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

Oxford University Press eBooks

Entanglement

William J. Mullin

Published Mar 16, 2017• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Entanglement is the superposition of two or more particles in multiple states. An example is given for the double-well potential; another involves particles with spin 1/2. Measurement of spin is carried out by a Stern–Gerlach apparatus, using the deflection of a spin by a magnet. Entangled spin-1/2 states, namely triplet states having total spin 1, and the singlet state, with spin 0, are also examined; the latter state appears in same form when expressed in spin up/down along any Cartesian coordinate. The determination of one of the spins in an entangled singlet state immediately determines the other, resulting in a “spooky action at a distance.” Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) claimed to show, on the basis of local realism, that quantum mechanics must be incomplete because of this feature. Their logic suggests that one might explain the instantaneous results by invoking “hidden variables” not contained in a quantum treatment.

DOI
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198795131.003.0005

Related papers

Higher-order quantum entanglement

Anton Zeilinger, Michael Horne, Daniel M. Greenberger

In quantum mechanics, the general state describing two or more particles is a linear superposition of product states. Such a superposition is called entangled if it cannot be factored into just one product. When only two particles are entangled, the stage is set for Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) discussions and Bell's proof that the EPR viewpoint contradicts quantum mechanics. If more than two particles are involved, new possibilities and phenomena arise. For example, the Greenberger, Horne, and Zeilinger (GHZ) disproof of EPR applies. Furthermore, as we point out, with three or more particles even entanglement itself can be an entangled property.

•Feb 1, 1992•30 citations

Entanglement and Non‐Locality: Spooky Actions at a Distance

Christopher C. Gerry, Kimberley M. Bruno

This chapter focuses the concepts of entanglement and non-locality. Quantum mechanics has yet another mystery—one that occurs as a consequence of superposition states involving two or more particles or two or more beams of photons. This is referred to as entanglement, also known as non-separability. The existence of entangled states is allowed, and even mandated, by quantum mechanics, and this leads us into yet another mystery: non-locality. It demonstrates how subatomic particles can be put into entangled states which reveal strange correlation effects—the effects being the essence of entanglement. It discusses the EPR argument, from the 1935 paper by Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen; the polarization states of photons; Bell's theorem; and the Hardy–Jordan argument.

Oxford University Press eBooks•Feb 21, 2013•1 citation

Introduction

Alisa Bokulich, Gregg S. Jaeger

Entanglement can be understood as an extraordinary degree of correlation between states of quantum systems – a correlation that cannot be given an explanation in terms of something like a common cause. Entanglement can occur between two or more quantum systems, and the most interesting case is when these correlations occur between systems that are space-like separated, meaning that changes made to one system are immediately correlated with changes in a distant system even though there is no time for a signal to travel between them. In this case one says that quantum entanglement leads to non-local correlations, or non-locality. More precisely, entanglement can be defined in the following way. Consider two particles, A and B, whose (pure) states can be represented by the state vectors ψA and ψB. Instead of representing the state of each particle individually, one can represent the composite two-particle system by another wavefunction, Ψ AB. If the two particles are unentangled , then the composite state is just the tensor product of the states of the components: Ψ AB = ψ A ⊗ ψ B; the state is then said to be factorable (or separable). If the particles are entangled, however, then the state of the composite system cannot be written as such a product of a definite state for A and a definite state for B. This is how an entangled state is defined for pure states: a state is entangled if and only if it cannot be factored: Ψ AB ≠ ψ A ⊗ ψ B.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jun 10, 2010•0 citations

On the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox

James S. Bell

Introduction The paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen was advanced as an argument that quantum mechanics could not be a complete theory but should be supplemented by additional variables. These additional variables were to restore to the theory causality and locality. In this note that idea will be formulated mathematically and shown to be incompatible with the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics. It is the requirement of locality, or more precisely that the result of a measurement on one system be unaffected by operations on a distant system with which it has interacted in the past, that creates the essential difficulty. There have been attempts to show that even without such a separability or locality requirement no ‘hidden variable’ interpretation of quantum mechanics is possible. These attempts have been examined elsewhere and found wanting. Moreover, a hidden variable interpretation of elementary quantum theory has been explicitly constructed. That particular interpretation has indeed a grossly non-local structure. This is characteristic, according to the result to be proved here, of any such theory which reproduces exactly the quantum mechanical predictions. Formulation With the example advocated by Bohm and Aharonov, the EPR argument is the following. Consider a pair of spin one-half particles formed somehow in the singlet spin state and moving freely in opposite directions. Measurements can be made, say by Stern–Gerlach magnets, on selected components of the spins σ 1 and σ 2 .

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jun 3, 2004•26 citations

A causal account of non-local Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen spin correlations

Christopher Dewdney, Peter Holland, Anastasios Kyprianidis

The authors give a causal interpretation of a double Stern-Gerlach experiment on the basis of spacetime solutions to the Pauli equation. For an initial singlet state, they determine the continuous particle trajectories and spin vector orientations. The graphical results exemplify how non-local actions of the quantum potential and quantum torque give rise to a correlated evolution of dynamical variables.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and General•Oct 1, 1987•91 citations

Quantum Entanglement: A Comprehensive and In-Depth Study of Theory, Experiments, Methodology, and Applications

Rajesh Kumar Verma

Quantum Entanglement-one of the weirdest and most exciting aspects of quantum mechanics. Two or more particles become entangled in a way that if the state of one of the particles is measured, then instantaneously the state of another particle is determined even if they are far apart from one another. The content of this paper explores the details of quantum entanglement: where it came from, what the basic principles are, what experiments support this notion, and what experiments we use to study entanglement. The trends of the data are laid out and what it signifies. From here, I then move to what effects quantum entanglement will have on quantum computing, cryptography and communication. I will attempt to justify my arguments through thirteen published academic sources prior to 2019.

International Journal of Advanced Research in Science Communication and Technology•Dec 30, 2020•0 citations
Entanglement is the superposition of two or more particles in multiple states. An example is given for the double-well potential; another involves particles with spin 1/2. Measurement of spin is carried out by a Stern–Gerlach apparatus, using the deflection of a spin by a magnet. Entangled spin-1/2 states, namely triplet states having total spin 1, and the singlet state, with spin 0, are also examined; the latter state appears in same form when expressed in spin up/down along any Cartesian coordinate. The determination of one of the spins in an entangled singlet state immediately determines the other, resulting in a “spooky action at a distance.” Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) claimed to show, on the basis of local realism, that quantum mechanics must be incomplete because of this feature. Their logic suggests that one might explain the instantaneous results by invoking “hidden variables” not contained in a quantum treatment.
In quantum mechanics, the general state describing two or more particles is a linear superposition of product states. Such a superposition is called entangled if it cannot be factored into just one product. When only two particles are entangled, the stage is set for Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) discussions and Bell's proof that the EPR viewpoint contradicts quantum mechanics. If more than two particles are involved, new possibilities and phenomena arise. For example, the Greenberger, Horne, and Zeilinger (GHZ) disproof of EPR applies. Furthermore, as we point out, with three or more particles even entanglement itself can be an entangled property.
This chapter focuses the concepts of entanglement and non-locality. Quantum mechanics has yet another mystery—one that occurs as a consequence of superposition states involving two or more particles or two or more beams of photons. This is referred to as entanglement, also known as non-separability. The existence of entangled states is allowed, and even mandated, by quantum mechanics, and this leads us into yet another mystery: non-locality. It demonstrates how subatomic particles can be put into entangled states which reveal strange correlation effects—the effects being the essence of entanglement. It discusses the EPR argument, from the 1935 paper by Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen; the polarization states of photons; Bell's theorem; and the Hardy–Jordan argument.
Entanglement can be understood as an extraordinary degree of correlation between states of quantum systems – a correlation that cannot be given an explanation in terms of something like a common cause. Entanglement can occur between two or more quantum systems, and the most interesting case is when these correlations occur between systems that are space-like separated, meaning that changes made to one system are immediately correlated with changes in a distant system even though there is no time for a signal to travel between them. In this case one says that quantum entanglement leads to non-local correlations, or non-locality. More precisely, entanglement can be defined in the following way. Consider two particles, A and B, whose (pure) states can be represented by the state vectors ψA and ψB. Instead of representing the state of each particle individually, one can represent the composite two-particle system by another wavefunction, Ψ AB. If the two particles are unentangled , then the composite state is just the tensor product of the states of the components: Ψ AB = ψ A ⊗ ψ B; the state is then said to be factorable (or separable). If the particles are entangled, however, then the state of the composite system cannot be written as such a product of a definite state for A and a definite state for B. This is how an entangled state is defined for pure states: a state is entangled if and only if it cannot be factored: Ψ AB ≠ ψ A ⊗ ψ B.
Introduction The paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen was advanced as an argument that quantum mechanics could not be a complete theory but should be supplemented by additional variables. These additional variables were to restore to the theory causality and locality. In this note that idea will be formulated mathematically and shown to be incompatible with the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics. It is the requirement of locality, or more precisely that the result of a measurement on one system be unaffected by operations on a distant system with which it has interacted in the past, that creates the essential difficulty. There have been attempts to show that even without such a separability or locality requirement no ‘hidden variable’ interpretation of quantum mechanics is possible. These attempts have been examined elsewhere and found wanting. Moreover, a hidden variable interpretation of elementary quantum theory has been explicitly constructed. That particular interpretation has indeed a grossly non-local structure. This is characteristic, according to the result to be proved here, of any such theory which reproduces exactly the quantum mechanical predictions. Formulation With the example advocated by Bohm and Aharonov, the EPR argument is the following. Consider a pair of spin one-half particles formed somehow in the singlet spin state and moving freely in opposite directions. Measurements can be made, say by Stern–Gerlach magnets, on selected components of the spins σ 1 and σ 2 .
Quantum Entanglement-one of the weirdest and most exciting aspects of quantum mechanics. Two or more particles become entangled in a way that if the state of one of the particles is measured, then instantaneously the state of another particle is determined even if they are far apart from one another. The content of this paper explores the details of quantum entanglement: where it came from, what the basic principles are, what experiments support this notion, and what experiments we use to study entanglement. The trends of the data are laid out and what it signifies. From here, I then move to what effects quantum entanglement will have on quantum computing, cryptography and communication. I will attempt to justify my arguments through thirteen published academic sources prior to 2019.