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

Quantum Entanglement - proven?

  1. Nov 25, 2014 #1
    Hi,

    I have some general questions on Quantum Entanglement?

    1. Is there a maximum distance between the two objects before it does not work?
    2. Has it actually been proven/tested? If so can anybody provide some further information on this?

    Thanks,

    Ward
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 25, 2014 #2

    ShayanJ

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Hi
    No!

    Yes. Its being used in laboratories for testing different things.

    Take a look at here.
     
  4. Nov 25, 2014 #3

    DrChinese

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  5. Nov 25, 2014 #4
    Remember all experiments to date haven't closed all the loopholes in one experiment; rather they have been closed in separate experiments (leaving open one or two of the other loopholes). Although I believe entanglement (non-local reality) does truly exist, these loopholes leave open the possibility of local reality - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loopholes_in_Bell_test_experiments
     
  6. Nov 25, 2014 #5
    Not only is there no maximum distance but it has been argued that barring loopholes, if the non-local effects observed in Bell-type experiments propagate at any finite speed, then non-locality could be exploited for superluminal communication:
    Quantum non-locality based on finite-speed causal influences leads to superluminal signalling
    http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v8/n12/full/nphys2460.html
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.3795v1.pdf
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2017
  7. Nov 25, 2014 #6

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I think of it a bit differently, using "proven" in two different senses. I would say that entanglement as a prediction of quantum mechanics has been "proven" in the same sense as the frame invariance of the speed of light as a prediction of relativistic quantum electrodynamics has been "proven". Here "proven" means that non-trivial predictions of the theory have been tested, and the theory has successfully predicted all results to date. "Proven" does not mean that the theory will not be falsified by future observations. The Bell tests are the most spectacular examples of entanglement, but things like the superconducting ground state and the fractional quantum hall state are also examples of entanglement.

    Nonlocality, on the other hand is about accounting for experimental results independently of quantum mechanics, taking into account all possible theories beyond quantum mechanics. The spirit here is different and stricter, because the Bell inequalities are derived independently of quantum mechanics. Because I feel that here one should use a stricter notion of "proven", I would say nonlocality can never be proven, so here one typically tries to be precise by stating a null hypothesis, and stating p values.

    Here's a talk by Subir Sachdev about current research on entanglement in high temperature superconductivity.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2014
  8. Nov 25, 2014 #7

    bhobba

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You have got some interesting answers here.

    However I have got a slightly different take:
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.0695v1.pdf

    Basically if you want to model physical processes probabilistically you have two choices - standard probability theory and QM.

    What separates the two is one allows entanglement and the other doesn't - only QM allows entanglement. The other thing is only QM allows continuous transformations between pure states which is really required for physical processes. If a transformation can be applied for a second it can be applied for half a second an so on. So it turns out if you want this very reasonable requirement, and its hard to see how it can be done without, then you get entanglement.

    Thanks
    Bill
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2014
  9. Nov 26, 2014 #8

    ShayanJ

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    This one seems better than the previous papers where QM was merely a kind of probability theory!
    The idea of pushing QM to become only a mathematical theory applied to the universe is too bold to be successful (also I don't like it:D), but this paper seems to take an appropriate compromise.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Quantum Entanglement - proven?
  1. Quantum Entanglement (Replies: 5)

  2. Quantum Entanglement (Replies: 6)

  3. Quantum entanglement (Replies: 15)

Loading...