Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New features!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

123 submissions , 104 unreviewed
3,547 questions , 1,198 unanswered
4,551 answers , 19,358 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
411 active unimported users
More ...

What's the difference between an entangled state, a superposed state and a cat state?

+ 6 like - 0 dislike
177 views

1) Can a state be entangled without also being a superposition? (Please give an example.)

2) Can a state be a superposition without being entangled? (Again, an example please.)

3) And what about a cat state?

I am royally confused, and a little bit of googling didn't help.
This question is partly motivated by the recent news announcement (Nature, NYTimes) that ten billion entangled pairs have been created.

4) Are these spin pairs also in a superposition?

5) Does this count as a cat state?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-24 03:53 (UCT), posted by SE-user Jim Graber
asked Jan 23, 2011 in Theoretical Physics by Jim Graber (65 points) [ no revision ]
Suggestion to the question(v3): Also ask about the difference with mixed and pure states while we are at it.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-24 03:53 (UCT), posted by SE-user Qmechanic
Fine with me. Or ask as a separate question.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-24 03:53 (UCT), posted by SE-user Jim Graber

3 Answers

+ 7 like - 0 dislike

This goes on order from the more general to the more specific:

  1. If A and B are two states, then you can form any linear combination to get superposed state, let's call it C. Of course, any state C can be expressed as superposition of two other states A and B, so calling a state "superposed" is not all that meaningful, unless there is something distinguishing the A,B states from all their superpositions.

  2. You can only discuss entanglement if you first distinguish two (or more) sub-systems of the full system, for example if the distinguished sub-systems do not interact with each other, or if they are spatially separated. In this case states of system (1) can be entangled with states of system (2), if the total state cannot be written as a product $A=A_1 \times A_2$ where $A_1$ and $A_2$ are states of the separate subsystems. A more formal way to quantify that is the "entanglement entropy", which tells you roughly how much information you are missing if you have access to one sub-system only.

  3. The cat state is a particular example of an entangled state. Specifically in systems where two (or more) sub-systems consist of exactly one (qu)bit of information, which is labeled as 0 or 1, this is the state |00...0> +|11...1>. I am also told in comments there are generalizations beyond this system of n qubits, and more physical ways to characterize the state.

So, if you decide that your product states as above are distinguished over any linear combination thereof, there is a meaningful comparison between what you call "superposed" state (which I have to say is not a standard terminology) and the entangled states. An entangled state is one that cannot be expressed as product state, so it is necessarily a superposition of such states, say $A_1 \times A_2$ and $B_1 \times B_2$. The converse is not true: a superposition of product states may well be a product state itself.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-24 03:53 (UCT), posted by SE-user user566
answered Jan 23, 2011 by Moshe (2,375 points) [ no revision ]
I won't pretend I understand the theory of entangled states, but this seems like a good explanation.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-24 03:53 (UCT), posted by SE-user Noldorin
Nice, Moshe, +1.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-24 03:53 (UCT), posted by SE-user Luboš Motl
I agree with 1 and 2, but the definition of a cat state is wrong. A cat state is the superposition of two classically different states. The tricky part of the definition is what constitutes "classicaly different" states. But there is no direct link with entanglement.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-24 03:53 (UCT), posted by SE-user Frédéric Grosshans
Thanks, I’ve edited the answer to hopefully a more accurate one.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-24 03:53 (UCT), posted by SE-user user566
I looked at several Intro to QM textbooks, including Griffiths, Liboff and Merzbacher. I was amazed how little was there on this topic. In most cases, these terms were not even listed in the index. In common parlance(layman language), I believe superposition is usually used for contradictory states, such as spin up and spin down or live and dead or here and there. I found the distinction between one system and two distinguishable subsystems to be particularly helpful. Thanks to all. Jim Graber

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-24 03:53 (UCT), posted by SE-user Jim Graber
Dear @Hiatus, after some subconscious thinking, I actually think that the "cat state" wasn't meant to be a Schrödinger cat state but rather the ket state. ;-) Isn't it a funny hypothesis?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-24 03:53 (UCT), posted by SE-user Luboš Motl
+ 6 like - 0 dislike

Any discussion of entanglement implies you are thinking of (at least) two separate systems. Superpositions on the other hand, can also apply to situations where you are only looking at a single system. Keeping this in mind:

"Can a state be entangled without also being a superposition? (Please give an example)"

No. An entangled state is by definition a state which cannot be written as a separable product in any basis. Whatever basis you choose, the state will be a superposition of products of the separate systems.

"Can a state be a superposition without being entangled? (Again, an example please)"

Of course. A trivial example would be a single isolated system for which you can usually find some basis in which the state is in a superposition. And single isolated systems cannot be entangled with anything else because.. well.. they are single isolated systems - and like I said before, entanglement applies to a situation where you have divided your world into separate systems that can interact with each other.

"And what about a cat state?"

A Schrodinger Cat state is usually used to refer to a macroscopic system which is in a superposition of two or more states (in the eigenstate basis of some physical observable like energy or position). Real cats in geiger-counter-poison-rigged boxes probably won't be in such superpositions due to decoherence but there are some surprisingly large objects like buckyballs and macromolecules which have been shown to exist in superpositions.

"Are these spin pairs also in a superposition?"

Yes, in all bases, because they are entangled. Allegedly :)

"Does this count as a cat state?"

I'm not sure because I haven't read the whole paper and also because the definition of a cat state depends on what you consider macroscopic.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-24 03:53 (UCT), posted by SE-user dbrane
answered Jan 24, 2011 by dbrane (375 points) [ no revision ]
I've often heard the term "cat state" used in contexts like quantum computing to refer to entangled states of microscopic systems.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-24 03:53 (UCT), posted by SE-user David Z
+1 Almost everything I intended to write. Just want to add that the 10 billion pairs do not count as a cat state, because each of the pair is independent of the others. A 10 billion qubits cat state would be closer o a GHZ state :$|0\rangle^{\otimes n}+|1\rangle^{\otimes n}$.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-24 03:53 (UCT), posted by SE-user Frédéric Grosshans
+ 1 like - 0 dislike

The difference between a superposition and entanglement is the following. We consider a two slit experiment where a photon wave function interacts with a screen. The wave vector is of the form $$ |\psi\rangle~=~e^{ikx}|1\rangle~+~e^{ik’x}|2\rangle $$ as a superposition of states for the slits labeled $1$ and $2$. The normalization is assumed. The state vector is normalized as $$ \langle\psi|\psi\rangle~=~1~=~\langle 1|1\rangle~+~\langle 2|2\rangle~+~ e^{i(k’~+~k)x}\langle 1|2\rangle~+~ e^{-i(k’~+~k)x}\langle 2|1\rangle $$ The overlaps $\langle 1|2\rangle$ and $\langle 2|1\rangle$ are multiplied by the oscillatory terms which are the interference probabilities one measures on the photoplate.

We now consider the classic situation where one tries to measure which slit the photon traverses. We have a device with detects the photon at one of the slit openings. We consider another superposed quantum state. This is a spin space that is $$ |\phi\rangle~=~\frac{1}{\sqrt {2}}(|+\rangle~+~|-\rangle). $$ This photon quantum state becomes entangled with this spin state. So we have $$ |\psi,\phi\rangle~=~e^{ikx}|1\rangle|+\rangle~+~e^{ik’x}|2\rangle|-\rangle $$ which means if the photon passes through slit number 1 the spin is + and if it passes through slit 2 the spin is in the – state. Now consider the norm of this state vector $$ \langle|\psi,\phi|\psi,\phi\rangle~=~\langle 1|1\rangle\langle +|+\rangle~+~\langle 2|2\rangle\langle-|-\rangle~+~ e^{i(k’~+~k)x}\langle 1|2\rangle\langle +|-\rangle~+~ e^{-i(k’~+~k)x}\langle 2|1\rangle\langle-|+\rangle. $$ The spin states $|+\rangle$ and $|-\rangle$ are orthogonal and thus $\langle +|-\rangle $ and $\langle-|+\rangle$ are zero. This means the overlap or interference terms are removed. In effect the superposition has been replaced by an entanglement.

This analysis does not tell us which state is actually measured, but it does tell us how the interference term is lost due to the entanglement of the system we measure with an instrument quantum state. So one does not need to invoke an outright collapse to illustrate how a superposition is lost.

The cat state is a form of the GHZ state where you have $$ |\psi\rangle~=~C(|0\rangle^{\otimes n}~+~|1\rangle^{\otimes n}) $$ which are n-partite entanglements. These types of states can violate Bell inequalities with one state, which illustrates quantum mechanics is not a purely statistical theory. The statistics are derived from QM.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-24 03:53 (UCT), posted by SE-user Lawrence B. Crowell
answered Jan 24, 2011 by Lawrence B. Crowell (590 points) [ no revision ]

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysicsOv$\varnothing$rflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...