Einstein's 'spooky action' common in large quantum systems, mathematicians find

May 28, 2013

Entanglement is a property in quantum mechanics that seemed so unbelievable and so lacking in detail that, 66 years ago this spring, Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance." But a mathematician at Case Western Reserve University and two of his recent PhD graduates show entanglement is actually prevalent in large quantum systems and have identified the threshold at which it occurs.

The finding holds promise for the ongoing push to understand and take advantage of the property. If harnessed, entanglement could yield super high-speed communications, hack-proof encryptions and quantum computers so fast and powerful they would make today's supercomputers look like adding machines in comparison.

The mathematicians don't tell us how entanglement works, but were able to put parameters on the property by combining developed for a number of different applications during the last five decades. In a nutshell, the researchers connected the math to properties of —the otherworldly rules that best apply to atomic and —to describe physical reality.

"There have been indications that large subgroups within quantum systems are entangled," said Stanislaw Szarek, mathematics professor at Case Western Reserve and an author of the study. "Our contribution is to find out exactly when entanglement becomes ubiquitous."

Szarek worked with Guillaume Aubrun, assistant professor of mathematics at Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, France, and Deping Ye, assistant professor of mathematics and statistics at Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada. Their work is published online in the Early View section of Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics.

The behaviors of materials down at the level of atoms are often strange, but entanglement borders on our concepts of sorcery. For example, if two electrons spinning in opposite directions are entangled, when one changes direction, the other immediately changes, whether the electrons are side by side, across the room or at opposite ends of the universe.

Other particles, such as photons, atoms and molecules, can also become entangled, but taking advantage of the property requires more than a pair or handful.

Szarek, Aubrun and Ye focused on large quantum systems—large groups of particles that have the potential for use in our world.

They found that, in systems in a random state, two subsystems that are each less than one-fifth of the whole are generally not entangled. Two subsystems that are each greater than one-fifth of the whole typically are entangled. In other words, in a system of 1,000 particles, two groups that are smaller than 200 each typically won't be entangled. Two groups larger than 200 each typically will.

Further, the research shows, "the change is abrupt when you reach the threshold of about 200," Szarek said.

The team also calculated the threshold for positive partial transpose, or PPT, a property related to entanglement. If the property is violated, entanglement is present.

"From these two perspectives, the calculations are very precise." Szarek said.

Harsh Mathur, a physics professor at Case Western Reserve whom Szarek consulted to better understand the science, said, "Their point is entanglement is hard to create from a small system, but much easier in a large system."

"And the thing that Einstein thought was so weird is the rule rather than the exception," Mathur added.

The researchers used mathematics where analysis, algebra and geometry meet, Szarek said. The math applies to hundreds, thousands or millions of dimensions.

"We put together several things from different parts of mathematics, like a puzzle, and adapted them," he said. "These are mathematical tools developed largely for aesthetical reasons, like music."

The ideas—concepts developed in the 1970s and 1980s and more recently— turned out to be relevant to the emerging science.

"We have found there is a way of computing and quantifying the concept of quantum physics and related it to some calculable mathematical quantities," Szarek continued. "We were able to identify features and further refine the description, which reduces the questions about the system to calculable and familiar looking mathematical quantities."

So, if is more common in large , why aren't they being used already?

"In the every day world, it's hard to access or create large quantum mechanical systems to do meaningful quantum computations or for communications or other uses," Mathur said. "You have to keep them isolated or they decohere and behave in a classical manner. But this study gives some parameters to build on."

Szarek will continue to investigate mathematics and quantum information theory while attending the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences in Cambridge, England in the fall. He will work with computer scientists and quantum physicists during a semester-long program called Mathematical Challenges in Quantum Information. He received a $101,000 National Science Foundation grant to participate.

Explore further: Physics team entangles photons that never coexisted in time

Related Stories

Researchers explore quantum entanglement

Feb 08, 2013

Albert Einstein called quantum entanglement—two particles in different locations, even on other sides of the universe, influencing each other—"spooky action at a distance."

New record in quantum communications

Aug 30, 2012

(Phys.org)—Researchers from The Australian National University have taken a quantum leap towards developing the next-generation super-fast networks needed to drive future computing.

Recommended for you

Performance measures for CEOs vary greatly, study finds

1 minute ago

As companies file their annual proxy statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) this spring, a new study by Rice University and Cornell University shows just how S&P 500 companies have ...

User comments : 8

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

El_Nose
4 / 5 (2) May 28, 2013
So it should be easier to entangle 1 Million qubits as opposed to 16 --- is the problem of creating quantum memory that we started too low and tried to build up. we should have tried stupidly huge and it might have worked -- HA thats rich -- i hope it works
ValeriaT
2.4 / 5 (7) May 28, 2013
So, if entanglement is more common in large quantum systems, why aren't they being used already?
Because the steps between energy levels gradually decrease with increasing number of objects in system and they become interchangeable with background quantum noise itself. From this moment the behavior of entangled quantum system isn't distinguishable from classical one anymore. I presume, everyone of you did see such a diagram before. This is for example the reason, why the common light bulb cannot serve as a source of individual photons: too many electrons at the metal surface are entangled together, so that the spectrum of light bulb is continuous. My feeling from the discussion above quoted is, that this mathematician (Harsh Mathur) doesn't understand, what he actually describes.
vacuum-mechanics
1.4 / 5 (9) May 28, 2013
The mathematicians don't tell us how entanglement works, but were able to put parameters on the property by combining math concepts developed for a number of different applications during the last five decades. In a nutshell, the researchers connected the math to properties of quantum mechanics—the otherworldly rules that best apply to atomic and subatomic particles—to describe physical reality.

Quantum mechanics is 'physics' which was created by God (nature), while 'mathematic' is an abstract invent by man! Physics is the science of nature which works via some physical mechanism (not just mathematical formulas), something like the one as follow…
http://www.vacuum...19〈=en
DavidW
1 / 5 (4) May 28, 2013
"Our contribution is to find out exactly when entanglement becomes ubiquitous."

Where the observation of life stops. Now what?
vlaaing peerd
4.7 / 5 (3) May 29, 2013

Quantum mechanics is 'physics' which was created by God (nature), while 'mathematic' is an abstract invent by man!


Everything in nature is as it is, both QM manifestations as well as mathematics, humanity just labeled it to describe it.
beleg
3 / 5 (2) May 29, 2013
The math applies to hundreds, thousands or millions of dimensions.
The measurement applies to 3+1 dimensions.

And the result is the article report above.

Where the observation of life stops. Now what? - DW


Easy. Redefine (your) the definition of life.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) May 29, 2013
If harnessed, entanglement could yield super high-speed communications, hack-proof encryptions and quantum computers so fast and powerful they would make today's supercomputers look like adding machines in comparison.


- hack-proof encryption: yes (with the proviso that any hardware in between is still subject to the usual forms of eavesdropping. The datastream and the key exchange can be made proof against undetected interception)

- quantum computers so fast and powerful: yes (for certain kinds of problems)

- super high-speed communications: no. Entanglement is not good for information transmission, as you can't encode anything on it.

So it should be easier to entangle 1 Million qubits as opposed to 16 --- is the problem of creating quantum memory

Qbits aren't just memory. You use them for the calculations also. It's not like in ordinary computers where you have memory and CPU as separate entities.
Having many qbits is worthless without precise control.
vamfun
1 / 5 (2) Jun 05, 2013
Is it possible that magnetic monopoles do exist but two opposite pole pairs are always entangled ??

More news stories