Physicists settle controversy over identical particle entanglement

March 27, 2017 by Lisa Zyga report
Illustrations of (a) two spatially separated identical qubits, (b) two identical qubits in the same space, and (c) two identical qutrits in the same space. Credit: Sciara et al. Nature Scientific Reports

(Phys.org)—In a new study, physicists have shown a way to establish real entanglement between two identical particles—a topic that has been disputed until now. The results provide a better understanding of the fundamental nature of entanglement between identical particles and have potential applications in quantum information processing.

One of the many strange features of quantum is that, if two particles are identical, then they automatically appear to be entangled. In this case, "identical" means that the particles are of the same type—for example, any two photons are considered identical because there is no way to tell any particular photon apart from another.

This type of entanglement, which call "entanglement due to indistinguishability," arises because of the standard way that identical particles are labeled. Although the particles are identical, physicists assign them different labels in order to tell them apart. Because of the way that entanglement is determined, with respect to their labels, identical particles inevitably appear to be entangled.

Although this type of entanglement is different than entanglement between non-identical particles, there is disagreement among physicists over what exactly it is and whether or not it is useful for applications. In one viewpoint, the entanglement holds even for distant particles but cannot be exploited for practical use. In another viewpoint, the entanglement is simply an artifact of labeling and should not really be considered entanglement at all.

Ideally, an appropriate way to settle the debate would be to investigate the entanglement between identical particles using a process called Schmidt decomposition, which is commonly used to study entanglement between non-identical particles. Unfortunately, Schmidt decomposition doesn't apply to identical particles in a straightforward way, and its use in this area has been controversial and inaccurate, giving obviously incorrect results for identical particles.

The main result of the new study is that the physicists have generalized Schmidt decomposition so that it can be applied to identical particles equally as well as non-identical particles.

"The results show that entanglement between identical particles is not merely a mathematical artifact, but that, under certain conditions, the entanglement due to indistinguishability is true physical entanglement," coauthor Rosario Lo Franco at the University of Palermo, Italy, told Phys.org.

When applied to two identical qubits, the method shows that, in certain situations, particles can be physically entangled only when in close proximity, and not when spatially separated as it previously appeared.

"The key to the achievement was to do away with the standard practice of assigning labels to identical particles, and instead simply describe the particles in terms of their states," said coauthor Giuseppe Compagno at the University of Palermo.

The researchers also discovered a somewhat surprising result for qutrits—three-level which are relevant for storing quantum information—that contrasts with a previous result using a different method. The researchers said that this difference requires further investigation.

Overall, the physicists expect the method to provide a new type of entanglement resource for applications.

"In the case where the particle wave functions overlap, entanglement due solely to indistinguishability and unveiled directly by the Schmidt decomposition can be utilized operationally in protocols of ," Lo Franco said. "This achievement may first require a separation of the as obtained by the so-called extraction procedures."

Explore further: Entanglement for identical particles doesn't follow textbook rules

More information: Stefania Sciara, Rosario Lo Franco, and Giuseppe Compagno. "Universality of Schmidt decomposition and particle identity." Scientific Reports 7, 44675 (2017). DOI: 10.1038/srep44675

Related Stories

Quantum computing advances with control of entanglement

September 27, 2016

When the quantum computer was imagined 30 years ago, it was revered for its potential to quickly and accurately complete practical tasks often considered impossible for mere humans and for conventional computers. But, there ...

Recommended for you

Two teams independently test Tomonaga–Luttinger theory

October 20, 2017

(Phys.org)—Two teams of researchers working independently of one another have found ways to test aspects of the Tomonaga–Luttinger theory that describes interacting quantum particles in 1-D ensembles in a Tomonaga–Luttinger ...

Using optical chaos to control the momentum of light

October 19, 2017

Integrated photonic circuits, which rely on light rather than electrons to move information, promise to revolutionize communications, sensing and data processing. But controlling and moving light poses serious challenges. ...

Black butterfly wings offer a model for better solar cells

October 19, 2017

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers with California Institute of Technology and the Karlsruh Institute of Technology has improved the efficiency of thin film solar cells by mimicking the architecture of rose butterfly wings. ...

Terahertz spectroscopy goes nano

October 19, 2017

Brown University researchers have demonstrated a way to bring a powerful form of spectroscopy—a technique used to study a wide variety of materials—into the nano-world.

10 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Hyperfuzzy
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2017
See, this is why I hate QM. Probability distributions used to create massive confusion, not clarity!
NoStrings
1 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2017
Quite right Hyperfuzzy.
However it is not QM you hate, I suspect, but the logical brainfart of a mindfuck that is being written on the subject. This goes on and on, because QM is a statistical description with simple principles, but 'physicists' have to publish, don't they? Or perish.
Read this paragraph from the article: "When applied to two identical qubits, the method shows that, in certain situations, particles can be physically entangled only when in close proximity, and not when spatially separated as it previously appeared."
This is mostly theological argument not unlike: how many devils can fit in a stomach of an angel?
Particularly, for a multitude of identical entangled particles simply by the virtue of being identical, the concept itself is meaningless. They are identical, all right, stop trying to make more out of it than there is.
NoStrings
1 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2017
What I am looking forward to is practical implementations of many interesting properties. Explaining the nature of bogus concepts like entanglement of all identical particles, like photons, etc. is pointless waste of effort. Time to focus on finding deeper theories, or shut up and teach students. And more physical experiments - like last sentence points toward, just do it then. Countless theological discussions based on the same 5 principles create only more confusion.
SlartiBartfast
5 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2017
See, this is why I hate QM. Probability distributions used to create massive confusion, not clarity!


Translation: Physics is hard! Let's go bake cookies for the boys.
swordsman
1 / 5 (1) Mar 27, 2017
Explicit data can be obtained utilizing the original Planck electronic model of the atom. The hydrogen atom can be defined by an electronic network. I have done this, and the actions between two hydrogen atoms in the near field are very dynamic. My electronic model of the hydrogen atom was published in 2012 ( "Analyzing Atoms Using the SPICE computer program", Computing in Science and Engineering, Vol. 14, No. 3, May/June 2012). The dynamic attractive forces between two hydrogen atoms act as a complex dynamic spring in the mechanical sense. My followup technical paper on this is yet to be published.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Mar 28, 2017
Notice the diagonal alignment of of "entangled" bits in part "B" of the image?
It's because there is something else (another vector's force) affecting it...
That means they are not truly entangled.
humy
5 / 5 (1) Mar 28, 2017
form the link;

"...if two particles are identical, then they automatically appear to be entangled. ..."

shouldn't that be;

"...if two particles are entangled, then they automatically appear to be identical..."

?

If 'two' particles are 'identical' then they are the SAME particle thus not 'two' at all, right?
nikola_milovic_378
not rated yet Mar 28, 2017
Entanglement, what is it physical? If two particles are entangled it means to have "tentacles" and one face two octopuses that were out of love "embraced".
Does science knows that the smallest particles each has a certain relationship with the genetic substance from which it emerged and formed as matter. This substance is the ether which fills the tiniest subatomic particles. It is no entanglement, but it is either gravity or magnetic influence relative to the ether. How does this take place? Before that, one should understand that the structure of the universe and the unfolding processes of formation of matter and energy from her and figure it out.
Spaced out Engineer
not rated yet Mar 29, 2017
Is there a manner to frame these apparent but not actual identity differences for fundamental modes without dispersing the operator? Super Yangmils thinks so.

Zero fundamental modes, degrees of freedom and naturalists who do not believe in frame dependence don't.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Mar 30, 2017
Is there a manner to frame these apparent but not actual identity differences for fundamental modes without dispersing the operator? Super Yangmils thinks so.

Zero fundamental modes, degrees of freedom and naturalists who do not believe in frame dependence don't.

Well, then... Maybe it's time to rotate the reference frame...

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.