Illustrated Physics
physics, drawn
Concept

Entanglement — where it appears

A state of two or more particles that assigns no state to any one of them separately, so their outcomes correlate more strongly than pre-agreed answers allow. Two particles beat the classical bound by 41 per cent; three contradict it with certainty in one run.

Named by 7 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

The correlation, and the best a shared list of answers can do. The coincidence correlation between two polarisation analysers against the angle between them, over two full turns of the correlation — a polariser turned through 180° is the same polariser, so the picture repeats. The singlet gives −cos 2Δ, drawn through −1.00 at 0°, 1.00 at 90°, −1.00 at 180°, 1.00 at 270°. Beside it is the best correlation any shared list of pre-agreed answers can produce: straight lines between the same four extremes, with corners where the cosine is smooth. The two agree exactly at the multiples of 45° and nowhere else, and they are furthest apart — by 0.2105 — at 19.77° and 70.23°, which is ½ arcsin(2/π) from either end of the quarter turn. The difference is not a matter of degree: it is a curve against a shape with a corner in it, and no list can be bent into the curve.

The correlation no instructions can produce

A pair of gloves in two boxes agrees perfectly and needs no physics, because the answers were settled at packing. What no packing can imitate is the shape that appears as the two analysers are turned relative to each other, and the shape is a number — 2.828 where every list of pre-agreed answers is stuck at 2.

quantum · Entanglement 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 What is lost is exactly what is recorded. Fringe visibility against the distinguishability of the record left in the environment, for six couplings between the interferometer and a marker. The points lie on the quarter circle V² + D² = 1, computed here to a part in 10¹² — the visibility from the output probabilities with the marker traced out, and the distinguishability from the overlap of the marker's two states, with nothing shared between the two calculations. The relation is the quantitative form of complementarity, and it is stronger than the usual statement: interference is not lost because something was disturbed, and not lost only when a measurement is made. It is lost exactly to the extent that the environment could in principle say which way the particle went, whether or not anybody looks at the environment. That is why decoherence is a matter of correlation rather than of disturbance: the coherence has not been destroyed but relocated, into a correlation between the particle and something else.

Where the interference goes

A superposition does not stop being a superposition when something interacts with it. What happens is that the coherence moves — out of the system and into a correlation between the system and its surroundings — and the interference disappears from any measurement made on the system alone. For a dust grain in air the move takes 10⁻²⁸ seconds, which is why nothing large has ever been seen in two places.

quantum · Measurement Three copiers, and what each of them costs. How well three copying machines reproduce a qubit, against the state's angle from the pole. The first is a linear machine built to copy the two pole states perfectly; linearity then fixes what it does everywhere else, and on an equal superposition it produces an entangled pair whose overlap with the two copies wanted is exactly 0.500. That is the no-cloning theorem written as a number rather than as an argument: no adjustment is available, because the machine's behaviour on superpositions was decided the moment its behaviour on the basis was. The second measures in a fixed basis and prepares two copies of what it found, which is perfect at the poles and averages 0.6667 over the sphere — two thirds, exactly. The third is the best machine there is, and it manages 0.8333 on every state alike: five sixths, and not one.

The state that cannot be copied

Every measurement in this collection disturbs what it measures, and the obvious way round that is to make a spare first. It cannot be done, and the reason is not a practical difficulty or a limit on how good an apparatus can be: a copier is a linear machine, so fixing what it does to two states fixes what it does to their superpositions, and what it then does is not a copy.

quantum · Measurement 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

Named alongside it

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

SuperpositionMeasurementCorrelationDecoherenceQuantum stateBell inequalityDensity matrixLocalityNo-cloningHidden variablesSpinArea law

All concepts