Illustrated Physics
physics, drawn
Concept

Correlation — where it appears

A measure of how much two quantities vary together, normalised so that independent quantities give zero. In optics the correlation of two fields gives the fringe contrast and the correlation of two intensities gives its square, which is the difference between the two kinds of stellar interferometer.

Named by 6 essays across 3 fields — 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 The same source measured by amplitude and by intensity. The degree of coherence of a 47 milliarcsecond disc at 550 nm, and its square, against the separation of two apertures. A Michelson interferometer measures the upper curve, because fringe contrast is |γ|. Correlating the intensities at the two apertures instead measures the lower one, because the excess correlation of two thermal beams is |γ|² — the same information about the source, since one curve determines the other, and reaching zero at the same baseline of 2.94 m. What is lost is the phase of γ, which the intensity correlation never sees; what is bought is that a path error of many wavelengths does not matter, because the quantity being correlated is a slow fluctuation of brightness rather than a wave. The half-coherence baselines differ — 1.71 m against 1.25 m — which is the practical statement that the squared curve is the steeper one to measure against.

The correlation that survives what the phase does not

Two telescopes can measure a star's diameter by interfering the light, which requires holding two paths equal to a fraction of a wavelength through an atmosphere that will not hold still. Or they can throw the phase away entirely and correlate the brightness fluctuations, which needs the paths equal to a few metres and works.

optics · Coherence 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 How much a block knows about the rest. The entanglement between a block of a one-dimensional chain and everything outside it, against how long the block is, for three states of the same number of particles. The straight line is a randomly chosen state, whose entanglement is the block's length times the logarithm of two — a volume law, and what almost every state in Hilbert space does. The flat curve is the ground state of a chain with a gap: it saturates, varying by less than a twentieth of a per cent from a block of eight to one of forty, because the boundary of a one-dimensional block is two points however long the block is. The middle curve is the ground state of a gapless chain, which grows as the logarithm of the size with a coefficient measured here as 0.333 against the third that conformal field theory gives. Both ground states are enormously less entangled than a random state, and that is not a detail about chains: it is why a ground state can be written down at all.

The corner of Hilbert space that is ever visited

Monogamy between three parties says how much of a correlation a pair may hold. Read across a boundary in a many-body system it says something much stronger: the entanglement between a region and the rest scales with the boundary rather than the volume, for the ground state of anything with local interactions. That is why such a state can be written down at all — and why almost every state in Hilbert space is one that nothing ever prepares.

quantum · Entanglement Mean field always pushes; correlations pull. The pressure between two planes of equal charge with only their own counterions between them, against their separation, in units of the Gouy–Chapman length μ for the separation and 2πℓ_Bσ²kT for the pressure. The upper curve is the Poisson–Boltzmann result, solved from k·tan(kd/2) = 1: it is the density of counterions at the midplane and is positive at every separation, falling from the ideal-gas 2/d at contact to π²/d² far apart — 1.71 at 1μ, 0.290 at 4μ. The lower curve is the strong-coupling limit, 2/d − 1, which the same ions reach when their valence and the surface charge are high. It crosses zero at d = 2μ and is negative beyond, tending to −1: the two like-charged planes attract, and the separation 2μ is where they come to rest.

The like charges that pull together

Two surfaces carrying the same charge, with nothing between them but the ions that neutralise them, ought to repel, and the standard mean-field theory proves that they always do. With calcium or spermine as the counterions they attract, and come to rest a fraction of a nanometre apart. The mean field misses it because it averages the ions into a smooth cloud, and multivalent ions are too strongly repelled by each other to form one. Each keeps a patch of surface to itself, and the pressure between the plates becomes a single ion's business.

fluids · Osmosis

Named alongside it

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

EntanglementMeasurementQuantum stateBell inequalityLocalitySuperpositionDecoherenceHidden variablesNo-cloningAngular diameterAntibunchingArea law

All concepts