How do you know when two objects are so called entangled?How are atoms entangled, and can it be done remotely?What laser and BBO are needed to create entangled laser streams?How can we know that all of the results for entangled photons are not chosen when the pair is created?how are quantum entangled states mantained?Determining if two qubits in an ensemble are entangledAre particles entangled after beta decay?How can we know if a pair of particles are entangled?Would it be possible to quantum entangle two large objects?Quantum-entangled macroscopic objectsHow do we know that two quantum states are entangled?
Does the average primeness of natural numbers tend to zero?
Should the British be getting ready for a no-deal Brexit?
I’m planning on buying a laser printer but concerned about the life cycle of toner in the machine
Why was the "bread communication" in the arena of Catching Fire left out in the movie?
Can one use the reaction spell from the War Caster feat to cast Bigby's Hand?
Denied boarding due to overcrowding, Sparpreis ticket. What are my rights?
Is it wise to hold on to stock that has plummeted and then stabilized?
What is the command to reset a PC without deleting any files
Why is the design of haulage companies so “special”?
Filling an area between two curves
How can I fix this gap between bookcases I made?
Information to fellow intern about hiring?
Can I buy Tokyo Keisei line tickets with international debit card?
extract characters between two commas?
"listening to me about as much as you're listening to this pole here"
How to manage monthly salary
Unbreakable Formation vs. Cry of the Carnarium
Are cabin dividers used to "hide" the flex of the airplane?
Domain expired, GoDaddy holds it and is asking more money
OOB SharePoint Work Flow question: Difference between Workflow Task and Tasks (New)
Why is my log file so massive? 22gb. I am running log backups
What do the Banks children have against barley water?
How to make payment on the internet without leaving a money trail?
Is "plugging out" electronic devices an American expression?
How do you know when two objects are so called entangled?
How are atoms entangled, and can it be done remotely?What laser and BBO are needed to create entangled laser streams?How can we know that all of the results for entangled photons are not chosen when the pair is created?how are quantum entangled states mantained?Determining if two qubits in an ensemble are entangledAre particles entangled after beta decay?How can we know if a pair of particles are entangled?Would it be possible to quantum entangle two large objects?Quantum-entangled macroscopic objectsHow do we know that two quantum states are entangled?
$begingroup$
I’m not asking how would you entangle two objects. I want to know how would you know they are entangled?
quantum-mechanics quantum-entanglement
edited Mar 29 at 7:13
Qmechanic♦
107k121991239
asked Mar 29 at 6:10
Bill AlseptBill Alsept
2,0261722
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I’m not asking how would you entangle two objects. I want to know how would you know they are entangled?
quantum-mechanics quantum-entanglement
edited Mar 29 at 7:13
Qmechanic♦
107k121991239
asked Mar 29 at 6:10
Bill AlseptBill Alsept
2,0261722
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
van Enk et al (2007), "Experimental procedures for entanglement verification," Physical Review A 75, 052318 (authors.library.caltech.edu/8289) reviews a few methods, with emphasis on methods that are sufficient if we assume that quantum theory is correct. This is a superset of methods that are sufficient for ruling out local hidden variables.
$endgroup$
– Chiral Anomaly
Mar 29 at 15:45
$begingroup$
@ChiralAnomaly thanks, this Looks like a very thorough article and I will read through it.
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 18:01
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I’m not asking how would you entangle two objects. I want to know how would you know they are entangled?
quantum-mechanics quantum-entanglement
edited Mar 29 at 7:13
Qmechanic♦
107k121991239
asked Mar 29 at 6:10
Bill AlseptBill Alsept
2,0261722
$endgroup$
I’m not asking how would you entangle two objects. I want to know how would you know they are entangled?
quantum-mechanics quantum-entanglement
quantum-mechanics quantum-entanglement
edited Mar 29 at 7:13
Qmechanic♦
107k121991239
asked Mar 29 at 6:10
Bill AlseptBill Alsept
2,0261722
edited Mar 29 at 7:13
Qmechanic♦
107k121991239
asked Mar 29 at 6:10
Bill AlseptBill Alsept
2,0261722
edited Mar 29 at 7:13
Qmechanic♦
107k121991239
edited Mar 29 at 7:13
Qmechanic♦
107k121991239
edited Mar 29 at 7:13
Qmechanic♦
107k121991239
107k121991239
asked Mar 29 at 6:10
Bill AlseptBill Alsept
2,0261722
asked Mar 29 at 6:10
Bill AlseptBill Alsept
2,0261722
asked Mar 29 at 6:10
Bill AlseptBill Alsept
2,0261722
2,0261722
$begingroup$
van Enk et al (2007), "Experimental procedures for entanglement verification," Physical Review A 75, 052318 (authors.library.caltech.edu/8289) reviews a few methods, with emphasis on methods that are sufficient if we assume that quantum theory is correct. This is a superset of methods that are sufficient for ruling out local hidden variables.
$endgroup$
– Chiral Anomaly
Mar 29 at 15:45
$begingroup$
@ChiralAnomaly thanks, this Looks like a very thorough article and I will read through it.
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 18:01
add a comment |
$begingroup$
van Enk et al (2007), "Experimental procedures for entanglement verification," Physical Review A 75, 052318 (authors.library.caltech.edu/8289) reviews a few methods, with emphasis on methods that are sufficient if we assume that quantum theory is correct. This is a superset of methods that are sufficient for ruling out local hidden variables.
$endgroup$
– Chiral Anomaly
Mar 29 at 15:45
$begingroup$
@ChiralAnomaly thanks, this Looks like a very thorough article and I will read through it.
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 18:01
$begingroup$
van Enk et al (2007), "Experimental procedures for entanglement verification," Physical Review A 75, 052318 (authors.library.caltech.edu/8289) reviews a few methods, with emphasis on methods that are sufficient if we assume that quantum theory is correct. This is a superset of methods that are sufficient for ruling out local hidden variables.
$endgroup$
– Chiral Anomaly
Mar 29 at 15:45
$begingroup$
van Enk et al (2007), "Experimental procedures for entanglement verification," Physical Review A 75, 052318 (authors.library.caltech.edu/8289) reviews a few methods, with emphasis on methods that are sufficient if we assume that quantum theory is correct. This is a superset of methods that are sufficient for ruling out local hidden variables.
$endgroup$
– Chiral Anomaly
Mar 29 at 15:45
$begingroup$
@ChiralAnomaly thanks, this Looks like a very thorough article and I will read through it.
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 18:01
$begingroup$
@ChiralAnomaly thanks, this Looks like a very thorough article and I will read through it.
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 18:01
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In general you can't. That is, if you have just two particles you cannot tell whether they are entangled or not.
Entanglement reveals itself by correlations. For example if you take many pairs of particles you may find that their properties are always correlated, e.g. their spins are always opposite, and this tells you that whatever mechanism is generating the pairs of particles is entangling them. But this shows up only with repeated measurements. A single measurement cannot tell you the particles are correlated since their spins could have the values you observe just by chance.
answered Mar 29 at 6:41
John RennieJohn Rennie
279k44557805
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks john, I assumed it involved measuring many pairs. I just wanted to confirm if correlation was the main thing we were looking for. Has anyone ever correlated two large objects which produced measurements of cos2?
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 7:06
$begingroup$
@BillAlsept That's very technically complicated. Measurement affects the object (as does any other interaction). The bigger the object, the harder it is to isolate from all those influences, and the harder it is to have any confidence in your measurement. There's no reason to expect entanglement "stops" at some scale, but there's many reasons to expect that the bigger the object, the harder it gets to prove entanglement. But we do know it works on a macroscopic scale, because quantum computers are macroscopic (without relying on entanglement of every individual atom involved).
$endgroup$
– Luaan
Mar 29 at 9:21
$begingroup$
@BillAlsept as far as I know this expt is the largest objects ever entangled
$endgroup$
– John Rennie
Mar 29 at 12:07
$begingroup$
@JohnRennie The article is very interesting but it says the two objects are coupled to a circuit and that the circuit keeps the two objects so called entangled. Isn’t that still just a local process? This is probably more of a question for chat But the only correlations I can think of are mirrored variables from a common source. Which is not really entanglement and why I say so called entanglement. I guess what I’m saying is I could draw up an experiment where many pairs of large objects are correlated with given variables that when tested would give the results of cos2. Thanks
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 15:24
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f469308%2fhow-do-you-know-when-two-objects-are-so-called-entangled%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In general you can't. That is, if you have just two particles you cannot tell whether they are entangled or not.
Entanglement reveals itself by correlations. For example if you take many pairs of particles you may find that their properties are always correlated, e.g. their spins are always opposite, and this tells you that whatever mechanism is generating the pairs of particles is entangling them. But this shows up only with repeated measurements. A single measurement cannot tell you the particles are correlated since their spins could have the values you observe just by chance.
answered Mar 29 at 6:41
John RennieJohn Rennie
279k44557805
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks john, I assumed it involved measuring many pairs. I just wanted to confirm if correlation was the main thing we were looking for. Has anyone ever correlated two large objects which produced measurements of cos2?
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 7:06
$begingroup$
@BillAlsept That's very technically complicated. Measurement affects the object (as does any other interaction). The bigger the object, the harder it is to isolate from all those influences, and the harder it is to have any confidence in your measurement. There's no reason to expect entanglement "stops" at some scale, but there's many reasons to expect that the bigger the object, the harder it gets to prove entanglement. But we do know it works on a macroscopic scale, because quantum computers are macroscopic (without relying on entanglement of every individual atom involved).
$endgroup$
– Luaan
Mar 29 at 9:21
$begingroup$
@BillAlsept as far as I know this expt is the largest objects ever entangled
$endgroup$
– John Rennie
Mar 29 at 12:07
$begingroup$
@JohnRennie The article is very interesting but it says the two objects are coupled to a circuit and that the circuit keeps the two objects so called entangled. Isn’t that still just a local process? This is probably more of a question for chat But the only correlations I can think of are mirrored variables from a common source. Which is not really entanglement and why I say so called entanglement. I guess what I’m saying is I could draw up an experiment where many pairs of large objects are correlated with given variables that when tested would give the results of cos2. Thanks
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 15:24
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In general you can't. That is, if you have just two particles you cannot tell whether they are entangled or not.
Entanglement reveals itself by correlations. For example if you take many pairs of particles you may find that their properties are always correlated, e.g. their spins are always opposite, and this tells you that whatever mechanism is generating the pairs of particles is entangling them. But this shows up only with repeated measurements. A single measurement cannot tell you the particles are correlated since their spins could have the values you observe just by chance.
answered Mar 29 at 6:41
John RennieJohn Rennie
279k44557805
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks john, I assumed it involved measuring many pairs. I just wanted to confirm if correlation was the main thing we were looking for. Has anyone ever correlated two large objects which produced measurements of cos2?
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 7:06
$begingroup$
@BillAlsept That's very technically complicated. Measurement affects the object (as does any other interaction). The bigger the object, the harder it is to isolate from all those influences, and the harder it is to have any confidence in your measurement. There's no reason to expect entanglement "stops" at some scale, but there's many reasons to expect that the bigger the object, the harder it gets to prove entanglement. But we do know it works on a macroscopic scale, because quantum computers are macroscopic (without relying on entanglement of every individual atom involved).
$endgroup$
– Luaan
Mar 29 at 9:21
$begingroup$
@BillAlsept as far as I know this expt is the largest objects ever entangled
$endgroup$
– John Rennie
Mar 29 at 12:07
$begingroup$
@JohnRennie The article is very interesting but it says the two objects are coupled to a circuit and that the circuit keeps the two objects so called entangled. Isn’t that still just a local process? This is probably more of a question for chat But the only correlations I can think of are mirrored variables from a common source. Which is not really entanglement and why I say so called entanglement. I guess what I’m saying is I could draw up an experiment where many pairs of large objects are correlated with given variables that when tested would give the results of cos2. Thanks
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 15:24
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In general you can't. That is, if you have just two particles you cannot tell whether they are entangled or not.
Entanglement reveals itself by correlations. For example if you take many pairs of particles you may find that their properties are always correlated, e.g. their spins are always opposite, and this tells you that whatever mechanism is generating the pairs of particles is entangling them. But this shows up only with repeated measurements. A single measurement cannot tell you the particles are correlated since their spins could have the values you observe just by chance.
answered Mar 29 at 6:41
John RennieJohn Rennie
279k44557805
$endgroup$
In general you can't. That is, if you have just two particles you cannot tell whether they are entangled or not.
Entanglement reveals itself by correlations. For example if you take many pairs of particles you may find that their properties are always correlated, e.g. their spins are always opposite, and this tells you that whatever mechanism is generating the pairs of particles is entangling them. But this shows up only with repeated measurements. A single measurement cannot tell you the particles are correlated since their spins could have the values you observe just by chance.
answered Mar 29 at 6:41
John RennieJohn Rennie
279k44557805
answered Mar 29 at 6:41
John RennieJohn Rennie
279k44557805
answered Mar 29 at 6:41
John RennieJohn Rennie
279k44557805
answered Mar 29 at 6:41
John RennieJohn Rennie
279k44557805
279k44557805
$begingroup$
Thanks john, I assumed it involved measuring many pairs. I just wanted to confirm if correlation was the main thing we were looking for. Has anyone ever correlated two large objects which produced measurements of cos2?
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 7:06
$begingroup$
@BillAlsept That's very technically complicated. Measurement affects the object (as does any other interaction). The bigger the object, the harder it is to isolate from all those influences, and the harder it is to have any confidence in your measurement. There's no reason to expect entanglement "stops" at some scale, but there's many reasons to expect that the bigger the object, the harder it gets to prove entanglement. But we do know it works on a macroscopic scale, because quantum computers are macroscopic (without relying on entanglement of every individual atom involved).
$endgroup$
– Luaan
Mar 29 at 9:21
$begingroup$
@BillAlsept as far as I know this expt is the largest objects ever entangled
$endgroup$
– John Rennie
Mar 29 at 12:07
$begingroup$
@JohnRennie The article is very interesting but it says the two objects are coupled to a circuit and that the circuit keeps the two objects so called entangled. Isn’t that still just a local process? This is probably more of a question for chat But the only correlations I can think of are mirrored variables from a common source. Which is not really entanglement and why I say so called entanglement. I guess what I’m saying is I could draw up an experiment where many pairs of large objects are correlated with given variables that when tested would give the results of cos2. Thanks
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 15:24
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thanks john, I assumed it involved measuring many pairs. I just wanted to confirm if correlation was the main thing we were looking for. Has anyone ever correlated two large objects which produced measurements of cos2?
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 7:06
$begingroup$
@BillAlsept That's very technically complicated. Measurement affects the object (as does any other interaction). The bigger the object, the harder it is to isolate from all those influences, and the harder it is to have any confidence in your measurement. There's no reason to expect entanglement "stops" at some scale, but there's many reasons to expect that the bigger the object, the harder it gets to prove entanglement. But we do know it works on a macroscopic scale, because quantum computers are macroscopic (without relying on entanglement of every individual atom involved).
$endgroup$
– Luaan
Mar 29 at 9:21
$begingroup$
@BillAlsept as far as I know this expt is the largest objects ever entangled
$endgroup$
– John Rennie
Mar 29 at 12:07
$begingroup$
@JohnRennie The article is very interesting but it says the two objects are coupled to a circuit and that the circuit keeps the two objects so called entangled. Isn’t that still just a local process? This is probably more of a question for chat But the only correlations I can think of are mirrored variables from a common source. Which is not really entanglement and why I say so called entanglement. I guess what I’m saying is I could draw up an experiment where many pairs of large objects are correlated with given variables that when tested would give the results of cos2. Thanks
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 15:24
$begingroup$
Thanks john, I assumed it involved measuring many pairs. I just wanted to confirm if correlation was the main thing we were looking for. Has anyone ever correlated two large objects which produced measurements of cos2?
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 7:06
$begingroup$
Thanks john, I assumed it involved measuring many pairs. I just wanted to confirm if correlation was the main thing we were looking for. Has anyone ever correlated two large objects which produced measurements of cos2?
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 7:06
$begingroup$
@BillAlsept That's very technically complicated. Measurement affects the object (as does any other interaction). The bigger the object, the harder it is to isolate from all those influences, and the harder it is to have any confidence in your measurement. There's no reason to expect entanglement "stops" at some scale, but there's many reasons to expect that the bigger the object, the harder it gets to prove entanglement. But we do know it works on a macroscopic scale, because quantum computers are macroscopic (without relying on entanglement of every individual atom involved).
$endgroup$
– Luaan
Mar 29 at 9:21
$begingroup$
@BillAlsept That's very technically complicated. Measurement affects the object (as does any other interaction). The bigger the object, the harder it is to isolate from all those influences, and the harder it is to have any confidence in your measurement. There's no reason to expect entanglement "stops" at some scale, but there's many reasons to expect that the bigger the object, the harder it gets to prove entanglement. But we do know it works on a macroscopic scale, because quantum computers are macroscopic (without relying on entanglement of every individual atom involved).
$endgroup$
– Luaan
Mar 29 at 9:21
$begingroup$
@BillAlsept as far as I know this expt is the largest objects ever entangled
$endgroup$
– John Rennie
Mar 29 at 12:07
$begingroup$
@BillAlsept as far as I know this expt is the largest objects ever entangled
$endgroup$
– John Rennie
Mar 29 at 12:07
$begingroup$
@JohnRennie The article is very interesting but it says the two objects are coupled to a circuit and that the circuit keeps the two objects so called entangled. Isn’t that still just a local process? This is probably more of a question for chat But the only correlations I can think of are mirrored variables from a common source. Which is not really entanglement and why I say so called entanglement. I guess what I’m saying is I could draw up an experiment where many pairs of large objects are correlated with given variables that when tested would give the results of cos2. Thanks
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 15:24
$begingroup$
@JohnRennie The article is very interesting but it says the two objects are coupled to a circuit and that the circuit keeps the two objects so called entangled. Isn’t that still just a local process? This is probably more of a question for chat But the only correlations I can think of are mirrored variables from a common source. Which is not really entanglement and why I say so called entanglement. I guess what I’m saying is I could draw up an experiment where many pairs of large objects are correlated with given variables that when tested would give the results of cos2. Thanks
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 15:24
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f469308%2fhow-do-you-know-when-two-objects-are-so-called-entangled%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
van Enk et al (2007), "Experimental procedures for entanglement verification," Physical Review A 75, 052318 (authors.library.caltech.edu/8289) reviews a few methods, with emphasis on methods that are sufficient if we assume that quantum theory is correct. This is a superset of methods that are sufficient for ruling out local hidden variables.
$endgroup$
– Chiral Anomaly
Mar 29 at 15:45
$begingroup$
@ChiralAnomaly thanks, this Looks like a very thorough article and I will read through it.
$endgroup$
– Bill Alsept
Mar 29 at 18:01