I have come across a wonderful review of entanglement by Chris Drost in his answer to this post. One part that left me puzzled was: (This post is merely an attempt to understand a portion of Chris' answer, unfortunately I do not have enough reputation to ask this as a comment in his post, so I figured a new post wouldn't be a terrible idea as this is a rather important conceptual question for all beginners.)
Obviously, the product-states have a "quantum coherence" to both qubits: doing our double-slit experiment means that we see an interference pattern. Shockingly, entanglement weakens and sometimes eliminates this interference pattern. For example, the state describes an entangled state. If you pass the first qubit of this through the double-slit experiment, normal rules of quantum mechanics give the distribution classically overlapping bell curves!
Unfortunately I fail to see how by entangling two particles they lose their coherence. But When I have a particle in a superposition state and entangle it to another system in state my first particle still remains in a superposition, and its measurement is still random, is it not?
So why do we say that entanglement destroys coherence? It would be great if one could elaborately show this for the simplest entangled pairs! Is the point maybe that if is measured first, only then loses its coherence? (assume here a complete correlation).
Small digression if I may: if it is true that entangelemnt destroys coherence, does the converse mean that the concept of decoherence is tightly related to entanglement of a small system with its environment? Or in other words would decoherence happen at all without entanglement?
Okay, this is getting even more into depth, which is great stuff! I heartily recommend anyone who is this dedicated take a few courses on the subject, if you haven't already.
Here's the most basic formulation of quantum mechanics which adequately shows all of these properties, called the density-matrix or state-matrix formulation. Take a wavefunction and identify the state-matrix with this state. The state matrix has all of the same information as the wavefunction but evolves according to the product rule,
As always, we predict expectation values of experiments by associating to their numerical parameters a Hermitian operator Now, instead of calculating this as the usual we insert some orthonormal basis into the middle of this expression as
Now suppose we have an observable which only impacts one subsystem of the whole system. Here we simply convert the basis to one that spans both subsystems, and our observable has the form in terms of its effect on the respective systems. Our expression for the expected value is therefore:
We call the process which generates the substate matrix "tracing out" the rest of the superstate, because it has the same structure as a partial trace.
Let us calculate the state matrix for . This is very simple: it is
Now let us entangle it with another system. We will use the CNOT operation to entangle it with a constant , generating When we perform the above recipe to this system we find ourselves looking at a completely different density matrix:
The simplest observable is , measuring the probability that a qubit is in state Now suppose that we don't do this directly, but first evolve the state with a unitary matrix. This will correspond to a photon going through a slit corresponding to the qubit and then traveling to a photomultiplier tube at position , which will "click" (transition from to with amplitudes when only one of these is open. So the unitary transformation is, for some that don't matter,
From this you have enough to calculate the two cases, which are
So that is how to easily understand entanglement as destroying coherence: the more you're entangled, the more the orthogonality of the other system kills your off-diagonal terms, and the more your substate looks like a classical probability mixture, transferring the cool quantum effects to the system-as-a-whole.
I am posting these notes following a request for further information regarding this question. Should not affect the OP's choice of answer.
Notes added in proof:
On the meaning of quantum coherence:
Quantum coherence is a direct extension of the classical concept of wave coherence. Two classical waves are said to be coherent if they can produce a well-defined interference pattern. In order for this to happen, for instance with electromagnetic waves, the two waves must have the same frequency and a constant phase difference, such that when they add/superpose/overlap the resulting wave pattern remains well-defined. This is how coherent sources were first defined in optics.
In contrast, incoherent optical sources, even if monochromatic, produce an ensemble, or statistical superposition, of light waves with random relative phases (and polarizations, to be precise), which do not/cannot interfere which each other. To get an interference pattern one must first isolate a single coherent component and use it to set up coherent sources, such as the two slits in the famous double-slit example.
When electron interference patterns where first detected, it made sense to interpret them in the same terms as optical interference, and the concept of coherence transferred automatically to superpositions of wave functions and quantum states in general. So did the concept of incoherent statistical ensemble.
So, in general a coherent quantum state means a coherent superposition that can produce interference patterns (there is also a more specific notion of "coherent states", as in those of the harmonic oscillator, please do not confuse the concepts). For this to happen it must be a pure state . If such a is expressed as a superposition of two other states, say , then it implies a well-defined relative phase (or phase difference) between states and , even if the superposition amplitude changes in time. See some good explanations along these lines in answers to this related question.
On the other hand, the concept of incoherent superposition evolved into that of mixed state, described no longer by a state vector , but by a positive definite state operator . A mixed quantum state is understood in two distinct ways that are equivalent as long as the overall dynamics remains linear (yes, nonlinear dynamics would distinguish between the two):
1) Following the optics analogy: as an incoherent superposition of coherent states, or in quantum theory terms, as a statistical mixture of pure states. That is,
2) As the reduced state of a subsystem of a larger quantum system that is overall in a pure state. This definition gives an intrinsic quantum meaning to mixed states, and relies in turn on the concept of entanglement.
Formally, a joint pure state of two systems and is entangled if it is not a direct product of "local" pure states, that is, . Conversely, if and are in a joint pure state, then they are disentangled if and only if each of them is in a pure state and . The latter is called a separable pure state.
The operational meaning of a separable pure state is that measurements of any two "local" observables and are statistically_uncorrelated_, in the sense that the average of a product equals the product of the averages,
On entanglement and loss of coherence:
From the above it follows immediately that a joint pure state is entangled if and only if it produces non-vanishing correlations for at least one pair of "local" observables. In this case we know with certainty that neither nor can be in pure states, since otherwise the state would be separable!
But now we can also see an interesting relation between entanglement and coherence, which answers questions 1 & 2:
An entangled pure state is by all means a coherent state, generally a coherent superposition of separable pure states of two or more subsystems. Yet the individual subsystems can no longer be in coherent, pure states themselves. This is what Chris Drost pointed out when he wrote that entanglement is paradoxically responsible for loss of coherence. Coherence is necessarily lost within individual entangled subsystems because they cannot be in coherent states, but at the same time correlations between subsystems keep the total state coherent.
Things get somewhat more complicated as soon as we acknowledge that entangled states may also be mixed states themselves, but this is the general idea.
In order to give any simple example we need to complete the 2nd definition of a mixed state above and see what becomes of the "local", reduced state of an entangled subsystem. The following derivation hopefully emphasizes the connection to basic probability rules. Let the total entangled state be , or equivalently , and let be any arbitrary observable of , with eigenbasis and corresponding eigenvalues . Also let be an arbitrary orthonormal basis set of . The average of in state is
Furthermore, we can rewrite as
The density matrix describes the reduced state of subsystem . Similarly, the density matrix describes the reduced state of subsystem . Show as an exercise that the average of any observable of is given by :)
The above is all that is needed for a basic understanding of various examples of coherence and entanglement. For instance:
Any pure state of system is a coherent superposition showing interference between pure states and .
Same goes for states of .
States , , etc, are separable pure states such that both and are each individually in coherent superpositions of pure states. Interference experiments on alone will show the same interference patterns as in the absence of , and vice-versa.
Entangled states of the joint system - are coherent with respect to joint pure (and separable) states and . That is, a joint interference experiment on and produces an interference pattern. But now the "local" state of alone is described by the reduced density matrix
Finally, a very brief answer to question 3: Yes, decoherence understood as loss of coherent superposition involves entanglement and/or a dissipative dynamics in the presence of another system (measurement apparatus, environment, etc). Sometimes though it may mean loss of phase coherence under internal interactions.
When I have a particle in a superposition state and entangle it to another system in state my first particle still remains in a superposition, and its measurement is still random, is it not?
When two particles are entangled then you simply do not have particle A in state A and particle B in state B. If the two particles had their own states then the joint state would be the product of the two states.
Go back and reread the first part where the author talks about what it means to be entangled, when you are not entangled you have the general state as the product of two single particle states. But entangled states don't have that (by definition). If you are rereading it note that a superposition of two eigenstates of a spin 1/2 direction is simply an eigenstate of a differently oriented eigenstate. A superposition of single particle states doesn't have to be any weirder than an eigenstate, so when the author says the single particle superpositions are weird and nonclassical this might not be the case. And the past about expectation values is wrong too, there are no functions of x after you take an expectation value. But the rest. The definition of entanglement seemed fine, though you seem to have not grasped it.
So why do we say that entanglement destroys coherence?
Don't focus on superposition, there is no physical meaning to the result of a superposition, what you get after a superposition could be what someone else starts with to make superpositions so it isn't the key to anything. Its real, but don't for instance think you can loom at something and tell whether it was a superposition. A superposition is like a sum. You might look at at 5 and say that it is 2+3 and so is a sum but someone else can look at 5+7 and say that 5 is a term. Term ... Sum. You can't necessarily tell.
Interference happens when you have two things overlap and not be orthogonal. It is possible for instance to entangle the spin and still get spatial interference as long as the spin dynamics don't couple to the spatial dynamics.
The reason the entanglement can destroy the interference is by making them not overlap. I said you can get interference even if you entangle the spins. A way to lose the interference is if you entangle going left for one particle with going left for the other particle.
You see the wave isn't a wave in space, people just fail to tell you that sometimes. When you have two (or more) particles the wave is in configuration space, which means you assign a complex number to a 6d space where the first three coordinates tell you where the first particle is and the next three tell you where the second is and so on. So knowing all the particles tells you the configuration and knowing the configuration tells you all the particles.
So when you entangle the positions of both particles then the wave is nonzero only for configurations where they are both left or both right. When you try to get an interference you need two waves to evaluated at the same point. In the post you read it was written as x but it should have been a point in 6d space like So they don't interfere because at every the one that went left still has the second part like on the left and the one that went right still the second particle on the right so the 6d x where the wave is simply doesn't have the and the overlap anywhere on the screen. In a sense it is just that the waves don't overlap.
It would be great if one could elaborately show this for the simplest entangled pairs!
It is 100% like of the left slit shot the beam upwards and the right beam shot it downwards. To the right and down you see a big spot and the the left and up you see a bug spot and there is no interference because the two paths didn't overlap.
It is lack of overlap that makes coherence irrelevant. And it seems deep only because you didn't get told all the details. Every alleged deep thing in quantum mechanics is just making a big deal about the words instead of looking at the details of the dynamics of the actual experimental setup.
Is the point maybe that if is measured first, only then loses its coherence?
The order of measurements on different particles does not change the frequency of the results you get.
does the converse mean that the concept of decoherence is tightly related to entanglement of a small system with its environment?
Yes. What you call measurement is the end result of a process of entangling the subject with the device and then the environment. Entanglement is natural.
Or in other words would decoherence happen at all without entanglement?
There is no "without entanglement" entanglement is a natural thing that happens all the time. There is no known way to not have it I guess if you had no interactions you might be able to avoid it.
Coherence and entanglement are opposite situations. Coherent electrons means they have the same quantum status, so they have same spin, while entangled electrons means they have opposite (antiparallel) spin, and they always act like a couple. Coherent photons means they have the same wavefunction (like all photons of a laser beam), while entangled photons means they have antisymmetric wavefunctions, adding each other like a pair. A laser beam can produce some few entangled photons under special conditions.
Kyle Arean-Raines