Illustrated Physics
physics, drawn
Concept

Bell inequality — where it appears

A bound on how strongly two separated measurements can be correlated if their outcomes were fixed in advance by anything carried from a common source. Quantum mechanics exceeds it and experiments agree, so no such prearranged list of answers exists.

Named by 4 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Four predictions no list of answers can keep. The four measurements a three-particle GHZ state predicts with certainty, and what the best possible list of pre-agreed answers does with them. Each row is a choice of which quantity to measure on each of the three particles; the quantum value is not an average but a certainty, so a single run of any row has a determined outcome. Every list of answers assigns a value to X and to Y at each particle, which is sixty-four lists in all, and the enumeration finds that 32 of them get three of the four right and 32 get one. None gets four, and none can: multiplying the four left-hand sides together gives every X and every Y twice, so the product is +1 for any list whatever, while the product of the four quantum values is −1. The column on the right is one such list, which agrees with the first three rows and is then forced into the opposite of the fourth. That is the whole argument, and it needs no inequality, no average and no repetition: measure the first three rows on three copies, and the fourth is predicted with certainty and comes out the other way.

The disagreement that one run settles

Bell's argument is a statistical one — a correlation of 2.828 where a pre-agreed list of answers is stuck at 2, dug out of hundreds of coincidences. Add a third particle and the argument stops being about how often. Three measurements predict a fourth with certainty, every list of answers that gets the three right gets the fourth exactly backwards, and one run of the experiment is enough.

quantum · Entanglement Two pairs, and only one of them may cheat. The CHSH value a party shares with a second, against the value the same party shares with a third. Every quantum state lies inside a quarter circle whose radius is Tsirelson's bound, 2.8284, because the sum of the two squared values cannot exceed eight. The classical limit is 2 on each axis, and the square that would hold both violations sticks out of the circle everywhere except at its corner: the best both can manage at once is exactly 1.999998, which is the classical value and no violation at all. So a party maximally entangled with one other is correlated with everybody else exactly as a classical object would be. Nothing about the measurement or the apparatus was assumed; this follows from the state alone.

What two have they cannot give a third

Entanglement will not be shared. A pair that violates a Bell inequality is correlated with everything else exactly as a classical object would be, and the trade is exact enough to be drawn: two CHSH values must fit inside a circle of radius 2√2.

quantum · Entanglement Four outcomes, one of which happened. The correlation between the two outer particles' measurements, against the angle between their analysers, for each of the four results the middle measurement can give. Every one of the four leaves the outer pair maximally entangled — each curve reaches one and minus one — so every outcome is as good as any other, and the outer parties have a perfect Bell pair whichever it was. What differs is which correlation they have, and the four are shifted and reflected versions of each other. The flat line is their average, which is zero at every angle, checked here at seven hundred and twenty angles to twelve figures. That vanishing is the whole reason the operation cannot be used to send anything: until the middle party's two classical bits arrive by an ordinary channel, the outer parties' data is indistinguishable from noise, and no correlation appears at all. The entanglement is created instantly and is useless until a message travelling no faster than light says which of the four it is.

A link between two that never met

Take two entangled pairs sharing no particle, measure the two inner particles jointly, and the two outer ones — which have never interacted, never been in the same place, and have no history in common — are entangled. Nothing travelled between them. What has to travel is two classical bits saying which of four results occurred, and until those arrive the outer parties see nothing at all.

quantum · Entanglement Four regimes along one line of mixed states. The weight p of the singlet in Werner's mixture of a singlet and complete noise, from 0 (pure noise) to 1 (a perfect singlet), divided by what is known about it. Below p = 1/3 the state is separable: it can be made by handing out unentangled pairs. Above 1/3 it is entangled, by the partial-transpose test. Yet up to at least p = 1/2 — Werner's explicit model of 1989 — and, by a later argument through Grothendieck's constant, up to about 0.66, a local hidden-variable model reproduces the outcomes of every pair of projective measurements on it, so no Bell experiment of that kind can reveal the entanglement. Above 1/√2 ≈ 0.707 the CHSH inequality is violated. Between about 0.66 and 0.71 (and, by more recent searches, between about 0.68 and 0.70) it is not known whether any Bell inequality is broken.

The entangled pair a list of answers can imitate

Entanglement and the violation of a Bell inequality are usually spoken of as the same thing, and they are not. Mix a perfect singlet with random noise and the pair stays entangled until the noise is two-thirds of the mixture. It stops violating the CHSH inequality much sooner, when the noise passes three-tenths. In between lies a family of genuinely entangled states whose every measurement can be reproduced by particles carrying instructions fixed in advance — Reinhard Werner wrote the instructions down in 1989. The entanglement in those states is real and can be spent, on teleportation for one thing. It simply cannot be seen by asking two distant analysers what they find.

quantum · Entanglement

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

EntanglementCorrelationLocalityMeasurementQuantum stateSuperpositionHidden variablesNo-cloningCHSH inequalityDecoherenceDensity matrixDeterminism

All concepts