Is this a good definition of entanglement

g.lemaitre
Messages
267
Reaction score
2
I don't like the way Wiki describes entanglement. Here is my own definition. Tell me if it is in essence correct. If I have left out an important detail please let me know

objects are entangled if and only if by changing the property of one object one instantaneously changes the property of another object. Objects need not be next to each other in space.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I guess I should add that by observing something you become entangled with it.
 
g.lemaitre said:
objects are entangled if and only if by changing the property of one object one instantaneously changes the property of another object. Objects need not be next to each other in space.

"Changing the property of an object" is just asking for trouble; that wording implies that the property had a pre-existing value that was changed by the act of measurement.

"By changing... one instantaneously changes..." suggests that there's some causality at work, and that's also going to get you in trouble in a number of ways.

But with that said, I have to admit that I share your distaste for the wikipedia non-definition. How about:
Two objects are entangled if their quantum states cannot be described separately, even though the individual objects may be spatially separated.
That's still not right, because it suggests that we have separate objects that we've somehow tied together, instead of a single quantum system that happens to be measured at different locations... But this defect may be inherent in the "entanglement" metaphor; you can't speak of entangling A and B without suggesting that they're "really" independent entities, and the entanglement is something that happened to them, like fish swimming into a net.
 
How about this definition. You seem to think that object A and B are the same object if they are entangled. For the moment, we'll stick with just the objects electrons. We know what it means when we say two electrons.

Two electrons are entangled iff by setting the properties of one you set the properties of the other. By measuring an electron you become entangled with it.

Also, how accurate is it to say that everything in the universe is entangled. After all, the properties of the objects in the universe are affected by temperature and temperature is set by a collection of objects, their mean kinetic energy. An object can only be affected by another object if it is entangled with it.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
Back
Top