Entanglement — the series · Illustrated Physics

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.

part 1 · quantum

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.

part 2 · quantum

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.

part 3 · quantum

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.

part 4 · quantum

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.

part 5 · quantum

Four operations on one half, four states of the pair. The sender holds one half of an entangled pair prepared in the state |Φ+⟩ = (|00⟩ + |11⟩)/√2, the receiver the other. To send two bits she applies one of four operations to her half alone — do nothing, flip it (X), shift its phase (Z), or both — and sends it. The table gives, computed from the state vectors, the probability that the receiver's joint measurement of both halves in the Bell basis returns each of the four Bell states: one on the diagonal, zero everywhere else. Four perfectly distinguishable outcomes from one transmitted qubit is two bits. Sent without the pair, a qubit can carry at most one.

The qubit that carries two bits

A single quantum two-state system, sent from one person to another, can carry at most one bit of message — a theorem, not an engineering limit. If the two already share half each of an entangled pair, the sender can do one of four things to her half alone, send just that half, and the receiver can tell which of the four she did. Two bits arrive on one qubit. Nothing is free: the shared pair had to be delivered, and counted honestly the rate is still a bit per qubit. What entanglement buys is the freedom to send half the message before the message exists, and it also buys privacy, since the qubit in transit carries nothing at all on its own.

part 6 · quantum

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.

part 7 · quantum