What is the proof of entanglement?











up vote
2
down vote

favorite
2












Really I know entanglement exists, but what I have never found is experimental evidence that measuring one entangled particle causes the state of the other entangled particle to change, rather than just being revealed.
e.g. using the spin up spin down example we know that one of the particles will be spin up and the other spin down, so when we measure one and find it is spin up we know the other is spin down.
Is there any situation after creation that the particle with spin up will change to spin down.










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Qandry is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
























    up vote
    2
    down vote

    favorite
    2












    Really I know entanglement exists, but what I have never found is experimental evidence that measuring one entangled particle causes the state of the other entangled particle to change, rather than just being revealed.
    e.g. using the spin up spin down example we know that one of the particles will be spin up and the other spin down, so when we measure one and find it is spin up we know the other is spin down.
    Is there any situation after creation that the particle with spin up will change to spin down.










    share|cite|improve this question









    New contributor




    Qandry is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






















      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite
      2









      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite
      2






      2





      Really I know entanglement exists, but what I have never found is experimental evidence that measuring one entangled particle causes the state of the other entangled particle to change, rather than just being revealed.
      e.g. using the spin up spin down example we know that one of the particles will be spin up and the other spin down, so when we measure one and find it is spin up we know the other is spin down.
      Is there any situation after creation that the particle with spin up will change to spin down.










      share|cite|improve this question









      New contributor




      Qandry is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      Really I know entanglement exists, but what I have never found is experimental evidence that measuring one entangled particle causes the state of the other entangled particle to change, rather than just being revealed.
      e.g. using the spin up spin down example we know that one of the particles will be spin up and the other spin down, so when we measure one and find it is spin up we know the other is spin down.
      Is there any situation after creation that the particle with spin up will change to spin down.







      quantum-mechanics hilbert-space quantum-entanglement quantum-interpretations bells-inequality






      share|cite|improve this question









      New contributor




      Qandry is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|cite|improve this question









      New contributor




      Qandry is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 1 hour ago









      Qmechanic

      100k121811133




      100k121811133






      New contributor




      Qandry is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked 2 hours ago









      Qandry

      112




      112




      New contributor




      Qandry is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      Qandry is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      Qandry is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          6
          down vote













          The assumption that a measurable property exists whether or not we measure it is inconsistent with the experimental facts.



          Here's a relatively simple example. Suppose we have four observables, $A,B,C,D$, each of which has two possible outcomes. (For example, these could be single-photon polarization observables.) For mathematical convenience, label the two possible outcomes $+1$ and $-1$, for each of the four observables. Suppose for a moment that the act of measurement
          merely reveals properties that would exist
          anyway even if they were not measured.
          If this were true, then any given state
          of the system would have definite values
          $a,b,c,d$ of the observables $A,B,C,D$.
          Each of the four values $a,b,c,d$
          could be either $+1$ or $-1$,
          so there would be $2^4=16$ different possible
          combinations of these values.
          Any given state would have one of these 16 possible combinations.



          Now consider the two quantities $a+c$ and $c-a$.
          The fact that $a$ and $c$ both have magnitude $1$
          implies that one of these two quantities must be zero,
          and then the other one must be either $+2$ or $-2$.
          This, in turn, implies that the quantity
          $$
          (a+c)b+(c-a)d
          $$

          is either $+2$ or $-2$.
          This is true
          for every one of the 16 possible combinations
          of values for $a,b,c,d$,
          so if we prepare many states,
          then the average value of this quantity must be somewhere
          between $+2$ and $-2$.
          In particular, the average cannot
          be any larger than $+2$.
          This gives the CHSH inequality
          $$
          langle{AB}rangle
          +langle{CB}rangle
          +langle{CD}rangle
          -langle{AD}rangleleq 2,
          $$

          where $langle{AB}rangle$ denotes the average of the
          product of the values of $a$ and $b$
          over all of the prepared states.



          In the real world, the CHSH inequality can be violated, and quantum theory correctly predicts the observed violations. The quantity $langle{AB}rangle
          +langle{CB}rangle
          +langle{CD}rangle
          -langle{AD}rangle$
          can be as large as $2sqrt{2}$. Here are a few papers describing experiments that verify this:




          • Kwiat et al, 1995. “New high-intensity source of polarization-entangled photon pairs,” http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.4337


          • Kwiat et al, 1998. “Ultra-bright source of polarization-entangled photons,” http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810003


          • Weihs et al, 1998. “Violation of Bell’s inequality under strict Einstein locality conditions,” http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810080



          The fact that the CHSH inequality is violated in the real world implies that the premise from which it was derived cannot be correct. The CHSH inequality was derived above by assuming that the act of measurement merely reveals properties that would exist anyway even if they were not measured. The inequality is violated in the real world, so this assumption must be wrong in the real world. Measurement plays a more active role.






          share|cite|improve this answer

















          • 1




            No, please.I offered a simple case and would appreciate a simple answer. In my case the spin is either up or down. Can you provide an experimental fact that shows that the properties do not exists when they have not been measured?
            – Qandry
            2 hours ago












          • We don't know that particle A has spin up. But we know that it has either spin up or spin down. Therefore when we measure it we know that particle B has the opposite spin. Particle A had a spin when it was created whatever it was it will always have that spin until interfered with in some way, unless there is a way that it may change. Nevertheless, if Particle A has spin up, Particle B has spin down. If we measure one, we know the other. There is no need for communication between the particles.
            – Qandry
            2 hours ago






          • 1




            The thing is that the CHSH inequality mentioned (and its violation) mean that your premise cannot be true: particle A did not "have a spin when it was created". It only had a spin after it was measured.
            – Remellion
            2 hours ago






          • 2




            @Qandry If we know that particle A has either spin up or spin down, even if we don't know which one, then its spin is not entangled with the spin of any other particle. (I'm assuming that we're talking about spin 1/2 particles.) In order for us to know that the spin of A is $in{text{up},text{down}}$, we must know that it has already been measured along that axis, in which case it is no longer entangled. Conversely, if the spin of particle A is entangled with the spin of particle B, then we don't know that the spin of particle A is $in{text{up},text{down}}$.
            – Dan Yand
            2 hours ago












          • The Higgs boson is the only particle that does not have spin. Ergo the particles have spin whether we know it or not. Spin is not created by measurement. Consciousness is not required for existence.
            – Qandry
            1 hour ago


















          up vote
          1
          down vote













          Just for a moment, if one (you) imagine that the entangled particles are determinated in their states from the beginning of their entanglement, would it change something in the outcome of the experiment? In the pair production of two photons from nonlinear optical crystals the result of the experiments shows a statistical dependency; the orientation of the electric field components of the photons is orthogonal to each over.



          Producing such a pair of photons we are not able to control the direction of the polarisation, we only able to design the process so that the polarisations of two particles are orthogonal on each over, the orientation by itself is randomly distributed around 360°. The uncertainty is in the phenomenon, that using a polariser to find the orientation of the particles, we do not get a result in 50% of our measurements (with the best designed polarizer and for the right wavelength).



          Let the polarizer be orientated to the vertical (0°). Getting a result, we will know that the photon has had an orientation from -45° to 45° and from 135° to 225°. Not getting a result, we are allowed to say, that the photon has an orientation in the opposite to the above mentioned angles. To count for the statistics these not measured photons we are able only after getting the information from the second measurement device, that a photon in their setup was measured. In reality simply the number of measured incidents is compared.




          What is the proof of entanglement




          Firstly a lot of experiments for a given process, in this case for photons from nonlinear optical crystals in a well definded setup. And later the knowledge, that in this process are produced entangled particles.




          Is there any situation after creation that the particle with spin up will change to spin down.




          This happens all the time due to “impurities” in the experimental setup. The produced particles colliding with other particles and are under the influence of external fields. The longer the distance and the time between production and measurement, the weaker the measurable coincidence. But the swap of a spin by itself is impossible.






          share|cite|improve this answer























            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "151"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });






            Qandry is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f446974%2fwhat-is-the-proof-of-entanglement%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            6
            down vote













            The assumption that a measurable property exists whether or not we measure it is inconsistent with the experimental facts.



            Here's a relatively simple example. Suppose we have four observables, $A,B,C,D$, each of which has two possible outcomes. (For example, these could be single-photon polarization observables.) For mathematical convenience, label the two possible outcomes $+1$ and $-1$, for each of the four observables. Suppose for a moment that the act of measurement
            merely reveals properties that would exist
            anyway even if they were not measured.
            If this were true, then any given state
            of the system would have definite values
            $a,b,c,d$ of the observables $A,B,C,D$.
            Each of the four values $a,b,c,d$
            could be either $+1$ or $-1$,
            so there would be $2^4=16$ different possible
            combinations of these values.
            Any given state would have one of these 16 possible combinations.



            Now consider the two quantities $a+c$ and $c-a$.
            The fact that $a$ and $c$ both have magnitude $1$
            implies that one of these two quantities must be zero,
            and then the other one must be either $+2$ or $-2$.
            This, in turn, implies that the quantity
            $$
            (a+c)b+(c-a)d
            $$

            is either $+2$ or $-2$.
            This is true
            for every one of the 16 possible combinations
            of values for $a,b,c,d$,
            so if we prepare many states,
            then the average value of this quantity must be somewhere
            between $+2$ and $-2$.
            In particular, the average cannot
            be any larger than $+2$.
            This gives the CHSH inequality
            $$
            langle{AB}rangle
            +langle{CB}rangle
            +langle{CD}rangle
            -langle{AD}rangleleq 2,
            $$

            where $langle{AB}rangle$ denotes the average of the
            product of the values of $a$ and $b$
            over all of the prepared states.



            In the real world, the CHSH inequality can be violated, and quantum theory correctly predicts the observed violations. The quantity $langle{AB}rangle
            +langle{CB}rangle
            +langle{CD}rangle
            -langle{AD}rangle$
            can be as large as $2sqrt{2}$. Here are a few papers describing experiments that verify this:




            • Kwiat et al, 1995. “New high-intensity source of polarization-entangled photon pairs,” http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.4337


            • Kwiat et al, 1998. “Ultra-bright source of polarization-entangled photons,” http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810003


            • Weihs et al, 1998. “Violation of Bell’s inequality under strict Einstein locality conditions,” http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810080



            The fact that the CHSH inequality is violated in the real world implies that the premise from which it was derived cannot be correct. The CHSH inequality was derived above by assuming that the act of measurement merely reveals properties that would exist anyway even if they were not measured. The inequality is violated in the real world, so this assumption must be wrong in the real world. Measurement plays a more active role.






            share|cite|improve this answer

















            • 1




              No, please.I offered a simple case and would appreciate a simple answer. In my case the spin is either up or down. Can you provide an experimental fact that shows that the properties do not exists when they have not been measured?
              – Qandry
              2 hours ago












            • We don't know that particle A has spin up. But we know that it has either spin up or spin down. Therefore when we measure it we know that particle B has the opposite spin. Particle A had a spin when it was created whatever it was it will always have that spin until interfered with in some way, unless there is a way that it may change. Nevertheless, if Particle A has spin up, Particle B has spin down. If we measure one, we know the other. There is no need for communication between the particles.
              – Qandry
              2 hours ago






            • 1




              The thing is that the CHSH inequality mentioned (and its violation) mean that your premise cannot be true: particle A did not "have a spin when it was created". It only had a spin after it was measured.
              – Remellion
              2 hours ago






            • 2




              @Qandry If we know that particle A has either spin up or spin down, even if we don't know which one, then its spin is not entangled with the spin of any other particle. (I'm assuming that we're talking about spin 1/2 particles.) In order for us to know that the spin of A is $in{text{up},text{down}}$, we must know that it has already been measured along that axis, in which case it is no longer entangled. Conversely, if the spin of particle A is entangled with the spin of particle B, then we don't know that the spin of particle A is $in{text{up},text{down}}$.
              – Dan Yand
              2 hours ago












            • The Higgs boson is the only particle that does not have spin. Ergo the particles have spin whether we know it or not. Spin is not created by measurement. Consciousness is not required for existence.
              – Qandry
              1 hour ago















            up vote
            6
            down vote













            The assumption that a measurable property exists whether or not we measure it is inconsistent with the experimental facts.



            Here's a relatively simple example. Suppose we have four observables, $A,B,C,D$, each of which has two possible outcomes. (For example, these could be single-photon polarization observables.) For mathematical convenience, label the two possible outcomes $+1$ and $-1$, for each of the four observables. Suppose for a moment that the act of measurement
            merely reveals properties that would exist
            anyway even if they were not measured.
            If this were true, then any given state
            of the system would have definite values
            $a,b,c,d$ of the observables $A,B,C,D$.
            Each of the four values $a,b,c,d$
            could be either $+1$ or $-1$,
            so there would be $2^4=16$ different possible
            combinations of these values.
            Any given state would have one of these 16 possible combinations.



            Now consider the two quantities $a+c$ and $c-a$.
            The fact that $a$ and $c$ both have magnitude $1$
            implies that one of these two quantities must be zero,
            and then the other one must be either $+2$ or $-2$.
            This, in turn, implies that the quantity
            $$
            (a+c)b+(c-a)d
            $$

            is either $+2$ or $-2$.
            This is true
            for every one of the 16 possible combinations
            of values for $a,b,c,d$,
            so if we prepare many states,
            then the average value of this quantity must be somewhere
            between $+2$ and $-2$.
            In particular, the average cannot
            be any larger than $+2$.
            This gives the CHSH inequality
            $$
            langle{AB}rangle
            +langle{CB}rangle
            +langle{CD}rangle
            -langle{AD}rangleleq 2,
            $$

            where $langle{AB}rangle$ denotes the average of the
            product of the values of $a$ and $b$
            over all of the prepared states.



            In the real world, the CHSH inequality can be violated, and quantum theory correctly predicts the observed violations. The quantity $langle{AB}rangle
            +langle{CB}rangle
            +langle{CD}rangle
            -langle{AD}rangle$
            can be as large as $2sqrt{2}$. Here are a few papers describing experiments that verify this:




            • Kwiat et al, 1995. “New high-intensity source of polarization-entangled photon pairs,” http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.4337


            • Kwiat et al, 1998. “Ultra-bright source of polarization-entangled photons,” http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810003


            • Weihs et al, 1998. “Violation of Bell’s inequality under strict Einstein locality conditions,” http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810080



            The fact that the CHSH inequality is violated in the real world implies that the premise from which it was derived cannot be correct. The CHSH inequality was derived above by assuming that the act of measurement merely reveals properties that would exist anyway even if they were not measured. The inequality is violated in the real world, so this assumption must be wrong in the real world. Measurement plays a more active role.






            share|cite|improve this answer

















            • 1




              No, please.I offered a simple case and would appreciate a simple answer. In my case the spin is either up or down. Can you provide an experimental fact that shows that the properties do not exists when they have not been measured?
              – Qandry
              2 hours ago












            • We don't know that particle A has spin up. But we know that it has either spin up or spin down. Therefore when we measure it we know that particle B has the opposite spin. Particle A had a spin when it was created whatever it was it will always have that spin until interfered with in some way, unless there is a way that it may change. Nevertheless, if Particle A has spin up, Particle B has spin down. If we measure one, we know the other. There is no need for communication between the particles.
              – Qandry
              2 hours ago






            • 1




              The thing is that the CHSH inequality mentioned (and its violation) mean that your premise cannot be true: particle A did not "have a spin when it was created". It only had a spin after it was measured.
              – Remellion
              2 hours ago






            • 2




              @Qandry If we know that particle A has either spin up or spin down, even if we don't know which one, then its spin is not entangled with the spin of any other particle. (I'm assuming that we're talking about spin 1/2 particles.) In order for us to know that the spin of A is $in{text{up},text{down}}$, we must know that it has already been measured along that axis, in which case it is no longer entangled. Conversely, if the spin of particle A is entangled with the spin of particle B, then we don't know that the spin of particle A is $in{text{up},text{down}}$.
              – Dan Yand
              2 hours ago












            • The Higgs boson is the only particle that does not have spin. Ergo the particles have spin whether we know it or not. Spin is not created by measurement. Consciousness is not required for existence.
              – Qandry
              1 hour ago













            up vote
            6
            down vote










            up vote
            6
            down vote









            The assumption that a measurable property exists whether or not we measure it is inconsistent with the experimental facts.



            Here's a relatively simple example. Suppose we have four observables, $A,B,C,D$, each of which has two possible outcomes. (For example, these could be single-photon polarization observables.) For mathematical convenience, label the two possible outcomes $+1$ and $-1$, for each of the four observables. Suppose for a moment that the act of measurement
            merely reveals properties that would exist
            anyway even if they were not measured.
            If this were true, then any given state
            of the system would have definite values
            $a,b,c,d$ of the observables $A,B,C,D$.
            Each of the four values $a,b,c,d$
            could be either $+1$ or $-1$,
            so there would be $2^4=16$ different possible
            combinations of these values.
            Any given state would have one of these 16 possible combinations.



            Now consider the two quantities $a+c$ and $c-a$.
            The fact that $a$ and $c$ both have magnitude $1$
            implies that one of these two quantities must be zero,
            and then the other one must be either $+2$ or $-2$.
            This, in turn, implies that the quantity
            $$
            (a+c)b+(c-a)d
            $$

            is either $+2$ or $-2$.
            This is true
            for every one of the 16 possible combinations
            of values for $a,b,c,d$,
            so if we prepare many states,
            then the average value of this quantity must be somewhere
            between $+2$ and $-2$.
            In particular, the average cannot
            be any larger than $+2$.
            This gives the CHSH inequality
            $$
            langle{AB}rangle
            +langle{CB}rangle
            +langle{CD}rangle
            -langle{AD}rangleleq 2,
            $$

            where $langle{AB}rangle$ denotes the average of the
            product of the values of $a$ and $b$
            over all of the prepared states.



            In the real world, the CHSH inequality can be violated, and quantum theory correctly predicts the observed violations. The quantity $langle{AB}rangle
            +langle{CB}rangle
            +langle{CD}rangle
            -langle{AD}rangle$
            can be as large as $2sqrt{2}$. Here are a few papers describing experiments that verify this:




            • Kwiat et al, 1995. “New high-intensity source of polarization-entangled photon pairs,” http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.4337


            • Kwiat et al, 1998. “Ultra-bright source of polarization-entangled photons,” http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810003


            • Weihs et al, 1998. “Violation of Bell’s inequality under strict Einstein locality conditions,” http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810080



            The fact that the CHSH inequality is violated in the real world implies that the premise from which it was derived cannot be correct. The CHSH inequality was derived above by assuming that the act of measurement merely reveals properties that would exist anyway even if they were not measured. The inequality is violated in the real world, so this assumption must be wrong in the real world. Measurement plays a more active role.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            The assumption that a measurable property exists whether or not we measure it is inconsistent with the experimental facts.



            Here's a relatively simple example. Suppose we have four observables, $A,B,C,D$, each of which has two possible outcomes. (For example, these could be single-photon polarization observables.) For mathematical convenience, label the two possible outcomes $+1$ and $-1$, for each of the four observables. Suppose for a moment that the act of measurement
            merely reveals properties that would exist
            anyway even if they were not measured.
            If this were true, then any given state
            of the system would have definite values
            $a,b,c,d$ of the observables $A,B,C,D$.
            Each of the four values $a,b,c,d$
            could be either $+1$ or $-1$,
            so there would be $2^4=16$ different possible
            combinations of these values.
            Any given state would have one of these 16 possible combinations.



            Now consider the two quantities $a+c$ and $c-a$.
            The fact that $a$ and $c$ both have magnitude $1$
            implies that one of these two quantities must be zero,
            and then the other one must be either $+2$ or $-2$.
            This, in turn, implies that the quantity
            $$
            (a+c)b+(c-a)d
            $$

            is either $+2$ or $-2$.
            This is true
            for every one of the 16 possible combinations
            of values for $a,b,c,d$,
            so if we prepare many states,
            then the average value of this quantity must be somewhere
            between $+2$ and $-2$.
            In particular, the average cannot
            be any larger than $+2$.
            This gives the CHSH inequality
            $$
            langle{AB}rangle
            +langle{CB}rangle
            +langle{CD}rangle
            -langle{AD}rangleleq 2,
            $$

            where $langle{AB}rangle$ denotes the average of the
            product of the values of $a$ and $b$
            over all of the prepared states.



            In the real world, the CHSH inequality can be violated, and quantum theory correctly predicts the observed violations. The quantity $langle{AB}rangle
            +langle{CB}rangle
            +langle{CD}rangle
            -langle{AD}rangle$
            can be as large as $2sqrt{2}$. Here are a few papers describing experiments that verify this:




            • Kwiat et al, 1995. “New high-intensity source of polarization-entangled photon pairs,” http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.4337


            • Kwiat et al, 1998. “Ultra-bright source of polarization-entangled photons,” http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810003


            • Weihs et al, 1998. “Violation of Bell’s inequality under strict Einstein locality conditions,” http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810080



            The fact that the CHSH inequality is violated in the real world implies that the premise from which it was derived cannot be correct. The CHSH inequality was derived above by assuming that the act of measurement merely reveals properties that would exist anyway even if they were not measured. The inequality is violated in the real world, so this assumption must be wrong in the real world. Measurement plays a more active role.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered 2 hours ago









            Dan Yand

            4,8991422




            4,8991422








            • 1




              No, please.I offered a simple case and would appreciate a simple answer. In my case the spin is either up or down. Can you provide an experimental fact that shows that the properties do not exists when they have not been measured?
              – Qandry
              2 hours ago












            • We don't know that particle A has spin up. But we know that it has either spin up or spin down. Therefore when we measure it we know that particle B has the opposite spin. Particle A had a spin when it was created whatever it was it will always have that spin until interfered with in some way, unless there is a way that it may change. Nevertheless, if Particle A has spin up, Particle B has spin down. If we measure one, we know the other. There is no need for communication between the particles.
              – Qandry
              2 hours ago






            • 1




              The thing is that the CHSH inequality mentioned (and its violation) mean that your premise cannot be true: particle A did not "have a spin when it was created". It only had a spin after it was measured.
              – Remellion
              2 hours ago






            • 2




              @Qandry If we know that particle A has either spin up or spin down, even if we don't know which one, then its spin is not entangled with the spin of any other particle. (I'm assuming that we're talking about spin 1/2 particles.) In order for us to know that the spin of A is $in{text{up},text{down}}$, we must know that it has already been measured along that axis, in which case it is no longer entangled. Conversely, if the spin of particle A is entangled with the spin of particle B, then we don't know that the spin of particle A is $in{text{up},text{down}}$.
              – Dan Yand
              2 hours ago












            • The Higgs boson is the only particle that does not have spin. Ergo the particles have spin whether we know it or not. Spin is not created by measurement. Consciousness is not required for existence.
              – Qandry
              1 hour ago














            • 1




              No, please.I offered a simple case and would appreciate a simple answer. In my case the spin is either up or down. Can you provide an experimental fact that shows that the properties do not exists when they have not been measured?
              – Qandry
              2 hours ago












            • We don't know that particle A has spin up. But we know that it has either spin up or spin down. Therefore when we measure it we know that particle B has the opposite spin. Particle A had a spin when it was created whatever it was it will always have that spin until interfered with in some way, unless there is a way that it may change. Nevertheless, if Particle A has spin up, Particle B has spin down. If we measure one, we know the other. There is no need for communication between the particles.
              – Qandry
              2 hours ago






            • 1




              The thing is that the CHSH inequality mentioned (and its violation) mean that your premise cannot be true: particle A did not "have a spin when it was created". It only had a spin after it was measured.
              – Remellion
              2 hours ago






            • 2




              @Qandry If we know that particle A has either spin up or spin down, even if we don't know which one, then its spin is not entangled with the spin of any other particle. (I'm assuming that we're talking about spin 1/2 particles.) In order for us to know that the spin of A is $in{text{up},text{down}}$, we must know that it has already been measured along that axis, in which case it is no longer entangled. Conversely, if the spin of particle A is entangled with the spin of particle B, then we don't know that the spin of particle A is $in{text{up},text{down}}$.
              – Dan Yand
              2 hours ago












            • The Higgs boson is the only particle that does not have spin. Ergo the particles have spin whether we know it or not. Spin is not created by measurement. Consciousness is not required for existence.
              – Qandry
              1 hour ago








            1




            1




            No, please.I offered a simple case and would appreciate a simple answer. In my case the spin is either up or down. Can you provide an experimental fact that shows that the properties do not exists when they have not been measured?
            – Qandry
            2 hours ago






            No, please.I offered a simple case and would appreciate a simple answer. In my case the spin is either up or down. Can you provide an experimental fact that shows that the properties do not exists when they have not been measured?
            – Qandry
            2 hours ago














            We don't know that particle A has spin up. But we know that it has either spin up or spin down. Therefore when we measure it we know that particle B has the opposite spin. Particle A had a spin when it was created whatever it was it will always have that spin until interfered with in some way, unless there is a way that it may change. Nevertheless, if Particle A has spin up, Particle B has spin down. If we measure one, we know the other. There is no need for communication between the particles.
            – Qandry
            2 hours ago




            We don't know that particle A has spin up. But we know that it has either spin up or spin down. Therefore when we measure it we know that particle B has the opposite spin. Particle A had a spin when it was created whatever it was it will always have that spin until interfered with in some way, unless there is a way that it may change. Nevertheless, if Particle A has spin up, Particle B has spin down. If we measure one, we know the other. There is no need for communication between the particles.
            – Qandry
            2 hours ago




            1




            1




            The thing is that the CHSH inequality mentioned (and its violation) mean that your premise cannot be true: particle A did not "have a spin when it was created". It only had a spin after it was measured.
            – Remellion
            2 hours ago




            The thing is that the CHSH inequality mentioned (and its violation) mean that your premise cannot be true: particle A did not "have a spin when it was created". It only had a spin after it was measured.
            – Remellion
            2 hours ago




            2




            2




            @Qandry If we know that particle A has either spin up or spin down, even if we don't know which one, then its spin is not entangled with the spin of any other particle. (I'm assuming that we're talking about spin 1/2 particles.) In order for us to know that the spin of A is $in{text{up},text{down}}$, we must know that it has already been measured along that axis, in which case it is no longer entangled. Conversely, if the spin of particle A is entangled with the spin of particle B, then we don't know that the spin of particle A is $in{text{up},text{down}}$.
            – Dan Yand
            2 hours ago






            @Qandry If we know that particle A has either spin up or spin down, even if we don't know which one, then its spin is not entangled with the spin of any other particle. (I'm assuming that we're talking about spin 1/2 particles.) In order for us to know that the spin of A is $in{text{up},text{down}}$, we must know that it has already been measured along that axis, in which case it is no longer entangled. Conversely, if the spin of particle A is entangled with the spin of particle B, then we don't know that the spin of particle A is $in{text{up},text{down}}$.
            – Dan Yand
            2 hours ago














            The Higgs boson is the only particle that does not have spin. Ergo the particles have spin whether we know it or not. Spin is not created by measurement. Consciousness is not required for existence.
            – Qandry
            1 hour ago




            The Higgs boson is the only particle that does not have spin. Ergo the particles have spin whether we know it or not. Spin is not created by measurement. Consciousness is not required for existence.
            – Qandry
            1 hour ago










            up vote
            1
            down vote













            Just for a moment, if one (you) imagine that the entangled particles are determinated in their states from the beginning of their entanglement, would it change something in the outcome of the experiment? In the pair production of two photons from nonlinear optical crystals the result of the experiments shows a statistical dependency; the orientation of the electric field components of the photons is orthogonal to each over.



            Producing such a pair of photons we are not able to control the direction of the polarisation, we only able to design the process so that the polarisations of two particles are orthogonal on each over, the orientation by itself is randomly distributed around 360°. The uncertainty is in the phenomenon, that using a polariser to find the orientation of the particles, we do not get a result in 50% of our measurements (with the best designed polarizer and for the right wavelength).



            Let the polarizer be orientated to the vertical (0°). Getting a result, we will know that the photon has had an orientation from -45° to 45° and from 135° to 225°. Not getting a result, we are allowed to say, that the photon has an orientation in the opposite to the above mentioned angles. To count for the statistics these not measured photons we are able only after getting the information from the second measurement device, that a photon in their setup was measured. In reality simply the number of measured incidents is compared.




            What is the proof of entanglement




            Firstly a lot of experiments for a given process, in this case for photons from nonlinear optical crystals in a well definded setup. And later the knowledge, that in this process are produced entangled particles.




            Is there any situation after creation that the particle with spin up will change to spin down.




            This happens all the time due to “impurities” in the experimental setup. The produced particles colliding with other particles and are under the influence of external fields. The longer the distance and the time between production and measurement, the weaker the measurable coincidence. But the swap of a spin by itself is impossible.






            share|cite|improve this answer



























              up vote
              1
              down vote













              Just for a moment, if one (you) imagine that the entangled particles are determinated in their states from the beginning of their entanglement, would it change something in the outcome of the experiment? In the pair production of two photons from nonlinear optical crystals the result of the experiments shows a statistical dependency; the orientation of the electric field components of the photons is orthogonal to each over.



              Producing such a pair of photons we are not able to control the direction of the polarisation, we only able to design the process so that the polarisations of two particles are orthogonal on each over, the orientation by itself is randomly distributed around 360°. The uncertainty is in the phenomenon, that using a polariser to find the orientation of the particles, we do not get a result in 50% of our measurements (with the best designed polarizer and for the right wavelength).



              Let the polarizer be orientated to the vertical (0°). Getting a result, we will know that the photon has had an orientation from -45° to 45° and from 135° to 225°. Not getting a result, we are allowed to say, that the photon has an orientation in the opposite to the above mentioned angles. To count for the statistics these not measured photons we are able only after getting the information from the second measurement device, that a photon in their setup was measured. In reality simply the number of measured incidents is compared.




              What is the proof of entanglement




              Firstly a lot of experiments for a given process, in this case for photons from nonlinear optical crystals in a well definded setup. And later the knowledge, that in this process are produced entangled particles.




              Is there any situation after creation that the particle with spin up will change to spin down.




              This happens all the time due to “impurities” in the experimental setup. The produced particles colliding with other particles and are under the influence of external fields. The longer the distance and the time between production and measurement, the weaker the measurable coincidence. But the swap of a spin by itself is impossible.






              share|cite|improve this answer

























                up vote
                1
                down vote










                up vote
                1
                down vote









                Just for a moment, if one (you) imagine that the entangled particles are determinated in their states from the beginning of their entanglement, would it change something in the outcome of the experiment? In the pair production of two photons from nonlinear optical crystals the result of the experiments shows a statistical dependency; the orientation of the electric field components of the photons is orthogonal to each over.



                Producing such a pair of photons we are not able to control the direction of the polarisation, we only able to design the process so that the polarisations of two particles are orthogonal on each over, the orientation by itself is randomly distributed around 360°. The uncertainty is in the phenomenon, that using a polariser to find the orientation of the particles, we do not get a result in 50% of our measurements (with the best designed polarizer and for the right wavelength).



                Let the polarizer be orientated to the vertical (0°). Getting a result, we will know that the photon has had an orientation from -45° to 45° and from 135° to 225°. Not getting a result, we are allowed to say, that the photon has an orientation in the opposite to the above mentioned angles. To count for the statistics these not measured photons we are able only after getting the information from the second measurement device, that a photon in their setup was measured. In reality simply the number of measured incidents is compared.




                What is the proof of entanglement




                Firstly a lot of experiments for a given process, in this case for photons from nonlinear optical crystals in a well definded setup. And later the knowledge, that in this process are produced entangled particles.




                Is there any situation after creation that the particle with spin up will change to spin down.




                This happens all the time due to “impurities” in the experimental setup. The produced particles colliding with other particles and are under the influence of external fields. The longer the distance and the time between production and measurement, the weaker the measurable coincidence. But the swap of a spin by itself is impossible.






                share|cite|improve this answer














                Just for a moment, if one (you) imagine that the entangled particles are determinated in their states from the beginning of their entanglement, would it change something in the outcome of the experiment? In the pair production of two photons from nonlinear optical crystals the result of the experiments shows a statistical dependency; the orientation of the electric field components of the photons is orthogonal to each over.



                Producing such a pair of photons we are not able to control the direction of the polarisation, we only able to design the process so that the polarisations of two particles are orthogonal on each over, the orientation by itself is randomly distributed around 360°. The uncertainty is in the phenomenon, that using a polariser to find the orientation of the particles, we do not get a result in 50% of our measurements (with the best designed polarizer and for the right wavelength).



                Let the polarizer be orientated to the vertical (0°). Getting a result, we will know that the photon has had an orientation from -45° to 45° and from 135° to 225°. Not getting a result, we are allowed to say, that the photon has an orientation in the opposite to the above mentioned angles. To count for the statistics these not measured photons we are able only after getting the information from the second measurement device, that a photon in their setup was measured. In reality simply the number of measured incidents is compared.




                What is the proof of entanglement




                Firstly a lot of experiments for a given process, in this case for photons from nonlinear optical crystals in a well definded setup. And later the knowledge, that in this process are produced entangled particles.




                Is there any situation after creation that the particle with spin up will change to spin down.




                This happens all the time due to “impurities” in the experimental setup. The produced particles colliding with other particles and are under the influence of external fields. The longer the distance and the time between production and measurement, the weaker the measurable coincidence. But the swap of a spin by itself is impossible.







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited 1 hour ago

























                answered 1 hour ago









                HolgerFiedler

                4,04331133




                4,04331133






















                    Qandry is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                    draft saved

                    draft discarded


















                    Qandry is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                    Qandry is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                    Qandry is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f446974%2fwhat-is-the-proof-of-entanglement%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Accessing regular linux commands in Huawei's Dopra Linux

                    Can't connect RFCOMM socket: Host is down

                    Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal Exception in Interrupt