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

I Quantum entanglement information

  1. Aug 9, 2017 #1
    It is said that the measurement done on a particle instantly affects its entangled pair because Bell's theorem excludes a hidden variable. That means there is a cause and an instant effect at a distance. Say we have two entangled particles A and B. If there is no hidden variable then the state of the particles are not definite until measured. After we measure the first particle and find it with spin |up> for example, does it mean now particle B is in a definite state |down>?
    If we consider both particles as a single system, after the measurement of the first particle is the system state determined on the measurement axis?
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 9, 2017 #2

    DrChinese

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yes, it acts as single system. It is "as if" there is a distant "effect". As far as anyone can tell, the nature of a measurement "here" leads to a matching change "there".

    I don't know I would characterize it as a "cause" though, as the specific result is random. Also, there is no causal direction to speak of, as the sequence of measurements seems to make no difference.
     
  4. Aug 9, 2017 #3

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    No, it doesn't. It just means that quantum entanglement cannot be modeled using local hidden variables.

    The proper definition of "causality" is that spacelike separated measurements must commute, i.e., the results can't depend on the order in which the measurements are made. Spacelike separated measurements made on entangled particles satisfy this requirement. Note that this requirement says nothing about "instant effect at at distance"; there is no need to invoke that. Such a need would only be present if the results of the measurements depended on which one was done first.
     
  5. Aug 10, 2017 #4
    If the events are spacelike separated they cannot be cause and effect and since they states are ways opposite there should have a common cause which points to a hidden variable. If there is no hidden variable then there is an instant effect at a distance. It is clear that there is no effect at a distance. It is also clear that there is no hidden variable. It is also clear that the above conclusions are contradictory.
    No communication theorem doesn't demonstrate information doesn't travel faster than light but only we cannot send information (either faster than light or not )using entanglement.
     
  6. Aug 10, 2017 #5

    DrChinese

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    A reasonable assumption (perfect correlations imply HV), but one which is consistent only with instantaneous action at a distance.

    Your statement 2. is incorrect (you have it backwards). If there ARE Hidden Variables, then there must be instantaneous action at a distance.
     
  7. Aug 11, 2017 #6

    bhobba

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Put a green slip in an envelope and a red slip in another - open one and you instantly know the other. No communication, spooky action at a distance and any of the other stuff touted about entangled systems. Entangled systems, like the pieces of paper are simply correlated.

    Here is the real issue. Quantum correlation has some statistical properties different to classical correlation. The reason is we know at all times in the paper slip example that the paper is red or green. In QM we do not know what properties it has unless actually observed. This leads to the different statistics - but again - its just a correlation - no more, no less.

    Now what does Bell say. Well first Bell was a genius in the same class as Einstein, Feynman, Von-Neumann etc - he saw to the heart of the matter when others did not. And that heart is simple - want it to be like the slips of paper - then there must be non local influences going on. But just accept QM as is then no problem. That's it, that's all. Nothing too complicated really - but of course it took the genius of Bell to see it.

    He even wrote a paper explaining it that way except he used the amusing Bertlmann's socks analogy, rather than slips of paper:
    https://cds.cern.ch/record/142461/files/198009299.pdf

    BTW please don't post about the math - he leaves out some steps - they are not hard to do but are tedious and you can pretty much see they are true without even doing the math.

    Thanks
    Bill
     
  8. Aug 11, 2017 #7

    m k

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Can't we see a statistical difference between polarizations if other half of stream of polarization entangled pair is put thrue a slit?
     
  9. Aug 11, 2017 #8

    bhobba

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yes - but the slit is an observation.

    Thanks
    Bill
     
  10. Aug 11, 2017 #9
    "Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen argued that "elements of reality" (hidden variables) must be added to quantum mechanics to explain entanglement without action at a distance. Later, Bell's theorem suggested that local hidden variables of certain types are impossible, or that they evolve non-locally."Wikipedia.
    I suppose you meant non local variables.
     
  11. Aug 11, 2017 #10

    Nugatory

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    There is a reason why wikipedia is not, in general, an accepted source here.... Often it's good, sometimes it's not so good, and sometimes it's just confusing. If you believe that it's in conflict with what @DrChinese posted, then we have an example of it being either wrong or confusing.

    If you want to know whether a particular theory is precluded by Bell's theorem, you can consider whether it conforms to all the assumptions that Bell made when he derived his inequality. If it does, then it must obey the inequality and therefore we reject it as not consistent with experimental results. If it does not, then as far as Bell's theorem is concerned it may or may not be a valid theory and we have to look elsewhere for reasons to accept or reject it. You can drag words like "reality", "locality", "hidden variables" into the discussion, but unless you clearly connect these words to the assumptions that go into the derivation of the inequality you're unlikely to find any new insight and likely to find yourself in a sterile argument about which words to apply to any given theory.
     
  12. Aug 11, 2017 #11
    I'm sorry.
    I only wanted to clarify this. Does "No communication theorem" alone demonstrate information cannot travel faster than light?
     
  13. Aug 11, 2017 #12

    Nugatory

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    No. It does prove that measurements on an entangled system do not transmit information at any speed, whether faster than light or not.

    It says nothing about other possible ways of transmitting information, but of course relativity has a lot to say on that question.
     
  14. Aug 12, 2017 #13
    Thank you. I still don't understand why this conclusion. I can only deduce that we cannot send information using entanglement (there is nothing we can do on a entangled particle to be detectable by measuring its entangled pair), not even at lower speed than c. I'm not arguing that information can travel faster than light.
     
  15. Aug 16, 2017 #14
    does the effect of observation have an effect upon the observed partial ?
     
  16. Aug 17, 2017 #15
    Bell was hardly a genius, his inequalities were a known result in Statistics going back to the work of George Boole and are not specific to hidden variable theories. He also had an agenda. The understanding of statisticians is that if data violates these inequalities then the observables have been chosen inconsistently - something which we in fact know upfront because we are trying to treat incompatible observables as compatible. But Bell tries to imply that there is spooky action at a distance occurring.
     
  17. Aug 17, 2017 #16

    vanhees71

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    Obviously you haven't understood the crucial point of Bell's great work on the foundations of QT. It's not less than making a purely metaphysical question about the inseparability of parts of entangled quantum systems, the feature of QT which quibbled Einstein, Schrödinger, and others the most about QT, a scientifically testable prediction. Particularly at the time of Boole, nobody knew about a probabilistic model like QT.

    The probabilities in QT, or more specifically the strong correlations, which can be of arbtrarily long range, described by entanglement, are objectively different from any correlations that are possible in local deterministic theories. So quantum theory is distinct from any local deterministic hidden-variable theory and thus both types of descriptions of nature can be objectively tested in experiment. In the recent years the evidence has become overwhelming that QT is the correct description of Nature rather than local hidden-variable theories. This is a great foundational breakthrough, resolving the objections raised by EPR in the 1930ies, in favor of QT.

    Within the minimal statistical interpretation of QT, which in my opinion is the only consistent purely scientific interpretation yet, no instantaneous information exchange is possible through entanglement. It describes only the strong and often long-distance correlations of subsystems of systems prepared in a state, for which certain observables are entangled, e.g., the polarization of photon pairs created by parametric down-conversion. These photons can be detectected arbitrarily far away and still showing the corresponding correlations. Each observer of the single photons, however, sees only perfectly unpolarized photons (maybe it's the most accurate way to provide ensembles of really unpolarized photons possible). Only if both observers take accurate measurement protocols, including precise time stamps of the photon detection, that enable to be sure about the pairs of photons that belong to one entangled state, you can find the 100% correlations between the polarization states of the polarization-entangled photons, and thus you cannot instantaneously transfer information over far distances. To the contrary, any attempt to manipulate one of the photons leads to disentanglement, i.e., you have to measure the single photons' polarization without manipulating each of them before to see the correlations described by entanglement.
     
  18. Aug 17, 2017 #17
    Actually you have failed to understand just how much people like Boole and Kolmogorov did understand about sets of observables being incompatible and how this occurs even outside physics.
     
  19. Aug 17, 2017 #18

    morrobay

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Paragraph 1 above : With spin 1/2 particles and the perfect anti correlations at SG parallel detector settings that the inequality is derived from. I understand why the hidden variable notion is ruled out when inequality does not hold for miss-aligned settings, based on the sin2 and cos2 formulas.

    Paragraph 2 above: With this description that accounts for the spacelike separated photons' non classical correlations: I am confused on how this is different from a hidden variable description ? I read this as the correlations were created during entanglement
    preparation ( common past cause). And this information that determines the photons response to a polarizer angle are carried with the photons from production to detection. A (α,λ) = ± 1. B( β,λ) = ± 1


    .
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2017
  20. Aug 18, 2017 #19

    vanhees71

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    Exactly. So where is your problem?
     
  21. Aug 18, 2017 #20

    morrobay

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Then are you saying that the minimal statistical interpretation is a hidden variable local theory that agrees with QM predictions ? Thats fine with me.However my understanding is that the inequality violations rule out LHV,s
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook