more difficult is to measure it precisely enough to find those correlations and more difficult is to protect it from getting into entanglement with yet more other objects. Correlations may be found only analysing all entangled siblings (forgive me some simplification here, e.g. regarding total energy)
    It is pretty easy to protect a photon from flipping its spin, and extremely difficult to protect a fulerene from being displaced by 2pm.
    But, of course, in idealistic platonic world of QM thought experiments, it is even you who are getting entangled with a photon just because you spotted its twin with your eye!
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2011
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Ion entanglmet!
  1. Loose Ions in the air (Replies: 4)

  2. Hydrogen molecular ion (Replies: 2)

Loading...