Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

European Journal of Physics

Entangled quantum particles in an infinite square well: knowledge of the whole versus knowledge of the parts

R.Q. Odendaal, Angel Ricardo Plastino

Published Nov 26, 2009• 5 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Entangled states of composite quantum systems exhibit one of the most distinct and non-classical features of the quantum mechanical description of Nature, first pointed out by Schroedinger: ‘ Maximal knowledge of a total system does not necessarily imply maximal knowledge of all its parts ’. We provide an elementary illustration of this fundamental aspect of quantum physics by considering a system of two particles in an infinite, one-dimensional square potential well. In contrast to standard introductory presentations of quantum entanglement, our present considerations do not require density matrix formalism, nor explicit use of the tensor product structure for the description of composite quantum systems.

DOI
10.1088/0143-0807/31/1/017

Related papers

Entangled states : Classical versus Quantum

S. Kanmani

Quantum mechanics of composite systems, gives rise to certain special states called entangled states. A physical system, that is in an entangled state displays an intricate correlation between its subsystems. There are also some composite quantum states (classically correlated states or separable states) that are not entangled. It is generally claimed, often without a rigorous proof to support, that these intricate correlations of an entangled state cannot occur in a classical system. This expository article, provides an elementary proof that entangled states cannot arise in the setting of classical mechanics. In addition, a detailed description of the origin of entanglement in quantum systems is included. The mathematical concepts that are necessary for this purpose are presented. The absence of entanglement in the classical setting is due to the fact that every pure classical state of a composite system is a product state, that is, a tensor product of two pure states of the subsystems. In contrast, there are pure composite quantum states that cannot be expressed in the form of a product state or even by a convex sum of product states. Roughly speaking, this is because classical states are positive valued functions on the phase-space while quantum states are positive linear operators. The structure of the tensor product between two commutative spaces of scalar valued functions is drastically different from that of the tensor product between two non-commutative spaces of linear operators. In other words, entanglement is a non-commutative phenomenon.

arXiv:0907.1784•Jul 10, 2009•0 citations

Demystification of quantum entanglement

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

One of the crucial differences between mathematical models of classical and quantum mechanics is the use of the tensor product of the state spaces of subsystems as the state space of the corresponding composite system. (To describe an ensemble of classical composite systems one uses random variables taking values in the Cartesian product of the state spaces of subsystems.) We show that, nevertheless, it is possible to establish a natural correspondence between the classical and quantum probabilistic descriptions of composite systems. Quantum averages for composite systems (including entangled) can be represented as averages with respect to classical random fields. It is essentially what Albert Einstein was dreamed of. Quantum mechanics is represented as classical statistical mechanics with infinite-dimensional phase space. While the mathematical construction is completely rigorous, its physical interpretation is a complicated problem (which will not be discussed in this paper).

arXiv:0905.4791•May 29, 2009•5 citations

Entanglement and subsystems, entanglement beyond subsystems, and all that

Lorenza Viola, Howard Barnum

Introduction The first realization that the validity of the quantum superposition principle in the Hilbert space describing a composite quantum system may give rise to fundamentally new correlations between the constituent subsystems came in the landmark 1935 paper by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR), where it was shown how the measurement statistics of observables in certain quantum states could not be reproduced by assigning definite wavefunctions to individual subsystems. It was in response to the EPR paper that Schrödinger, in the same year, coined the term entanglement ( Verschränkung ) to acknowledge the failure of classical intuition in describing the relationship between the “parts” and the “whole” in the quantum world: Whenever one has a complete expectation catalog – a maximum total knowledge – a ψ function – for two completely separated bodies, …then one obviously has it also for the two bodies together. But the converse is not true. The best possible knowledge of a total system does not necessarily include total knowledge of all its parts, not even when these are fully separated from each other and at the moment are not influencing each other at all. While Bell's strengthening of the original EPR-paradox setting and the subsequent experimental verification of Bell inequalities irreversibly changed the perception of entanglement from a property of counterintuitive “spookiness” to (beyond reasonable doubt) an experimental reality, the concept and implications of entanglement continue to be associated with a host of physical, mathematical, and philosophical challenges. In particular, investigation of entanglement in both its qualitative and quantitative aspects has intensified under the impetus of quantum information science (QIS).

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jun 10, 2010•31 citations

Composite Systems

Tilak Sinha

In this final chapter we discuss composite systems in Quantum Mechanics. First, we lay out the necessary conditions that the state space of a composite system must satisfy by considering the trivial case of two juxtaposed systems. Then we point out the features that the interesting case of a composite system, whose parts interact with each other, must have. We then move to demonstrate how such a system can be naturally described (quantized) by employing tensor product spaces. The definition and the most relevant properties of tensor product spaces are introduced. Then the meaning of “interactions” in quantum mechanics is explored and the most nontrivial aspects of correlation and entanglement are discussed. Finally, in the last section, we introduce systems of identical particles. We describe how to represent the state space of such systems in terms of one-particle states, number operators and occupation number representations. Classification of identical particles into Bosons and Fermions is explained. Finally, introducing symmetric and antisymmetric states, the traditional quantization scheme using the symmetrization postulate is described. The permutation operator is introduced which is the main tool for dealing with identical particle systems in this language. We wind up by indicating how exchange degeneracy is removed which embodies the signature of indistinguishability.

Chapman & Hall/CRC eBooks•Jun 18, 2021•0 citations

Quantum Information and Locality

Dennis Dieks

The surprising aspects of quantum information are due to two distinctly non-classical features of the quantum world: first, different quantum states need not be orthogonal and, second, quantum states may be entangled. Non-orthogonality leads to the blurring of classical distinctions. On the other hand, entanglement leads via non-locality to teleportation and other ``entanglement-assisted'' forms of communication that go beyond what is classically possible. In this article we attempt to understand these new possibilities via an analysis of the significance of entanglement for the basic physical concepts of a ``particle'' and a ``localized physical system''. Classical particles can be individuated on the basis of qualitative differences in their sets of properties. But in entangled states the ``particle labels'' of the quantum formalism usually do not pick out such sets of individuating particle properties. It is sometimes nevertheless possible to think in terms of individual particles, which may be localized; but we argue that in general the structure of quantum mechanics is at odds with such a particle interpretation. This finally leads us to the conclusion that quantum mechanics is best seen as not belonging to the category of space-time theories, in which physical quantities are functions on space-time points. The resulting picture of the quantum world is relevant for our understanding of the way in which quantum theory is non-local, and it sheds light on the novel aspects of quantum information.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Apr 24, 2017•5 citations

A geometric Hamiltonian description of composite quantum systems and quantum entanglement

Davide Pastorello

Finite-dimensional Quantum Mechanics can be geometrically formulated as a proper classical-like Hamiltonian theory in a projective Hilbert space. The description of composite quantum systems within the geometric Hamiltonian framework is discussed in this paper. As summarized in the first part of this work, in the Hamiltonian formulation the phase space of a quantum system is the Kähler manifold given by the complex projective space P(H) of the Hilbert space H of the considered quantum theory. However the phase space of a bipartite system must be P(H1 ⊗ H2) and not simply P(H1) × P(H2) as suggested by the analogy with Classical Mechanics. A part of this paper is devoted to manage this problem. In the second part of the work, a definition of quantum entanglement and a proposal of entanglement measure are given in terms of a geometrical point of view (a rather studied topic in recent literature). Finally two known separability criteria are implemented in the Hamiltonian formalism.

arXiv:1408.1839•International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics•Mar 29, 2015•12 citations
Entangled states of composite quantum systems exhibit one of the most distinct and non-classical features of the quantum mechanical description of Nature, first pointed out by Schroedinger: ‘ Maximal knowledge of a total system does not necessarily imply maximal knowledge of all its parts ’. We provide an elementary illustration of this fundamental aspect of quantum physics by considering a system of two particles in an infinite, one-dimensional square potential well. In contrast to standard introductory presentations of quantum entanglement, our present considerations do not require density matrix formalism, nor explicit use of the tensor product structure for the description of composite quantum systems.
Quantum mechanics of composite systems, gives rise to certain special states called entangled states. A physical system, that is in an entangled state displays an intricate correlation between its subsystems. There are also some composite quantum states (classically correlated states or separable states) that are not entangled. It is generally claimed, often without a rigorous proof to support, that these intricate correlations of an entangled state cannot occur in a classical system. This expository article, provides an elementary proof that entangled states cannot arise in the setting of classical mechanics. In addition, a detailed description of the origin of entanglement in quantum systems is included. The mathematical concepts that are necessary for this purpose are presented. The absence of entanglement in the classical setting is due to the fact that every pure classical state of a composite system is a product state, that is, a tensor product of two pure states of the subsystems. In contrast, there are pure composite quantum states that cannot be expressed in the form of a product state or even by a convex sum of product states. Roughly speaking, this is because classical states are positive valued functions on the phase-space while quantum states are positive linear operators. The structure of the tensor product between two commutative spaces of scalar valued functions is drastically different from that of the tensor product between two non-commutative spaces of linear operators. In other words, entanglement is a non-commutative phenomenon.
One of the crucial differences between mathematical models of classical and quantum mechanics is the use of the tensor product of the state spaces of subsystems as the state space of the corresponding composite system. (To describe an ensemble of classical composite systems one uses random variables taking values in the Cartesian product of the state spaces of subsystems.) We show that, nevertheless, it is possible to establish a natural correspondence between the classical and quantum probabilistic descriptions of composite systems. Quantum averages for composite systems (including entangled) can be represented as averages with respect to classical random fields. It is essentially what Albert Einstein was dreamed of. Quantum mechanics is represented as classical statistical mechanics with infinite-dimensional phase space. While the mathematical construction is completely rigorous, its physical interpretation is a complicated problem (which will not be discussed in this paper).
Introduction The first realization that the validity of the quantum superposition principle in the Hilbert space describing a composite quantum system may give rise to fundamentally new correlations between the constituent subsystems came in the landmark 1935 paper by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR), where it was shown how the measurement statistics of observables in certain quantum states could not be reproduced by assigning definite wavefunctions to individual subsystems. It was in response to the EPR paper that Schrödinger, in the same year, coined the term entanglement ( Verschränkung ) to acknowledge the failure of classical intuition in describing the relationship between the “parts” and the “whole” in the quantum world: Whenever one has a complete expectation catalog – a maximum total knowledge – a ψ function – for two completely separated bodies, …then one obviously has it also for the two bodies together. But the converse is not true. The best possible knowledge of a total system does not necessarily include total knowledge of all its parts, not even when these are fully separated from each other and at the moment are not influencing each other at all. While Bell's strengthening of the original EPR-paradox setting and the subsequent experimental verification of Bell inequalities irreversibly changed the perception of entanglement from a property of counterintuitive “spookiness” to (beyond reasonable doubt) an experimental reality, the concept and implications of entanglement continue to be associated with a host of physical, mathematical, and philosophical challenges. In particular, investigation of entanglement in both its qualitative and quantitative aspects has intensified under the impetus of quantum information science (QIS).
In this final chapter we discuss composite systems in Quantum Mechanics. First, we lay out the necessary conditions that the state space of a composite system must satisfy by considering the trivial case of two juxtaposed systems. Then we point out the features that the interesting case of a composite system, whose parts interact with each other, must have. We then move to demonstrate how such a system can be naturally described (quantized) by employing tensor product spaces. The definition and the most relevant properties of tensor product spaces are introduced. Then the meaning of “interactions” in quantum mechanics is explored and the most nontrivial aspects of correlation and entanglement are discussed. Finally, in the last section, we introduce systems of identical particles. We describe how to represent the state space of such systems in terms of one-particle states, number operators and occupation number representations. Classification of identical particles into Bosons and Fermions is explained. Finally, introducing symmetric and antisymmetric states, the traditional quantization scheme using the symmetrization postulate is described. The permutation operator is introduced which is the main tool for dealing with identical particle systems in this language. We wind up by indicating how exchange degeneracy is removed which embodies the signature of indistinguishability.
The surprising aspects of quantum information are due to two distinctly non-classical features of the quantum world: first, different quantum states need not be orthogonal and, second, quantum states may be entangled. Non-orthogonality leads to the blurring of classical distinctions. On the other hand, entanglement leads via non-locality to teleportation and other ``entanglement-assisted'' forms of communication that go beyond what is classically possible. In this article we attempt to understand these new possibilities via an analysis of the significance of entanglement for the basic physical concepts of a ``particle'' and a ``localized physical system''. Classical particles can be individuated on the basis of qualitative differences in their sets of properties. But in entangled states the ``particle labels'' of the quantum formalism usually do not pick out such sets of individuating particle properties. It is sometimes nevertheless possible to think in terms of individual particles, which may be localized; but we argue that in general the structure of quantum mechanics is at odds with such a particle interpretation. This finally leads us to the conclusion that quantum mechanics is best seen as not belonging to the category of space-time theories, in which physical quantities are functions on space-time points. The resulting picture of the quantum world is relevant for our understanding of the way in which quantum theory is non-local, and it sheds light on the novel aspects of quantum information.
Finite-dimensional Quantum Mechanics can be geometrically formulated as a proper classical-like Hamiltonian theory in a projective Hilbert space. The description of composite quantum systems within the geometric Hamiltonian framework is discussed in this paper. As summarized in the first part of this work, in the Hamiltonian formulation the phase space of a quantum system is the Kähler manifold given by the complex projective space P(H) of the Hilbert space H of the considered quantum theory. However the phase space of a bipartite system must be P(H1 ⊗ H2) and not simply P(H1) × P(H2) as suggested by the analogy with Classical Mechanics. A part of this paper is devoted to manage this problem. In the second part of the work, a definition of quantum entanglement and a proposal of entanglement measure are given in terms of a geometrical point of view (a rather studied topic in recent literature). Finally two known separability criteria are implemented in the Hamiltonian formalism.