What tells us photons were ever in a superposition in EPR

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of entanglement in the context of the EPR experiment, specifically addressing how we can infer that twin photons were in a superposition state prior to measurement. Participants explore the implications of entanglement, the role of measurement, and the theoretical underpinnings related to Bell's Theorem.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the EPR experiment begins with carefully prepared photons that are entangled, suggesting that their spins are correlated from the outset.
  • One participant notes that the assumption that particles acquire their spin properties at the moment of entanglement leads to contradictions with experimental results, referencing Bell's Theorem as a critical point of discussion.
  • Another viewpoint suggests that if the photons were in a classical correlated mixture, the strength of correlations would be limited by the uncertainty principle, implying that the observed correlations indicate a superposition state.
  • Some participants argue that while photons are entangled before measurement, the theory does not specify what properties they possess between measurements, raising questions about the nature of these properties and their nonlocality.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of entanglement and measurement, with no consensus reached on the nature of properties held by photons between measurements or the interpretation of their superposition state.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in understanding the properties of photons prior to measurement and the dependence on theoretical assumptions, particularly regarding the uncertainty principle and nonlocality.

Andrew Wright
Messages
120
Reaction score
19
Hi,

I know that entanglement is real and that it tells us something profound about the nature of quantum objects like electrons and photons. I can't explain to a family member how we know that two twin photons in the EPR experiment started off in a superposition. In other words, how do we know that the photons acquired their spin up/down properties when measured? Am I wrong about it?

Please help

Thanks

Andrew
 
Physics news on Phys.org
When we do the EPR experiment, we don't just start with two random photons. We start with two very carefully prepared photons that result from the decay of a known state. So we know that their spins are correlated.
 
Andrew Wright said:
I know that entanglement is real and that it tells us something profound about the nature of quantum objects like electrons and photons. I can't explain to a family member how we know that two twin photons in the EPR experiment started off in a superposition. In other words, how do we know that the photons acquired their spin up/down properties when measured?

One's initial reaction is that the 2 particles acquired their spin properties at T=0 (when initially entangled). However, that simple assumption leads to a contradiction with experiment. That contradiction was first discovered by John Bell, around 30 years after the EPR paper (and about 10 years after Einstein's death).

Look up Bell's Theorem, or alternately go to a web page I created which will give you a minimally taxing explanation:

http://drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm

Sadly, this is not the kind of thing you can explain over a family dinner. :smile:
 
Thanks for your time and patience :)
 
Andrew Wright said:
Hi,

I know that entanglement is real and that it tells us something profound about the nature of quantum objects like electrons and photons. I can't explain to a family member how we know that two twin photons in the EPR experiment started off in a superposition. In other words, how do we know that the photons acquired their spin up/down properties when measured? Am I wrong about it?

Please help

Thanks

Andrew

In the EPR scenario, you can prove that they started off in a superposition because if they were in a classically correlated mixture (e.g., sending out randomly spin-up pairs or spin-down pairs), the correlations could only be so strong. This comes from assuming the uncertainty principle is correct. For spin-1/2 observables, the uncertainty principle would say that the particle cannot have both a perfectly defined horizontal component of spin and a vertical component of spin. This uncertainty principle also holds true when conditioning on a third variable (whatever variable determines whether up-up is sent or down-down), and because of this, the conditional uncertainties (i.e., the uncertainty of measuring the spin of B conditioned on the outcome of A) would also have to obey the same limit.

However, there's no real limit to the correlations between these observables, so if you measure near-perfect correlations between the two spins no matter how you orient your measurement axis (e.g., horizontal/vertical), then you rule out the possibility that there's a classical explanation of the correlations, and they must indeed be in an entangled superposition.
 
Last edited:
Andrew Wright said:
I know that entanglement is real and that it tells us something profound about the nature of quantum objects like electrons and photons. I can't explain to a family member how we know that two twin photons in the EPR experiment started off in a superposition. In other words, how do we know that the photons acquired their spin up/down properties when measured? Am I wrong about it?

In an EPR experiment, the photons are entangled before measurement. However, that does not mean that "the photons acquired their spin up/down properties when measured". The theory is silent about what properties photons have between measurements. What the EPR experiment and the violation of the Bell inequalities say is that (given some conventional assumptions) if photons have properties between measurements, then the properties are nonlocal.
 

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 225 ·
8
Replies
225
Views
15K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
7K