A Possibilities of Time-Independent Entangled Photons

[DrChinese]

Experimentally, yes, I agree. It's the theoretical basis that I'm not clear on--but that probably means I need to do more digging into the literature. In my copious free time.

I still have no idea how you are able to cover so much ground... I am thinking vampire...

 

[DrChinese]

1. This produces the entangled 4-photon GHZ state (2) of arXiv:1204.1997 that I was referring to as a tetrastate.

Yes, indeed. They showed that a particular measurement scheme applied to the entangled 4-photon state (whather a GHZ state or a product of two Bell states does not matter) with measurement at two different times produced the same statistics as a Bell state would have done.

But it didn't produce a Bell-state! Instead the first measurement reduced the number of particles, and the second reduced it again. A Bell state never appeared, and the authors of arXiv:1204.1997 never claimed that.

The authors claimed (and achieved) to show how to entangle photons to a 4-photon, 6-photon, 8-photon etc state with nonclassical measurement statistics.

They did not claim that they produced temporally entangled photons.

2. There is no dispute about that. But publication of a paper in a peer reviewed journal is no guarantee for the correctness of every statement of its content.

3. The very definition of entanglement contradicts the existence of temporally entangled photons. Entanglement requires a state in the Schrödinger picture belonging to the Hilbert space in question, and such a state always means a state at a fixed time.

I only evaluate as meaningless the interpretation of their results as having created temporally entangled photons.

The pattern is clear: They measured multiphoton states at different times and obtained a statistics identical with that of measuring a Bell state. In no case, they produced a temporally entangled state, since the latter is a thing that cannot be consistently defined.

4. This has nothing to do with relativistic or not. The Hilbert spaces in question are finite-dimensional, so no field theory is involved.

1. I agree with everything you say about https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.1997.pdf , "A Resource Efficient Source of Multi-photon Polarization Entanglement". These are various GHZ states which do not produce pairs of biphotons. I believe @Morbert provided this for us to have a better understanding of the reference I have been using as to the underlying physical arrangement. Five of the authors are the same in both papers. It turns out the apparatus in the earlier paper can be modified to achieve the setup for the later paper.


2. I also agree that publication does not insure correctness of any paper. I would also say that the reputation of an author does not insure correctness.

However: the norm in PF is that a peer-reviewed paper is considered evidence of acceptance of results. Specifically: "Generally, discussion topics should be traceable to standard textbooks or to peer-reviewed scientific literature." I do agree that in this subforum, the usual guidelines are intentionally (and desirably) relaxed. But I say there is no further burden on me, but there is a burden on anyone denying those results. As is common in discussions I have with others with whom there are disagreements, I am the only one posting suitable references. Generally, others simply make statements they claim to be "self-evident". It is difficult for me to believe that, when dozens of papers say exactly the opposite of what is "self-evident".

Well, this is cutting edge and state of the art in QM. So no, it's not self-evident any longer. The mere fact my reference was published in PRL indicates it was considered novel and that the scientific community would benefit from seeing the results. The complete absence of a counter-reference written since should be an red flag that your viewpoint might require revision - of course that is strictly up to you.


3. Not true at all! They define a state of entanglement in time as:

|Ψ−>^{0, τ}_ab ⊗ |Ψ−>^{τ, 2τ}_ab = 1/2(
|Ψ+>^{0, 2τ}_ab |Ψ+>^{τ, τ}_ab
-|Ψ−>^{0, 2τ}_ab |Ψ−>^{τ, τ}_ab
-|φ+>^{0, 2τ}_ab |φ+>^{τ, τ}_ab
+|φ−>^{0, 2τ}_ab |φ−>^{τ, τ}_ab )

So that would be a precise counter-example to your claim. Their experiment provides support for this equation.


4. Agreed.

 

[PeterDonis]

the norm in PF is that a peer-reviewed paper is considered evidence of acceptance of results

That's not quite what the guidelines that you quoted say. The norm in PF is that a peer-reviewed paper is presumed to be acceptable as a basis for discussion. That is not the same as accepting what the paper says as true. Generally speaking, experimental results reported by such a paper have to be accepted as true because there is no way of checking them anyway; we just have to rely on the experimentalists to accurately report what they did and what results they got. But theoretical claims can be checked and evaluated and potentially questioned here, and often are.

 

[A. Neumaier]

However: the norm in PF is that a peer-reviewed paper is considered evidence of acceptance of results.

No. it is considered evidence for discussing not a personal theory, hence in the present case it establishes only that you are not discussing your own inventions.

But correctness issues are independent of that and can still be discussed without accepting them.

As is common in discussions I have with others with whom there are disagreements, I am the only one posting suitable references.

Please cite a definition of what it means to be temporally entangled, because this is what is criticized. Simply citing the use of the term does not make it a correctly defined term.

It is difficult for me to believe that, when dozens of papers say exactly the opposite of what is "self-evident".

They use buzzwords but don't give clear explanations of what these words mean. This is a common disease in hot topics.

The mere fact my reference was published in PRL indicates it was considered novel and that the scientific community would benefit from seeing the results.

The technique is novel and useful, but how they sell it is overhyped. Peres could have done the same in 1999 but he was more careful and not susceptible to hype.

3. Not true at all! They define a state of entanglement in time as:
|Ψ−>^{0, τ}_ab ⊗ |Ψ−>^{τ, 2τ}_ab = 1/2(
|Ψ+>^{0, 2τ}_ab |Ψ+>^{τ, τ}_ab
-|Ψ−>^{0, 2τ}_ab |Ψ−>^{τ, τ}_ab
-|φ+>^{0, 2τ}_ab |φ+>^{τ, τ}_ab
+|φ−>^{0, 2τ}_ab |φ−>^{τ, τ}_ab )
So that would be a precise counter-example to your claim.

No. This is their equation (3). It contains temporal modes, hence is a fictitious state. The physical states can be read from Fig.1. Moreover, formally the state (3) is a 4-photon state, not a Bell state.

Writing down a state without a theory that gives the state a meaning is a handwaving argument intended to convey the essence without being strictly correct. It actually just asserts that the system realized behaves with respect to correlations as-if it were created in a 4-photon state.

To show that the system is in that state one would have to show that it evolved from the initial state (as any physical state does) by a sequence of applications of the Schrödinger equation and POVM operations performed by the various sources and filters! This hasn't been done, and cannot be done as the dynamics is completely given by Fig.1.

Their experiment provides support for this equation.

Their experiment provides support for no more than what Peres already spelt out in precise language: that the statistics is as if it came from such a state. This doesn't make their technique useless, but it shows that they use careless language to sell their result as more than it is.

 

[DrChinese]

1. ...The claim is only identical behavior of the statistics, not the creation of a meaningless temporally entangled state! ... Clearly it means no more than pairs of photons that reproduce the statistics of entangled photons, in the above as-if sense of Peres.
... It does, not, however, justify talking of temporally entangled 2-photon states or biphotons, since quantum-mechanical states are mathematically well-defined objects with a clear single time meaning.

2. Who of the authors of your primary source is a Nobel prize winner? Which year?

1. Entangled state statistics are evidence of entanglement, this is well-accepted and has been for decades. The 1 and 4 photons can be demonstrated to follow perfect correlations as well as violation of Bell inequalities, something that is a certain marker of entanglement. I guess I'll have to trot out some references on that, if you are doubtful...


2. You know perfectly well that Zeilinger is co-author of three of the 5 papers I referenced, and when he won the award. His paper that most closely resembles my primary reference is Experimental delayed-choice entanglement swapping.

His experiment is nearly a carbon copy (though his came first) of the basic premise of Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted: That you can entangle photons after they cease to exist. In one case, photon 1 does not exist at the time of the entanglement swap. In the paper of Zeilinger et al, both photon 1 and photon 4 do not exist at the time of the entanglement swap. Both of these papers were written in 2012, and in fact reference [22] of the latter paper is the former paper. Obviously, both teams are in complete agreement about their respective theory and the results. And both papers ended up in PRL.

a. Per the Zeilinger et al paper, combining their (1) and (2):

|Ψ−>₁₂ ⊗ |Ψ−>₃₄ = 1/2 [
|Ψ+>₁₄ ⊗ |Ψ+>₂₃
-|Ψ−>₁₄ ⊗ |Ψ−>₂₃
-|φ+>₁₄ ⊗ |φ+>₂₃
+|φ−>₁₄ ⊗ |φ−>₂₃ ].

Where:
The initial |Ψ−>₁₂ ⊗ |Ψ−>₃₄ state is at T=t0;
the |Ψ+>₁₄, -|Ψ−>₁₄, -|φ+>₁₄, +|φ−>₁₄ states are at T=t1;
the |Ψ+>₂₃, |Ψ−>₂₃, |φ+>₂₃, |φ−>₂₃ states are at T=t2;
and t0 < t1 < t2.

b. Per the Eisenberg et al paper:

|Ψ−>^{0, τ}_ab ⊗ |Ψ−>^{τ, 2τ}_ab = 1/2(
|Ψ+>^{0, 2τ}_ab |Ψ+>^{τ, τ}_ab
-|Ψ−>^{0, 2τ}_ab |Ψ−>^{τ, τ}_ab
-|φ+>^{0, 2τ}_ab |φ+>^{τ, τ}_ab
+|φ−>^{0, 2τ}_ab |φ−>^{τ, τ}_ab )

You can see these are basically the same, the only difference being the time at which Photon 4 is measured relative to the others. When there is indistinguishability between photons 2 & 3, entanglement is swapped to 1 & 4 - regardless of when or where they were created, and regardless of when or where they were measured. That's the general rule.

 

[DrChinese]

1. But correctness issues are independent of that and can still be discussed without accepting them.

2. Please cite a definition of what it means to be temporally entangled, because this is what is criticized. ... No. This is their equation (3). It contains temporal modes, hence is a fictitious state.

3. Moreover, formally the state (3) is a 4-photon state, not a Bell state.

4. Their experiment provides support for no more than what Peres already spelt out in precise language...

1. Still no support provided for your position. These papers are from 2012, and there is nothing refuting them in the literature since?

2. I provided that definition, and then you dismissed it.

3. Yes, it is a 4 photon state: a Product state of 2 Bell states (of entangled photon pairs). The equation is described correctly as I wrote it.

4. I'm glad you noticed that point (I had too) i.e. his cautious use of language. But you have the significance backwards. Peres had discovered his novel point before experimental realization of entanglement swapping had confirmed it. His description is accurate of course, and I would agree with it today exactly as written. Since then however: A large body of theoretical and experimental work has followed. Standard terminology has evolved. That's no different than usual when novel concepts appear in published works.

But if you feel more comfortable using the concept of "statistical subsets" when discussing entanglement swapping, that's fine with me. There is no more or no less substance using that somewhat outdated terminology versus the more modern one that refers to the entangled Bell state directly. So in those terms, I would state: The statistics of subsets of 4 fold coincidences do not change when measurement order of the 4 photon detectors change.

Per "Delayed choice for entanglement swapping", Peres (1999): "The joint state of a pair of singlets can thus be written as

|Ψ−>_A ⊗ |Ψ−>_B = (
|Ψ+>_E ⊗ |Ψ+>
-|Ψ−>_E ⊗ |Ψ−>
-|φ+>_E ⊗ |φ+>
+|φ−>_E ⊗ |φ−> ) / 2

where the subscript E refers to the particles that are sent to Eve, and the symbols Φ± andΨ± without a subscript refer to the particles that Alice and Bob keep."

So this is exactly the same mathematical description. And he explicitly says that violating a Bell inequality (in this case CHSH) is evidence of entanglement: "Thus, in each subset, one of the following CHSH inequalities is violated... In other words, Alice and Bob find experimentally that each one of the four post selected subsets produces statistical results identical to those arising from maximally entangled pairs. ... There can be no doubt that the particles that were independently produced and tested by Alice and Bob were [initially] uncorrelated and therefore unentangled. ... Later, they will learn from Eve that a definite subset of her experiments ascertained the existence of a definite entangled state of their particles." Not "as if" as you imply. The entangled state is definite and certain.

And yet again, Peres' famous words: "In summary, there is nothing paradoxical in the experiments outlined above. However, one has to clearly understand quantum mechanics and to firmly believe in its correctness to see that there is no paradox." Believe it, there is no paradox here to object to. A more comprehensive definition for Bell entangled states is required which includes temporal entanglement, just as Peres showed us in 1999.

 

[mattt]

I don't dispute any of the results of those experiments. Just the wording.

In the case where photon1 is destroyed (for all observers) before photon4 is created, having "entanglement-like statistics" is not the same as having "a biphoton1,4 entangled state at a fixed time t_0" (because the latter cannot exist in this case).

If you (or others) want to call that situation "photon1 and photon4 are 'temporarily entangled' " you are free to use those words, but still there isn't any biphoton1,4 state (let alone entangled biphoton1,4 state) in that case.

 

[DrChinese]

That's not quite what the guidelines that you quoted say. The norm in PF is that a peer-reviewed paper is presumed to be acceptable as a basis for discussion. That is not the same as accepting what the paper says as true. Generally speaking, experimental results reported by such a paper have to be accepted as true because there is no way of checking them anyway; we just have to rely on the experimentalists to accurately report what they did and what results they got. But theoretical claims can be checked and evaluated and potentially questioned here, and often are.

The guidelines are both as you say and as I quoted; and you are correct that experimental results "have to be accepted as true". Certainly, each person will decide for themselves the significance of those results. On the other hand, there are obvious conclusions to be drawn from some experiments, and certainly I'd give weight to such conclusions when there is no contrary theoretical reason not to accept the conclusion.

And as I keep saying: If my references make claims that violate theory (which they don't, see post #118, point 4), where is the reference paper stating such theory? More importantly: when was such paper written? Was it before or after the experiment was published? Because the experiment may lead to a revision in theory (although in the case of these experiments, that isn't necessary since theory hasn't changed at least since 1999).

 

[Morbert]

Peres considers states to be fictitious abstractions "characterized by the probabilities of the various outcomes of every conceivable test". This is a double-edged sword for Megidish et al. It lets us make sense of equation (3), but works against their account here:

This result was described by Einstein as ”spooky action at a distance”. In the scenario we present here, measuring the last photon affects the physical description of the first photon in the past, before it has even been measured. Thus, the ”spooky action” is steering the system’s past. Another point of view that one can take is that the measurement of the first photon is immediately steering the future physical description of the last photon. In this case, the action is on the future of a part of the system that has not yet been created.

This account might be consistent, but is not insisted upon us by equation (3).

 

[mattt]

Their wording violates theory (QM) depending on how you interpret it (their wording :-) ).

If you interprete it as saying: "there exists a fixed time t_0 and a biphoton1,4 entangled state at t_0", then this interpretation of their wording violates the theory (in the specific case I am talking about all the time).

But that's obviously not what they mean.

What they mean is what I (and Peter and Arnold) are saying once and again, that in that case, photon1 and photon4 satisfy entanglement-like statistics, and this does not violate the theory :-)

 

[PeterDonis]

If my references make claims that violate theory

What theory? That's the question I've been trying to get an answer to. What theory is being used to justify the equations that have been referenced? It can't be standard NRQM using the Schrodinger equation. So what theory is it?

Again, this question only matters if it is being claimed that the "temporal mode" Bell States, i.e., Bell states involving pairs of photons that have never coexisted, are physically real. If the only claim is that these states are used for computation because they make correct predictions, and are not treated as being physically real, then there is no issue. But you have said in other threads that you are using a realist interpretation. If that is the case, then there is an issue. For one thing, you would need to show that the papers you reference are also using a realist interpretation, and provide the necessary theoretical framework to justify such an interpretation for the case of Bell States of photons that never coexist. Just mathematically rearranging equations doesn't do that, for reasons that @A. Neumaier has already stated better than I have.

 

[PeterDonis]

you have the significance backwards. Peres had discovered his novel point before experimental realization of entanglement swapping had confirmed it. His description is accurate of course, and I would agree with it today exactly as written. Since then however: A large body of theoretical and experimental work has followed.

Has any of that large body of theoretical and experimental work made the claim that "temporal mode" Bell States, i.e., Bell States involving pairs of photons that never coexist, are physically real? Or has it only claimed that those states can be used to make predictions because the predictions match the observed statistics?

 

[DrChinese]

1. I don't dispute any of the results of those experiments. Just the wording.

In the case where photon1 is destroyed (for all observers) before photon4 is created, having "entanglement-like statistics" is not the same as having "a biphoton1,4 entangled state at a fixed time t_0" (because the latter cannot exist in this case).

If you (or others) want to call that situation "photon1 and photon4 are 'temporally [note I corrected the spelling] entangled' " you are free to use those words, but still there isn't any biphoton1,4 state (let alone entangled biphoton1,4 state) in that case.

2. ...their wording violates the theory... But that's obviously not what they mean.

1. You are free to deny what the papers say. Again, that means you also deny there is such things as "delayed choice entanglement swapping". Because those phenomena feature the same issues you object to: namely, that a Bell state is created between photons that no longer exist - after the fact. As I point out in post #118 point 4, Peres published theory on this as early as 1999.

2. They mean what they say and I presented. And yet again, I point to the theory presented by Peres, 1999. He says: "Later, they will learn from Eve that a definite subset of her experiments ascertained the existence of a definite entangled state of their particles. ... one has to clearly understand quantum mechanics and to firmly believe in its correctness to see that there is no paradox."

So you are welcome to reject what conclusions you like, no issue from me. But if you are claiming some published authors' wording violate theory: Where is such theory published? That's a rhetorical question at this point, I don't actually want or expect an answer from you or anyone else.

 

[A. Neumaier]

1. Still no support provided for your position. These papers are from 2012, and there is nothing refuting them in the literature since?

Just refuting sloppy language never gets published. Otherwise there would be a flood of irrelevant papers, as sloppy arguments are legion.

2. I provided that definition, and then you dismissed it.

The only thing close to a definition I saw was the statement that nonclassical correlations are evidence for entanglement. But this is not a definition in the usual sense. Telling what is evidence for a crime doesn't define what a crime is....

1. Entangled state statistics are evidence of entanglement, this is well-accepted and has been for decades.

It is evidence for entanglement somewhere in the process leading to the statistics.

Peres is carefully stating precisely what it is evidence of: The setting ''behaves as if it consisted of entangled pairs of distant particles''. This is quite different from claiming that ''the two particles measured to get the statistics are entangled''!

3. Yes, it is a 4 photon state: a Product state of 2 Bell states (of entangled photon pairs). The equation is described correctly as I wrote it.

It contains temporal modes, hence is a fictitious 4-photon state, not a physical one.

The 1 and 4 photons can be demonstrated to follow perfect correlations as well as violation of Bell inequalities, something that is a certain marker of entanglement. I guess I'll have to trot out some references on that, if you are doubtful...

It means no more than that we have pairs of photons that reproduce the statistics of entangled photons, in the above as-if sense of Peres.

2. You know perfectly well that Zeilinger is co-author of three of the 5 papers I referenced, and when he won the award.

Well, but the experiments are not in question!

In question is the claim in your primary reference - whether photons can be entangled even when one partner has already been measured and no longer exists, and your claim that we have a biphoton in a Bell state (a claim that I didn't read in the papers)!

Referring to Zeilinger as authority on this matter is misleading unless you can show that he endorses this claim!

His paper that most closely resembles my primary reference is Experimental delayed-choice entanglement swapping.

The published reference is https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys2294. Let me quote a number of fragments (my labels A,B,C,...):

A: Peres has put forward the radical idea of delayed-choice entanglement swapping. There, entanglement can be ‘produced a posteriori, after the entangled particles have been measured and may no longer exist’.

B: [...] whether their two photons are entangled (showing quantum correlations) or separable (showing classical correlations) can be defined after they have been measured.

C: Whether Alice’s and Bob’s photons can be assigned an entangled state or a separable state depends on Victor’s later choice. In Peres’s words: ‘‘If we attempt to attribute an objective meaning to the quantum state of a single system, curious paradoxes appear: quantum effects mimic not only
instantaneous action-at-a-distance but also, as seen here, influence of future actions on past events, even after these events have been irrevocably recorded.

D: This means that it is possible to freely and a posteriori decide which type of mutually exclusive correlations two already earlier measured particles have.

Quote A appears in the informal introduction of the paper by Peres, but he is more careful in his formulation in the main body of his paper (care that is lost in the quote). There he says:

There can be no doubt that the particles that were independently produced and tested
by Alice and Bob were uncorrelated and therefore unentangled. Each one of these particles may well have disappeared (e.g., been absorbed) before the next particle was produced, and before Eve performed her tests. Only the records kept by the three observers remain, to be examined objectively.

Thus: No entanglement! Peres continues:

How can the appearance of entanglement arise in these circumstances? The point is
that it is meaningless to assert that two particles are entangled without specifying in
which state they are entangled

Thus: Only the appearance of entanglement! Peres continues:

If this simple rule is forgotten, or if we attempt to attribute an objective meaning to the quantum state of a single system, curious paradoxes appear: quantum effects mimic not only instantaneous action-at-a-distance but also, as seen here, influence of future actions on past events, even after these events have been irrevocably recorded.

The paper you cited takes part of the latter quote (see C above) out of context, thus altering its meaning. In reality, as Peres asserts, there is no influence of future actions on past events - no matter what Alice or Bob do, the photons measured are unentangled and only appear entangled! This invalidates the claim in quote D above. (Taken literally, quote D is anyway nonsense: Already measured particles have precisely the measured correlations; there is nothing at all left to be decided!)

My conclusion is that the paper is sloppily argued, in spite of Zeilinger's name on it.

*

Quote B amounts to a redefinition (R) of entanglement by:
(R) entangled := showing quantum correlations.

In particular, the definition (R) does not at all involve wave functions or states. Neither states nor biphotons are involved but just statistical correlations! This is in contradition to Peres' statement quoted above. For Peres, the authoritative definition is the textbook definition (T), where a quantum system is defined to be entangled by:
(T) entangled := its wave function (following the Schrödinger dynamics) is not separable.

A redefinition is of course in principle acceptable once agreed upon, but it must be made explicit that it alters the tradition before 2012.

Clearly (R) and (T) imply different meanings, giving rise to the misunderstandings under discussion. Moreover, the pair correlation statistics does not determine a unique state (except for 100% efficient Bell experiments, which is never the case). Hence one cannot obtain from entangled systems in the sense of (R) information about corresponding states. The nonphysical effective states written down in the papers are idealizations not warranted by the experimental inefficiencies.

In the paper of Zeilinger et al, both photon 1 and photon 4 do not exist at the time of the entanglement swap.

... and - according to Peres, definition (T) - they are uncorrelated and only appear correlated.

According to the redefinition (R), they are entangled aposteriori, but this is known only if the full experiment is performed. If not, what would be the state of the (not coexisting) 2-photon pair???

a Bell state is created between photons that no longer exist - after the fact. As I point out in post #118 point 4, Peres published theory on this as early as 1999.

No. As I showed, Peres 1999 published theory implying that, in an entanglement swapping experiment, two uncorrelated photons appear to be entangled, and not more.
That a Bell state is created between photons 1 and 4 is not even claimed in the 2012 paper with Zeilinger as coauthor!

 

[PeterDonis]

You are free to deny what the papers say.

The issue is not whether anyone in this thread is "denying" what the papers say. It is a question of what the papers actually say. Do they actually say that there is a physically real Bell state involving pairs of photons that never coexist? Or do they only say that such a state can be used for computation because it makes correct predictions about the statistics, without claiming that it is physically real?

If they only say the latter, there is no issue at all. If they say the former, then there is an issue. But you have not yet expressed an opinion specifically on what you think they say in this respect, so we don't know yet whether there is actually an issue or not. I have said that in previous threads you used a realist interpretation of QM, which would imply that you think the papers are saying the former; but I might be wrong.

 

[DrChinese]

Has any of that large body of theoretical and experimental work made the claim that "temporal mode" Bell States, i.e., Bell States involving pairs of photons that never coexist, are physically real? Or has it only claimed that those states can be used to make predictions because the predictions match the observed statistics?

I was hoping you understood that the general theory being applied in this "temporal Bell State" experiment is exactly the same as the "delayed choice" case (where there is a much larger body). That being that a Bell State can be created for photon(s) that no longer exist. See Peres 1999 as mentioned in post #118.

Regardless of anything you have presented previously either way: Entanglement is evidenced by violation of CHSH or other inequalities violating local realism. As we have agreed, another term for this is quantum nonlocality. Any violation of such inequalities is de facto evidence of entanglement. That is standard theory. There are no experimental realizations of CHSH violations from separable Product states. I.e. there is no such thing as reproducing Entangled state statistics (Bell states) outside of the existence of entanglement. From Delayed-choice gedanken experiments and their realizations summarizing theory and experiment as of 2014:

"When two systems are in an entangled quantum state, the correlations of the joint system are well defined but not the properties of the individual systems (Einstein et al., 1935; Schrodinger, 1935). Peres raised the question of whether it is possible to produce entanglement between two systems even after they have been registered by detectors (Peres, 2000). Remarkably, quantum mechanics allows this via entanglement swapping (Zukowski et al.,1993)."

If you think the case where only photon 1 is measured before the swap is entirely different then the case where both 1 and 4 are measured before the swap, then that would be a different story. But it would surprise me.

 

[PeterDonis]

@DrChinese, nothing in your post #128 answers the question I posed in post #127. The latter question just requires a one sentence answer. It does not require rehashing the references you have given.

 

[mattt]

1. You are free to deny what the papers say. Again, that means you also deny there is such things as "delayed choice entanglement swapping". Because those phenomena feature the same issues you object to: namely, that a Bell state is created between photons that no longer exist - after the fact. As I point out in post #118 point 4, Peres published theory on this as early as 1999.

2. They mean what they say and I presented. And yet again, I point to the theory presented by Peres, 1999. He says: "Later, they will learn from Eve that a definite subset of her experiments ascertained the existence of a definite entangled state of their particles. ... one has to clearly understand quantum mechanics and to firmly believe in its correctness to see that there is no paradox."

So you are welcome to reject what conclusions you like, no issue from me. But if you are claiming some published authors' wording violate theory: Where is such theory published? That's a rhetorical question at this point, I don't actually want or expect an answer from you or anyone else.

Not their wording, but your interpretation of their wording.

I interpret their wording just like Peter and Arnold, which entails no problem with theory.

 

[PeterDonis]

They mean what they say

Words don't have unique unambigous meanings. Particularly when the domain of discussion is physics and the actual content of theories, at least as far as making predictions is concerned, is contained in math, not ordinary language.

and I presented.

If what you had already presented in this thread were sufficient for me to be confident of an answer to the question I posed to you in post #127, I wouldn't have bothered to pose the question. So continuing to refer to what you have already said is not helpful in answering that question.

 

[DrChinese]

The issue is not whether anyone in this thread is "denying" what the papers say. It is a question of what the papers actually say. Do they actually say that there is a physically real Bell state involving pairs of photons that never coexist? Or do they only say that such a state can be used for computation because it makes correct predictions about the statistics, without claiming that it is physically real?

If they only say the latter, there is no issue at all. If they say the former, then there is an issue. But you have not yet expressed an opinion specifically on what you think they say in this respect, so we don't know yet whether there is actually an issue or not. I have said that in previous threads you used a realist interpretation of QM, which would imply that you think the papers are saying the former; but I might be wrong.

Yes, they actually say "there is a physically real Bell state involving pairs of photons that never coexist" in the following quote.

Eisenberg et al say: "When the two photons of time τ (photons 2 and 3) are projected onto any Bell state, the first and last photons (1 and 4) collapse also into the same state and entanglement is swapped. The first and last photons, that did not share between them any correlations, become entangled. ... In conclusion, we have demonstrated quantum entanglement between two photons that do not share coexistence. Although one photon is measured even before the other is created, full quantum correlations were observed by measuring the density matrix of the two photons, conditioned on the result of the projecting measurement. This is a manifestation of the non-locality of quantum mechanics not only in space, but also in time."

DrChinese says: I agree with everything in the above quote exactly as expressed.

I thought this has been made clear over and over. And yes, I am quite aware that you are not convinced by what I have presented in the various posts. Again, I do not want to argue with anyone, nor do I wish to continue is circles. I have reasonably explained and supported everything I have said. But I think at this point there is little I can add that would change any viewpoints, or be worth more of our collective time and energy.

Note: I will look for additional references to support the equivalence/relationship of entanglement to violations of Bell inequalities (i.e. one implies the other). I had not bookmarked papers on that as I assumed it was well known. I can post that in a new Foundations thread, as it is actually a different subject. If you think it would be helpful to move our discussion in this thread around my references to a separate thread, that would be fine. I would prefer they not be deleted, however.

 

[mattt]

Yes, they actually say "there is a physically real Bell state involving pairs of photons that never coexist" in the following quote.

Eisenberg et al say: "When the two photons of time τ (photons 2 and 3) are projected onto any Bell state, the first and last photons (1 and 4) collapse also into the same state and entanglement is swapped. The first and last photons, that did not share between them any correlations, become entangled. ... In conclusion, we have demonstrated quantum entanglement between two photons that do not share coexistence. Although one photon is measured even before the other is created, full quantum correlations were observed by measuring the density matrix of the two photons, conditioned on the result of the projecting measurement. This is a manifestation of the non-locality of quantum mechanics not only in space, but also in time."

DrChinese says: I agree with everything in the above quote exactly as expressed.

I thought this has been made clear over and over. And yes, I am quite aware that you are not convinced by what I have presented in the various posts. Again, I do not want to argue with anyone, nor do I wish to continue is circles. I have reasonably explained and supported everything I have said. But I think at this point there is little I can add that would change any viewpoints, or be worth more of our collective time and energy.

Note: I will look for additional references to support the equivalence/relationship of entanglement to violations of Bell inequalities (i.e. one implies the other). I had not bookmarked papers on that as I assumed it was well known. I can post that in a new Foundations thread, as it is actually a different subject. If you think it would be helpful to move our discussion in this thread around my references to a separate thread, that would be fine. I would prefer they not be deleted, however.

Yes, sloppy wording again. I interpret it as saying that they obtain the same statistics, and calling it "the same state". (Maybe it is customary to call it that way in some circles).

But surely you understand that there isn't a fixed time t_0 where a biphoton1,4 state exist, right?

 

[A. Neumaier]

Yes, they actually say "there is a physically real Bell state involving pairs of photons that never coexist" in the following quote.

Eisenberg et al say: "When the two photons of time τ (photons 2 and 3) are projected onto any Bell state, the first and last photons (1 and 4) collapse also into the same state and entanglement is swapped. [...]"

This is Megidish et al., not Eisenberg et al..They claim this but they do not prove it. There is no general way to determine from a pair statistics a state.

What they prove is that the fictitious 4-particle state (3) involving temporal modes projects to a fictitious Bell state for the photon pair 1+4 when in this state a Bell measurement on the photon pair 2+3 is made.

But in their experiment they first make a measurement on photon 1, which according to standard quantum mechanics projects the (fictitious, but assumed physical) 4-photon state to a 3-photon state no longer involving photon 1. Then they make a Bell measurement on the photon pair 2+3, which according to standard quantum mechanics projects the 3-photon state to a 1-photon state only involving photon 4.

Thus their theoretical argument about projecting the state (3) to a Bell state for the photon pair 1-4 is irrelevant for their actual experimental setting.

The correct theoretical prediction for the statistics for the experiment can therefore not be due to their argument. Instead it is a consequence of the composition of the POVMs (or rather quantum operations, since classical measurement results are produced during the projections) determined by the physical evolution depicted in their Fig.1, where no 4-photon state and no fictitious temporally entangled states appear.

DrChinese says: I agree with everything in the above quote exactly as expressed.

Then you should be able to explain what is wrong in my analysis.

 

[PeterDonis]

surely you understand that there isn't a fixed time t_0 where a biphoton1,4 state exist, right?

@DrChinese agreed with this in a post a while back in this thread.

 

[PeterDonis]

I thought this has been made clear over and over.

It has also been stated over and over that the wording you keep quoting is ambiguous. You have now confirmed that you are interpreting it as asserting the existence of a physically real Bell state involving two photons that never coexist. But two others in this thread (@A. Neumaier and @mattt) are interpreting it to mean the other claim I described, that it only asserts that the statistics are correct. My personal inclination is also towards the latter interpretation, since it does not require me to believe that multiple authors would be making an assertion that (a) requires a realist interpretation of QM, and moreover, one that goes considerably beyond what other realist interpretations assert, and (b) is an obvious contradiction to the math of NRQM (and you have agreed to this since you have agreed that there is no time at which a Bell state involving the never coexisting photons exists in NRQM), so either it has no mathematical justification whatsoever, or it is relying on some other mathematical model of the underlying dynamics that I can't find anywhere and that has not been referenced anywhere in this thread or in any of the papers referenced in this thread.

Given all this, your blithe assumption that you have given all the information that needs to be given, many times over, and that we are simply being obstinate in refusing to accept established physics, does not seem justified to me. But it also does not seem to me that we're going to resolve that here since it hinges on different, incompatible intepretations of wording in the papers referenced, and what we disagree on has nothing to do with the experimental results, which we all agree on.

 

[PeterDonis]

I will look for additional references to support the equivalence/relationship of entanglement to violations of Bell inequalities (i.e. one implies the other).

That's not what you need to look for, if you are going to look for something. What you need to look for is references that justify the use of the term "entanglement" as asserting a physically real Bell state involving photons that never coexist, when there is never any such wave function at any time in the standard NRQM treatment of these experiments.

Equivalence of entanglement to Bell inequality violations, by itself, is irrelevant to that point, since it could just be taken to be true by definition. Even defining "entanglement" as using a Bell state wave function to make predictions, by itself, is irrelevant, since that can be done using a non-realist interpretation of QM that does not make any claim that the Bell state wave function is physically real. You are claiming that the Bell state wave function is physically real, even though no such thing ever appears in the standard NRQM treatment, so what you need to look for is references justifying that claim.

 

[DrChinese]

1. But in their experiment they first make a measurement on photon 1, which according to standard quantum mechanics projects the 4-photon state to a 3-photon state no longer involving photon 1.

2. Then they make a Bell measurement on the photon pair 2+3, which according to standard quantum mechanics projects the 3-photon state to a 1-photon state only involving photon 4. Thus their theoretical argument about projecting the state (3) to a Bell state for the photon pair 1-4 is irrelevant for their actual experimental setting.

The correct theoretical prediction for the statistics for the experiment can therefore not be due to their argument. Instead it is a consequence of the composition of the POVMs determined by the physical evolution depicted in their Fig.1, where no 4-photon state and no fictitions temporally entangled states appear.

Then you should be able to explain what is wrong in my analysis.

Finally, some serious meat to discuss.

1. OK, Let's try your path as a hypothesis. After measurement of P1 as (say) V>, I would then conclude that P2 is H> (per the 1 & 2 initial entangled state). At this point, P2 has no connection whatsoever to any other system in the universe. P3&4 are entangled. So that makes the 3 photon state a Product state of P2 ⊗ (P3&4).

2. We do the Bell State Measurement (BSM) on P2 & P3. And let's suppose we get an H>V> outcome I'm not really sure how we make P3 distinguishable from P2 though, as in this view P2 is identified as H> already. Which means P3 is V> and therefore P4 is H>. OK, that works out fine.

3. But here is where the problem arises. You can't violate a CHSH inequality with this sequence - and you can't have perfect correlations either. Obviously, we need to have perfect correlations (or anticorrelations) between P1 and P4 - that's pretty basic, right? How are those going to happen? There are essentially an large (infinite?) number of angle settings at which such correlations should appear. We can make the example work out in the following manners:

a) We consider only this one case, which of course is a very special case. No, let's agree we can't do that.
b) We consider the P2/P3/P4 a textbook case of quantum teleportation from P2 to P4. That is a reasonable description, no doubt, and I am pretty sure everything can work out fine in that view. Let's agree to this.

Except for one problem. Quantum teleportation is a one-way protocol. The P4 final state must occur after the BSM on P2 and P3. But we already know that it is possible to alter the timing of the measurement of P4 so it occurs BEFORE the BSM. That changes this setup into the Delayed Choice Entanglement Swapping case. If that happens, there is no teleportation from P2 to P4 possible. And yet, the large number of perfect correlations between P1 and P4 remain - just as in our b) option above. In fact, there is nothing to connect these photons at this point at all to each other other than random chance.

Now, to encode the possible perfect correlations between P1 and P4 in this Delayed Choice version, we would need a very large (possibly infinite) amount of information to be embedded in their partners P2 and P3. OK, that's reasonable. But that won't fly either. That's because the BSM cannot distinguish more than 4 cases (one of the 4 Bell states). And there are actually only 2 different relevant outcomes from those 4 states: either P1 and P4 are correlated, or P1 and P4 are anti-correlated. One bit of information is all that can be extracted from the BSM. So how can P1 and P4 be perfectly correlated based on a single bit of information.

In other words: As you vary the detection time of P4, to follow your reasoning, there must be a change in the statistics when P4's detection occurs prior to the BSM. That's because at some point there is no teleporation possible since teleportation is one way only. But we know those statistics don't change. We learned that from the Megidish et al experiment and one the papers it references, the Ma et al experiment. In both cases, the statistics are the same - just as I have written in post #117. So the b) option must be ruled out too. QED.

 

[PeterDonis]

You can't violate a CHSH inequality with this sequence

Sure you can. I explicitly showed you the math in a prior thread. You can use the standard NRQM framework, with the Schrodinger equation applied to a wave function that evolves in time, to account for inequality violations for any ordering of the measurements, including the case where photons 1 & 4 never coexist. What you can't do with the standard NRQM framework is to say that there is a Bell state involving photons 1 & 4, because there never is one. In the standard NRQM framework, in the case where photons 1 & 4 never coexist, the inequality violations are enforced by including the detector that measures the first of the two photons (photon 1 in your formulation) in the wave function, with the result that was recorded. That's what I did in the explicit math I showed you in that previous thread.

As far as I can tell, what @A. Neumaier is describing is the same thing I showed you in that math, just using ordinary language (and assuming an underlying formulation using POVMs, which is mathematically equivalent to the formulation using pure states, wave functions, and unitary operators that I used).

 

[DrChinese]

1. Sure you can. I explicitly showed you the math in a prior thread. You can use the standard NRQM framework, with the Schrodinger equation applied to a wave function that evolves in time, to account for inequality violations for any ordering of the measurements, including the case where photons 1 & 4 never coexist.

2. What you can't do with the standard NRQM framework is to say that there is a Bell state involving photons 1 & 4, because there never is one. In the standard NRQM framework, in the case where photons 1 & 4 never coexist, the inequality violations are enforced by including the detector that measures the first of the two photons (photon 1 in your formulation) in the wave function, with the result that was recorded.

3. That's what I did in the explicit math I showed you in that previous thread.

1. Of course, there is experimental support for this, so we already knew it happens. And I have posted numerous accompanying theoretical treatments, all of which you dismiss but agree that the Bell state statistics will pop out at the end. Glad you acknowledge that all time ordering variations are feasible with your approach as well. Since all of them have been experimentally demonstrated.

So we agree: Measurement ordering does not matter to the quantum expectation value, any more than measurement distance does not matter to the quantum expectation value.


2. I can't believe this discussion is over whether you call the relationship between P1 and P4 a Bell state or not. You obviously *define* them as NOT in a Bell state, while every author I quote verbatim says they are. OK fine. But if this isn't a semantic issue, then...??? As I have said many times, there is no single point in time when P1 and P4 (that never co-exist) are entangled. You can't use that kind of description when they don't overlap in time. We agree on that.


3. If you know where your derivation is, then go ahead and link it. But don't look for it if you don't know where it is. You don't question that the Bell state statistics are present based on your math, but you don't want to call it a Bell state.

Let's agree on this: For cases where P1 and P4 co-exist, we could call it a Bell state. Then call it a pseudo-Bell state when P1 and P4 never co-exist. (Since the statistics are the same regardless.)

 

[PeterDonis]

I have posted numerous accompanying theoretical treatments

No, you have posted references to papers that assume that you can blithely write down an entangled Bell state for photons that never coexist. None of those papers actually justify that assumption by showing what underlying dynamics replaces the standard NRQM dynamics (which does not allow any such thing) in order to make such a thing possible.

So we agree: Measurement ordering does not matter to the quantum expectation value, any more than measurement distance does not matter to the quantum expectation value.

Of course. Nobody has ever disagreed with the experimental results. That is why this discussion is in the interpretations subforum--because it's about interpretation, not experimental results.

I can't believe this discussion is over whether you call the relationship between P1 and P4 a Bell state or not. You obviously *define* them as NOT in a Bell state

I have done no such thing. I have given no definitions whatever. I have asked, repeatedly, for a justification of the use of the term "Bell state" for photons that never coexist, if that usage is taken to mean--as you mean it, and as you claim the papers you reference mean it--that that Bell state is physically real. I have yet to see any such justification. All I have seen is pointers to equations that contain Bell states with no supporting argument, and claims that if it's in the published literature, it must mean exactly what you claim it means, no matter how outlandish the claim is and no matter that no supporting argument is given. I can't believe that none of this apparently makes any difference to you at all.

As I have said many times, there is no single point in time when P1 and P4 (that never co-exist) are entangled. You can't use that kind of description when they don't overlap in time. We agree on that.

I don't see how, since despite these statements, with which I agree (and I have already said that explicitly in this discussion), you continue to claim that there is a physically real Bell state that includes photons that never coexist. To me, that claim is inconsistent with what is quoted above. But apparently not to you. And yet you wonder why this discussion has gone on so long. Of course it has, since we apparently can't even agree on what statements are consistent or inconsistent.

If you know where your derivation is, then go ahead and link it.

Derivation of what? I haven't made any claims at all. You have.

Let's agree on this: For cases where P1 and P4 co-exist, we could call it a Bell state. Then call it a pseudo-Bell state when P1 and P4 never co-exist.

Even if we were to agree on this, it would mean nothing, because our substantive disagreement is not about what we call the states, but their physical reality. You claim that a "pseudo-Bell state" is physically real. I and two others (@A. Neumaier and @mattt) disagree. We're not going to resolve that by relabeling things.

 

[PeterDonis]

That is why this discussion is in the interpretations subforum

And, as a reminder, the kind of disagreement we are having, which is not resolvable by experiment (which means it might well not be resolvable at all), is the sort of disagreement that is to be expected in this subforum.