Understanding superposition and entanglement

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concepts of superposition and entanglement in quantum mechanics, focusing on the implications of measurements on entangled particles, the no-communication theorem, and the nature of superposition. Participants explore theoretical scenarios and clarify misunderstandings related to these concepts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Marty expresses a desire to verify several assertions about entangled particles, including the effects of measurement on superposition and decoherence.
  • One participant agrees with Marty's understanding but clarifies that a measurement terminates superposition and leads to a mixed state for non-commuting observables, while entanglement may persist for commuting operators.
  • Marty questions whether determining if an entangled particle is in superposition could violate the no-communication theorem.
  • Another participant confirms that local operations cannot determine if superposition is effective, requiring correlation of results from both entangled particles to learn about superposition.
  • Marty presents a hypothetical scenario involving two entangled particles with non-commuting observables and seeks clarification on the implications of measuring these observables.
  • A participant responds that if observables X and Y are non-commuting, they cannot have a relationship where one is entangled and the other is not, and emphasizes that both must be unknown prior to measurement.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the nature of measurements affecting superposition and the implications of the no-communication theorem, but there are unresolved questions regarding the hypothetical scenarios presented by Marty, indicating a lack of consensus on those specific points.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the nature of measurements and entanglement that may not be universally accepted, particularly in the context of hypothetical scenarios involving predefined states and non-commuting observables.

martyscholes
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I am a newbie here, just an enthusiast with an above average understanding of math and physics, but exposed to QM after I left college.

I have looked through the posts and did not see a concise summary to the following. Please forgive me if I overlooked some threads.

There are some assertions I have which I want to verify are generally accepted to be true.
A. Measuring entangled particle A only impacts particle B by causing both to decohere where measured and both to go into superposition on a noncommuting measurement.
B. The no communication theorem states that measuring one entangled particle cannot provide measurable information to the other entangled particle.
C. There is no way to measure whether a particle is in superposition for a particular measurement.

Do I understand all of this correctly?

Many thanks,
Marty
 
Physics news on Phys.org
martyscholes said:
Do I understand all of this correctly?

Many thanks,
Marty

Welcome to PhysicsForums, Marty!

Yes, I would say that you have it stated pretty well. I would comment on your A. that a measurement terminates the superposition and sends the particles into a mixed state, at least for non-commuting observables. Occasionally, you can observe entanglement continuing for commuting operators.
 
DrChinese said:
Welcome to PhysicsForums, Marty!

Yes, I would say that you have it stated pretty well. I would comment on your A. that a measurement terminates the superposition and sends the particles into a mixed state, at least for non-commuting observables. Occasionally, you can observe entanglement continuing for commuting operators.

Thanks for the fast reply!

Extending the above, if there were a way to determine whether or not an entangled particle was in superposition for a particular observable, then one could violate the no-communication theorem?

Thanks again,
Marty
 
martyscholes said:
Extending the above, if there were a way to determine whether or not an entangled particle was in superposition for a particular observable, then one could violate the no-communication theorem?

Thanks again,
Marty

That's correct, you cannot determine if the superposition is still effective by a local operation. You must correlate results from both Alice and Bob to learn this after a series of operations, which of course defeats the objective of sending an FTL signal.
 
DrChinese said:
That's correct, you cannot determine if the superposition is still effective by a local operation. You must correlate results from both Alice and Bob to learn this after a series of operations, which of course defeats the objective of sending an FTL signal.

Thanks again for staying with me on this and feel free to point out at any time where I am off base.

Suppose I had a device which produced two entangles particles A and B with non-commuting observables X and Y. In addition, suppose that X is not in superposition and is set to a predefined state (stay with me on this fantasy).

Now if we measure observable Y on particle A, then observable X on both particles is in superposition. Once observable X on partible B is measured, it will either have the expected state, which tells us nothing, or it is in the unexpected state, which means that particle A has had observable Y measured.

Where did I go wrong?

Thanks,
Marty
 
martyscholes said:
Thanks again for staying with me on this and feel free to point out at any time where I am off base.

Suppose I had a device which produced two entangles particles A and B with non-commuting observables X and Y. In addition, suppose that X is not in superposition and is set to a predefined state (stay with me on this fantasy).

Now if we measure observable Y on particle A, then observable X on both particles is in superposition. Once observable X on partible B is measured, it will either have the expected state, which tells us nothing, or it is in the unexpected state, which means that particle A has had observable Y measured.

Where did I go wrong?

Thanks,
Marty

If X and Y are non-commuting, then they cannot have a relationship in which X is entangled and Y is not. Either they are both in an entangled state, or neither are.

Also: they cannot be in an entangled state with a known X or Y. X/Y must be unknown prior to the measurement. The result will therefore be random. You cannot send much of a signal using a random sequence.
 
Ok.

Many thanks for the clarification.

Cheers,
Marty
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
7K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
7K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
6K