What I don't quite get about entanglement...

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around quantum entanglement and Bell's Theorem, focusing on the implications of measurement outcomes for entangled particles, the nature of hidden variables, and the concept of non-locality. Participants explore theoretical interpretations and experimental evidence related to these topics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question how we can be sure that the first measured particle does not have a pre-defined orientation, suggesting this might be a simpler explanation.
  • Others argue that experimental violations of Bell inequalities rule out models with hidden variables, asserting that such models cannot account for the observed phenomena.
  • There are claims that certain measurements show discrepancies that suggest potential errors rather than accepting non-locality or faster-than-light (FTL) communication.
  • Some participants assert that non-locality does not imply FTL communication, emphasizing that entangled particles do not transmit usable information instantaneously.
  • One participant mentions that Bell tests have been conducted with high precision, providing specific experimental results that challenge local realism.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of realism and locality, with some suggesting that if one is true, the other must be false, leading to a complex understanding of quantum mechanics.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the conclusions drawn from experiments, suggesting that the interpretation of results may not fully support non-local hidden variable theories.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no consensus reached on the interpretation of entanglement, the validity of hidden variable theories, or the implications of experimental results. Disagreements persist regarding the nature of measurements and the existence of pre-defined properties in quantum systems.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various experiments and theoretical frameworks, but there are limitations in the assumptions made about locality and realism. The discussion highlights the complexity and ongoing debates in the interpretation of quantum mechanics.

  • #31
DrChinese said:
It is possible to entangle distant photons after they are created. Prior to their creation, they have no relationship or correlation whatsoever. So the correlation you mention cannot be predetermined, even as a relationship and not specific values.
Agreed. But this is not a problem to what I tried to write.

In the more composite experiments of entanglement swapping, we simply combine things to make it more complex, but the the conceptual issues are just thge same imo. I am one of those that thinkg that this experiment does not add much conceptually new. To make the entanglement swapping we need

(1) different original entangled pairs
(2) the key swapping event; which I understand as a special type of controlled interaction, where
(3) filtering the data using information from the key swapping measurments that is classically communicated

This way, yes, systems that has previously no local contact, are entangled. For this is not a mystery per see, because entanglment has to do with information, it's not some invisible "material link" between remote objects. But the understnading of how this is possible, for me at least, clearly depends on the original entangled pairs. Without them, the "construction" of the new entangled pairs would not be possible to carry out. All the details has been debated alreday in other threads. From my perspective, these "new" experiments are great and emphasise a lot of things, but adds nothing fundamentally new to my understanding.
DrChinese said:
Also, I’m not sure how you can factor in the environment in outcomes. Some elements of the environment do interact with photons, but don’t have any observable effect. Other elements of the environment, such as a polarizing beam splitter, do have an effect. But it is difficult to envision that interaction as determining the outcome due to the measurement apparatus. After all, Alice and Bob are distant and the environment always cancels out. We know that because of perfect correlations.
This is the interesting part! But also the part where I would say that we have incomplete understanding, which is a good start.

And it would be inappropriate to attempt to speculate here as it will open a can of worms we can't control. So I just settled with acknowledging this as a good question. Let's hope that published papers start to come that elaborate these things, and we can start to discuss also that.

/Fredrik
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
DrChinese said:
Also, I’m not sure how you can factor in the environment in outcomes. Some elements of the environment do interact with photons, but don’t have any observable effect. Other elements of the environment, such as a polarizing beam splitter, do have an effect. But it is difficult to envision that interaction as determining the outcome due to the measurement apparatus.
Not even close to an answer, but at least an interesting paper asking some small questions of how environmental noise can actively support entanglment, in that in minimizes decoherence probability.

Noise induced entanglement
"...We describe how the entanglement between the atoms arise in such a situation, and wether a noise except the white one could help preparation of entanglement."
-- https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0309202

This for me spawns or suggest many new interesting deeper foundational questions.

/Fredrik
 
  • #33
Fra said:
This for me spawns or suggest many new interesting deeper foundational questions.
Please note that this thread is not in the interpretations and foundations subforum, so "foundational questions" are off topic here. If you want to discuss those you need to start a new thread in that subforum.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Fra and DrChinese

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
8K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 80 ·
3
Replies
80
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K