collapse of that particle and changes the original quantum state.

With entangled particles, such measurements affect the

entangled system as a whole.
Such phenomena were the subject of a 1935 paper by Albert
Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen,[2] and several
papers by Erwin Schrödinger shortly thereafter,[3][4] describing
what came to be known as the EPR paradox. Einstein and
others considered such behavior impossible, as it violated the
local realism view of causality (Einstein referring to it as "spooky
action at a distance")[5] and argued that the accepted
formulation of quantum mechanics must therefore be
incomplete.
Later, however, the counterintuitive predictions of quantum
mechanics were verified[6][7][8] in tests where polarization or
spin of entangled particles were measured at separate
locations, statistically violating Bell's inequality. In earlier tests, it
could not be ruled out that the result at one point could have
been subtly transmitted to the remote point, affecting the
outcome at the second location.[8] However, so-called "loophole-
free" Bell tests have since been performed where the locations
were sufficiently separated that communications at the speed of
light would have taken longer—in one case, 10,000 times
longer—than the interval between the measurements.[7][6]
According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the
effect of one measurement occurs instantly. Other
interpretations which do not recognize wavefunction collapse
dispute that there is any "effect" at all. However, all
interpretations agree that entanglement produces correlation
between the measurements, and that the mutual information
between the entangled particles can be exploited, but that any
transmission of information at faster-than-light speeds is
impossible.[9][10]
Quantum entanglement has been demonstrated experimentally
with photons,[11][12] electrons,[13][14] and even small
diamonds.[15] The use of entanglement in communication,
computation and quantum radar is an active area of research
and development.
Despite popular thought to the contrary, quantum entanglement
cannot be used for faster-than-light communication.[16]
On 14 August 2023, researchers reported the first ever image of
quantum entanglement.[17][18]

History[edit]
Article headline regarding the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR)
paradox paper, in the May 4, 1935 issue of The New York
Times.
In 1935, Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen
published a paper on the counterintuitive predictions that
quantum mechanics makes for pairs of objects prepared
together in a particular way.[2] In this study, the three formulated
the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox (EPR paradox), a
thought experiment that attempted to show that "the quantum-
mechanical description of physical reality given by wave
functions is not complete."[2] However, the three scientists did
not coin the word entanglement, nor did they generalize the
special properties of the quantum state they considered.
Following the EPR paper, Erwin Schrödinger wrote a letter to
Einstein in German in which he used the word Verschränkung
(translated by himself as entanglement) "to describe the
correlations between two particles that interact and then
separate, as in the EPR experiment."[19]
Schrödinger shortly thereafter published a seminal paper
defining and discussing the notion of "entanglement." In the
paper, he recognized the importance of the concept, and
stated:[3] "I would not call [entanglement] one but rather the
characteristic trait of quantum mechanics, the one that enforces
its entire departure from classical lines of thought." Like
Einstein, Schrödinger was dissatisfied with the concept of
entanglement, because it seemed to violate the speed limit on
the transmission of information implicit in the theory of
relativity.[20] Einstein later famously derided entanglement as
"spukhafte Fernwirkung"[21] or "spooky action at a distance."
The EPR paper generated significant interest among physicists,
which inspired much discussion about the foundations of
quantum mechanics and Bohm's interpretation in particular, but
produced relatively little other published work. Despite the
interest, the weak point in EPR's argument was not discovered
 proved that one of their key
assumptions, the principle of locality, as applied to the kind of
hidden variables interpretation hoped for by EPR, was
mathematically inconsistent with the predictions of quantum
theory.
Specifically, Bell demonstrated an upper limit, seen in Bell's
inequality, regarding the strength of correlations that can be
produced in any theory obeying local realism, and showed that
quantum theory predicts violations of this limit for certain
entangled systems.[22] His inequality is experimentally testable,
and there have been numerous relevant experiments, starting
with the pioneering work of Stuart Freedman and John Clauser
in 1972[23] and Alain Aspect's experiments in 1982.[24]
An early experimental breakthrough was due to Carl Kocher,
[11][12] who already in 1967 presented an apparatus in which two
photons successively emitted from a calcium atom were shown
to be entangled – the first case of entangled visible light. The
two photons passed diametrically positioned parallel polarizers
with higher probability than classically predicted but with
correlations in quantitative agreement with quantum mechanical
calculations. He also showed that the correlation varied as the
squared cosine of the angle between the polarizer settings[12]
and decreased exponentially with time lag between emitted
photons.[25] Kocher’s apparatus, equipped with better
polarizers, was used by Freedman and Clauser who could
confirm the cosine-squared dependence and use it to
demonstrate a violation of Bell’s inequality for a set of fixed
angles.[23] All these experiments have shown agreement with
quantum mechanics rather than the principle of local realism.
For decades, each had left open at least one loophole by which
it was possible to question the validity of the results. However, in
2015 an experiment was performed that simultaneously closed
both the detection and locality loopholes, and was heralded as
"loophole-free"; this experiment ruled out a large class of local
realism theories with certainty.[26] Aspect writes that "... no
experiment ... can be said to be totally loophole-free," but he
says the experiments "remove the last doubts that we should
renounce" local hidden variables, and refers to examples of
remaining loopholes as being "far fetched" and "foreign to the
usual way of reasoning in physics."[27]
Bell's work raised the possibility of using these super-strong
correlations as a resource for communication. It led to the 1984
discovery of quantum key distribution protocols, most famously
BB84 by Charles H. Bennett and Gilles Brassard[28] and E91 by
Artur Ekert.[29] Although BB84 does not use entanglement,
Ekert's protocol uses the violation of a Bell's inequality as a
In 2022, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Aspect,
Clauser, and Anton Zeilinger "for experiments with entangled
photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and
pioneering quantum information science".[30]
On 14 August 2023, researchers reported the first ever image of
quantum entanglement.[17][18]

Concept[edit]

Meaning of entanglement[edit]

An entangled system is defined to be one whose quantum state

cannot be factored as a product of states of its local
constituents; that is to say, they are not individual particles but
are an inseparable whole. In entanglement, one constituent
cannot be fully described without considering the other(s). The
state of a composite system is always expressible as a sum, or
superposition, of products of states of local constituents; it is
entangled if this sum cannot be written as a single product term.
Quantum systems can become entangled through various types
of interactions. For some ways in which entanglement may be
achieved for experimental purposes, see the section below on
methods. Entanglement is broken when the entangled particles
decohere through interaction with the environment; for example,
when a measurement is made.[31]
As an example of entanglement: a subatomic particle decays
into an entangled pair of other particles. The decay events obey
the various conservation laws, and as a result, the
measurement outcomes of one daughter particle must be highly
correlated with the measurement outcomes of the other
daughter particle (so that the total momenta, angular momenta,
energy, and so forth remains roughly the same before and after
this process). For instance, a spin-zero particle could decay into
a pair of spin-1/2 particles. Since the total spin before and after
this decay must be zero (conservation of angular momentum),
whenever the first particle is measured to be spin up on some
axis, the other, when measured on the same axis, is always
found to be spin down. (This is called the spin anti-correlated
case; and if the prior probabilities for measuring each spin are
equal, the pair is said to be in the singlet state.)
The above result may or may not be perceived as surprising. A
classical system would display the same property, and a hidden
variable theory would certainly be required to do so, based on
conservation of angular momentum in classical and quantum
mechanics alike. The difference is that a classical system has
quantum system does not. In a sense to be discussed below,
the quantum system considered here seems to acquire a
probability distribution for the outcome of a measurement of the
spin along any axis of the other particle upon measurement of
the first particle. This probability distribution is in general
different from what it would be without measurement of the first
particle. This may certainly be perceived as surprising in the
case of spatially separated entangled particles.

Paradox[edit]

The paradox is that a measurement made on either of the

particles apparently collapses the state of the entire entangled
system—and does so instantaneously, before any information
about the measurement result could have been communicated
to the other particle (assuming that information cannot travel
faster than light) and hence assured the "proper" outcome of the
measurement of the other part of the entangled pair. In the
Copenhagen interpretation, the result of a spin measurement on
one of the particles is a collapse (of wave function) into a state
in which each particle has a definite spin (either up or down)
along the axis of measurement. The outcome is taken to be
random, with each possibility having a probability of 50%.
However, if both spins are measured along the same axis, they
are found to be anti-correlated. This means that the random
outcome of the measurement made on one particle seems to
have been transmitted to the other, so that it can make the "right
choice" when it too is measured.[32]
The distance and timing of the measurements can be chosen so
as to make the interval between the two measurements
spacelike, hence, any causal effect connecting the events would
have to travel faster than light. According to the principles of
special relativity, it is not possible for any information to travel
between two such measuring events. It is not even possible to
say which of the measurements came first. For two spacelike
separated events x1 and x2 there are inertial frames in which x1
is first and others in which x2 is first. Therefore, the correlation
between the two measurements cannot be explained as one
measurement determining the other: different observers would
disagree about the role of cause and effect.
(In fact similar paradoxes can arise even without entanglement:
the position of a single particle is spread out over space, and
two widely separated detectors attempting to detect the particle
in two different places must instantaneously attain appropriate
correlation, so that they do not both detect the particle.)

Hidden variables theory[edit]

A possible resolution to the paradox is to assume that quantum
theory is incomplete, and the result of measurements depends
on predetermined "hidden variables".[33] The state of the
particles being measured contains some hidden variables,
whose values effectively determine, right from the moment of
separation, what the outcomes of the spin measurements are
going to be. This would mean that each particle carries all the
required information with it, and nothing needs to be transmitted
from one particle to the other at the time of measurement.
Einstein and others (see the previous section) originally believed
this was the only way out of the paradox, and the accepted
quantum mechanical description (with a random measurement
outcome) must be incomplete.

Violations of Bell's inequality[edit]

Local hidden variable theories fail, however, when

measurements of the spin of entangled particles along different
axes are considered. If a large number of pairs of such
measurements are made (on a large number of pairs of
entangled particles), then statistically, if the local realist or
hidden variables view were correct, the results would always
satisfy Bell's inequality. A number of experiments have shown in
practice that Bell's inequality is not satisfied. However, prior to
2015, all of these had loophole problems that were considered
the most important by the community of physicists.[34][35] When
measurements of the entangled particles are made in moving
relativistic reference frames, in which each measurement (in its
own relativistic time frame) occurs before the other, the
measurement results remain correlated.[36][37]
The fundamental issue about measuring spin along different
axes is that these measurements cannot have definite values at
the same time―they are incompatible in the sense that these
measurements' maximum simultaneous precision is constrained
by the uncertainty principle. This is contrary to what is found in
classical physics, where any number of properties can be
measured simultaneously with arbitrary accuracy. It has been
proven mathematically that compatible measurements cannot
show Bell-inequality-violating correlations,[38] and thus
entanglement is a fundamentally non-classical phenomenon.

Notable experimental results proving quantum

entanglement[edit]

The first experiment that verified Einstein's spooky action at a

distance (entanglement) was successfully corroborated in a lab
published on New Year's Day in 1950. The result specifically
proved the quantum correlations of a pair of photons.[39] In
experiments in 2012 and 2013, polarization correlation was
created between photons that never coexisted in time.[40][41]
The authors claimed that this result was achieved by
entanglement swapping between two pairs of entangled photons
after measuring the polarization of one photon of the early pair,
and that it proves that quantum non-locality applies not only to
space but also to time.
In three independent experiments in 2013, it was shown that
classically communicated separable quantum states can be
used to carry entangled states.[42] The first loophole-free Bell
test was held by Ronald Hanson of the Delft University of
Technology in 2015, confirming the violation of Bell
inequality.[43]
In August 2014, Brazilian researcher Gabriela Barreto Lemos
and team were able to "take pictures" of objects using photons
that had not interacted with the subjects, but were entangled
with photons that did interact with such objects. Lemos, from the
University of Vienna, is confident that this new quantum imaging
technique could find application where low light imaging is
imperative, in fields such as biological or medical imaging.[44]
Since 2016, various companies, for example IBM and Microsoft,
have created quantum computers that allowed developers and
tech enthusiasts to freely experiment with concepts of quantum
mechanics including quantum entanglement.[45]

Mystery of time[edit]

There have been suggestions to view the concept of time as an

emergent phenomenon that is a side effect of quantum
entanglement.[46][47] In other words, time is an entanglement
phenomenon, which places all equal clock readings (of correctly
prepared clocks, or of any objects usable as clocks) into the
same history. This was first fully theorized by Don Page and
William Wootters in 1983.[48] The Wheeler–DeWitt equation that
combines general relativity and quantum mechanics – by
leaving out time altogether – was introduced in the 1960s and it
was taken up again in 1983, when Page and Wootters made a
solution based on quantum entanglement. Page and Wootters
argued that entanglement can be used to measure time.[49]

Emergent gravity[edit]
suggested that spacetime arises as an emergent phenomenon
of the quantum degrees of freedom that are entangled and live
in the boundary of the space-time.[50] Induced gravity can
emerge from the entanglement first law.[51][52]

Non-locality and entanglement[edit]

In the media and popular science, quantum non-locality is often
portrayed as being equivalent to entanglement. While this is true
for pure bipartite quantum states, in general entanglement is
only necessary for non-local correlations, but there exist mixed
entangled states that do not produce such correlations.[53] A
well-known example is the Werner states that are entangled for
certain values of , but can always be described using local
hidden variables. [54] Moreover, it was shown that, for arbitrary
numbers of particles, there exist states that are genuinely
entangled but admit a local model.[55]
The mentioned proofs about the existence of local models
assume that there is only one copy of the quantum state
available at a time. If the particles are allowed to perform local
measurements on many copies of such states, then many
apparently local states (e.g., the qubit Werner states) can no
longer be described by a local model. This is, in particular, true
for all distillable states. However, it remains an open question
whether all entangled states become non-local given sufficiently
many copies.[56]
In short, entanglement of a state shared by two particles is
necessary but not sufficient for that state to be non-local. It is
important to recognize that entanglement is more commonly
viewed as an algebraic concept, noted for being a prerequisite
to non-locality as well as to quantum teleportation and to
superdense coding, whereas non-locality is defined according to
experimental statistics and is much more involved with the
foundations and interpretations of quantum mechanics.[57]

Quantum-mechanical framework[edit]
The following subsections are for those with a good working
knowledge of the formal, mathematical description of quantum
mechanics, including familiarity with the formalism and
theoretical framework developed in the articles: bra–ket notation
and mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics.

Pure states[edit]
Consider two arbitrary quantum systems A and B, with
respective Hilbert spaces HA and HB. The Hilbert space of the
composite system is the tensor product

If the first system is in state and the second in state ,

the state of the composite system is

States of the composite system that can be represented in this

form are called separable states, or product states.
Not all states are separable states (and thus product states). Fix
a basis for HA and a basis for HB. The most
general state in HA ⊗ HB is of the form

This state is separable if there exist vectors so that

yielding and It is
inseparable if for any vectors at least for one pair of
coordinates we have If a state is inseparable, it
is called an 'entangled state'.
For example, given two basis vectors of HA and two
basis vectors of HB, the following is an entangled
state:

If the composite system is in this state, it is impossible to

attribute to either system A or system B a definite pure state.
Another way to say this is that while the von Neumann entropy
of the whole state is zero (as it is for any pure state), the entropy
of the subsystems is greater than zero. In this sense, the
systems are "entangled". This has specific empirical
ramifications for interferometry.[58] The above example is one of
four Bell states, which are (maximally) entangled pure states
(pure states of the HA ⊗ HB space, but which cannot be
separated into pure states of each HA and HB).
 observer for system B. If in the entangled state given above
Alice makes a measurement in the eigenbasis of A,
there are two possible outcomes, occurring with equal
probability:[59]
1. Alice measures 0, and the state of the system collapses to
.
2. Alice measures 1, and the state of the system collapses to
.
If the former occurs, then any subsequent measurement
performed by Bob, in the same basis, will always return 1. If the
latter occurs, (Alice measures 1) then Bob's measurement will
return 0 with certainty. Thus, system B has been altered by Alice
performing a local measurement on system A. This remains true
even if the systems A and B are spatially separated. This is the
foundation of the EPR paradox.
The outcome of Alice's measurement is random. Alice cannot
decide which state to collapse the composite system into, and
therefore cannot transmit information to Bob by acting on her
system. Causality is thus preserved, in this particular scheme.
For the general argument, see no-communication theorem.

Ensembles[edit]

As mentioned above, a state of a quantum system is given by a

unit vector in a Hilbert space. More generally, if one has less
information about the system, then one calls it an 'ensemble'
and describes it by a density matrix, which is a positive-
semidefinite matrix, or a trace class when the state space is
infinite-dimensional, and has trace 1. Again, by the spectral
theorem, such a matrix takes the general form:

where the wi are positive-valued probabilities (they sum up to 1),

the vectors αi are unit vectors, and in the infinite-dimensional
case, we would take the closure of such states in the trace
norm. We can interpret ρ as representing an ensemble where
is the proportion of the ensemble whose states are . When a
mixed state has rank 1, it therefore describes a 'pure ensemble'.
When there is less than total information about the state of a
quantum system we need density matrices to represent the
state.
Experimentally, a mixed ensemble might be realized as follows.
an observer. The electrons' Hilbert spaces are identical. The
apparatus might produce electrons that are all in the same state;
in this case, the electrons received by the observer are then a
pure ensemble. However, the apparatus could produce
electrons in different states. For example, it could produce two
populations of electrons: one with state with spins aligned
in the positive z direction, and the other with state with
spins aligned in the negative y direction. Generally, this is a
mixed ensemble, as there can be any number of populations,
each corresponding to a different state.
Following the definition above, for a bipartite composite system,
mixed states are just density matrices on HA ⊗ HB. That is, it
has the general form

where the wi are positively valued probabilities, ,

and the vectors are unit vectors. This is self-adjoint and positive
and has trace 1.
Extending the definition of separability from the pure case, we
say that a mixed state is separable if it can be written as[60]: 
131–132 

where the wi are positively valued probabilities and the 's and
's are themselves mixed states (density operators) on the
subsystems A and B respectively. In other words, a state is
separable if it is a probability distribution over uncorrelated
states, or product states. By writing the density matrices as
sums of pure ensembles and expanding, we may assume
without loss of generality that and are themselves pure
ensembles. A state is then said to be entangled if it is not
separable.
In general, finding out whether or not a mixed state is entangled
is considered difficult. The general bipartite case has been
shown to be NP-hard.[61] For the 2 × 2 and 2 × 3 cases, a
necessary and sufficient criterion for separability is given by the
famous Positive Partial Transpose (PPT) condition.[62]
Reduced density matrices[edit]

The idea of a reduced density matrix was introduced by Paul

Dirac in 1930.[63] Consider as above systems A and B each with
a Hilbert space HA, HB. Let the state of the composite system
be

As indicated above, in general there is no way to associate a

pure state to the component system A. However, it still is
possible to associate a density matrix. Let

.
which is the projection operator onto this state. The state of A is
the partial trace of ρT over the basis of system B:

The sum occurs over and the identity

operator in . ρA is sometimes called the reduced density
matrix of ρ on subsystem A. Colloquially, we "trace out" system
B to obtain the reduced density matrix on A.
For example, the reduced density matrix of A for the entangled
state

discussed above is

This demonstrates that, as expected, the reduced density matrix

for an entangled pure ensemble is a mixed ensemble. Also not
surprisingly, the density matrix of A for the pure product state
discussed above is

.
In general, a bipartite pure state ρ is entangled if and only if its
reduced states are mixed rather than pure.
Two applications that use them[edit]

Reduced density matrices were explicitly calculated in different

spin chains with unique ground state. An example is the one-
dimensional AKLT spin chain:[64] the ground state can be
divided into a block and an environment. The reduced density
matrix of the block is proportional to a projector to a degenerate
ground state of another Hamiltonian.
The reduced density matrix also was evaluated for XY spin
chains, where it has full rank. It was proved that in the
thermodynamic limit, the spectrum of the reduced density matrix
of a large block of spins is an exact geometric sequence[65] in
this case.

Entanglement as a resource[edit]

In quantum information theory, entangled states are considered

a 'resource', i.e., something costly to produce and that allows
implementing valuable transformations.[66][67] The setting in
which this perspective is most evident is that of "distant labs",
i.e., two quantum systems labeled "A" and "B" on each of which
arbitrary quantum operations can be performed, but which do
not interact with each other quantum mechanically. The only
interaction allowed is the exchange of classical information,
which combined with the most general local quantum operations
gives rise to the class of operations called LOCC (local
operations and classical communication). These operations do
not allow the production of entangled states between systems A
and B. But if A and B are provided with a supply of entangled
states, then these, together with LOCC operations can enable a
larger class of transformations. For example, an interaction
between a qubit of A and a qubit of B can be realized by first
teleporting A's qubit to B, then letting it interact with B's qubit
(which is now a LOCC operation, since both qubits are in B's
lab) and then teleporting the qubit back to A. Two maximally
entangled states of two qubits are used up in this process. Thus
entangled states are a resource that enables the realization of
quantum interactions (or of quantum channels) in a setting
where only LOCC are available, but they are consumed in the
process. There are other applications where entanglement can
be seen as a resource, e.g., private communication or
distinguishing quantum states.[68]

Classification of entanglement[edit]

Not all quantum states are equally valuable as a resource. To

below) can be used, that assign a numerical value to each
quantum state. However, it is often interesting to settle for a
coarser way to compare quantum states. This gives rise to
different classification schemes. Most entanglement classes are
defined based on whether states can be converted to other
states using LOCC or a subclass of these operations. The
smaller the set of allowed operations, the finer the classification.
Important examples are:
If two states can be transformed into each other by a local
unitary operation, they are said to be in the same LU class. This
is the finest of the usually considered classes. Two states in the
same LU class have the same value for entanglement measures
and the same value as a resource in the distant-labs setting.
There is an infinite number of different LU classes (even in the
simplest case of two qubits in a pure state).[69][70]
If two states can be transformed into each other by local
operations including measurements with probability larger than
0, they are said to be in the same 'SLOCC class' ("stochastic
LOCC"). Qualitatively, two states and in the same SLOCC
class are equally powerful (since I can transform one into the
other and then do whatever it allows me to do), but since the
transformations and may succeed with different
probability, they are no longer equally valuable. E.g., for two
pure qubits there are only two SLOCC classes: the entangled
states (which contains both the (maximally entangled) Bell
states and weakly entangled states like ) and the
separable ones (i.e., product states like ).[71][72]
Instead of considering transformations of single copies of a state
(like ) one can define classes based on the possibility of
multi-copy transformations. E.g., there are examples when
is impossible by LOCC, but is possible. A
very important (and very coarse) classification is based on the
property whether it is possible to transform an arbitrarily large
number of copies of a state into at least one pure entangled
state. States that have this property are called distillable. These
states are the most useful quantum states since, given enough
of them, they can be transformed (with local operations) into any
entangled state and hence allow for all possible uses. It came
initially as a surprise that not all entangled states are distillable,
those that are not are called 'bound entangled'.[73][68]
A different entanglement classification is based on what the
quantum correlations present in a state allow A and B to do: one
distinguishes three subsets of entangled states: (1) the non-
local states, which produce correlations that cannot be
explained by a local hidden variable model and thus violate a
Bell inequality, (2) the steerable states that contain sufficient
conditional reduced state of B in such a way, that A can prove to
B that the state they possess is indeed entangled, and finally (3)
those entangled states that are neither non-local nor steerable.
All three sets are non-empty.[74]

Entropy[edit]

In this section, the entropy of a mixed state is discussed as well

as how it can be viewed as a measure of quantum
entanglement.

Definition[edit]

The plot of von Neumann entropy Vs Eigenvalue for a bipartite

2-level pure state. When the eigenvalue has value 0.5, von
Neumann entropy is at a maximum, corresponding to maximum
entanglement.
In classical information theory H, the Shannon entropy, is
associated to a probability distribution, , in the following
way: [75]

Since a mixed state ρ is a probability distribution over an

ensemble, this leads naturally to the definition of the von
Neumann entropy:

In general, one uses the Borel functional calculus to calculate a

non-polynomial function such as log2(ρ). If the nonnegative
operator ρ acts on a finite-dimensional Hilbert space and has
eigenvalues , log2(ρ) turns out to be nothing more than
the operator with the same eigenvectors, but the eigenvalues
. The Shannon entropy is then:
 .

Since an event of probability 0 should not contribute to the

entropy, and given that

the convention 0 log(0) = 0 is adopted. This extends to the

infinite-dimensional case as well: if ρ has spectral resolution

assume the same convention when calculating

As in statistical mechanics, the more uncertainty (number of

microstates) the system should possess, the larger the entropy.
For example, the entropy of any pure state is zero, which is
unsurprising since there is no uncertainty about a system in a
pure state. The entropy of any of the two subsystems of the
entangled state discussed above is log(2) (which can be shown
to be the maximum entropy for 2 × 2 mixed states).

As a measure of entanglement[edit]

Entropy provides one tool that can be used to quantify

entanglement, although other entanglement measures exist.
[76][77] If the overall system is pure, the entropy of one
subsystem can be used to measure its degree of entanglement
with the other subsystems. For bipartite pure states, the von
Neumann entropy of reduced states is the unique measure of
entanglement in the sense that it is the only function on the
family of states that satisfies certain axioms required of an
entanglement measure.[78]
It is a classical result that the Shannon entropy achieves its
maximum at, and only at, the uniform probability distribution
{1/n,...,1/n}. Therefore, a bipartite pure state ρ ∈ HA ⊗ HB is
said to be a maximally entangled state if the reduced state of
each subsystem of ρ is the diagonal matrix
For mixed states, the reduced von Neumann entropy is not the
only reasonable entanglement measure.
As an aside, the information-theoretic definition is closely related
to entropy in the sense of statistical mechanics[79] (comparing
the two definitions in the present context, it is customary to set
the Boltzmann constant k = 1). For example, by properties of the
Borel functional calculus, we see that for any unitary operator U,

Indeed, without this property, the von Neumann entropy would

not be well-defined.
In particular, U could be the time evolution operator of the
system, i.e.,

where H is the Hamiltonian of the system. Here the entropy is

unchanged.
The reversibility of a process is associated with the resulting
entropy change, i.e., a process is reversible if, and only if, it
leaves the entropy of the system invariant. Therefore, the march
of the arrow of time towards thermodynamic equilibrium is
simply the growing spread of quantum entanglement.[80] This
provides a connection between quantum information theory and
thermodynamics.
Rényi entropy also can be used as a measure of entanglement.
Nevertheless, on 23 January 2023, physicists reported, that,
after all, there is no second law of entanglement manipulation.
In the words of the researchers, "no direct counterpart to the
second law of thermodynamics can be established".[81]

Entanglement measures[edit]

Entanglement measures quantify the amount of entanglement in

a (often viewed as a bipartite) quantum state. As
aforementioned, entanglement entropy is the standard measure
of entanglement for pure states (but no longer a measure of
some entanglement measures in the literature[76] and no single
one is standard.
Entanglement cost
Distillable entanglement
Entanglement of formation
Concurrence
Relative entropy of entanglement
Squashed entanglement
Logarithmic negativity
Most (but not all) of these entanglement measures reduce for
pure states to entanglement entropy, and are difficult (NP-hard)
to compute for mixed states as the dimension of the entangled
system grows.[82]

Quantum field theory[edit]

The Reeh-Schlieder theorem of quantum field theory is

sometimes seen as an analogue of quantum entanglement.

Applications[edit]
Entanglement has many applications in quantum information
theory. With the aid of entanglement, otherwise impossible tasks
may be achieved.
Among the best-known applications of entanglement are
superdense coding and quantum teleportation.[83]
Most researchers believe that entanglement is necessary to
realize quantum computing (although this is disputed by
some).[84]
Entanglement is used in some protocols of quantum
cryptography,[85][86] but to prove the security of QKD under
standard assumptions does not require entanglement.[87]
However, the device independent security of QKD is shown
exploiting entanglement between the communication
partners.[88]

Entangled states[edit]

There are several canonical entangled states that appear often

in theory and experiments.
For two qubits, the Bell states are

These four pure states are all maximally entangled (according to

the entropy of entanglement) and form an orthonormal basis
(linear algebra) of the Hilbert space of the two qubits. They play
a fundamental role in Bell's theorem.
For M>2 qubits, the GHZ state is

which reduces to the Bell state for . The traditional

GHZ state was defined for . GHZ states are occasionally
extended to qudits, i.e., systems of d rather than 2 dimensions.
Also for M>2 qubits, there are spin squeezed states, a class of
squeezed coherent states satisfying certain restrictions on the
uncertainty of spin measurements, which are necessarily
entangled.[89] Spin squeezed states are good candidates for
enhancing precision measurements using quantum
entanglement.[90]
For two bosonic modes, a NOON state is

This is like the Bell state except the basis kets 0 and 1
have been replaced with "the N photons are in one mode" and
"the N photons are in the other mode".
Finally, there also exist twin Fock states for bosonic modes,
which can be created by feeding a Fock state into two arms
leading to a beam splitter. They are the sum of multiple of
NOON states, and can be used to achieve the Heisenberg
limit.[91]
For the appropriately chosen measures of entanglement, Bell,
GHZ, and NOON states are maximally entangled while spin
squeezed and twin Fock states are only partially entangled. The
partially entangled states are generally easier to prepare
Methods of creating entanglement[edit]

Entanglement is usually created by direct interactions between

subatomic particles. These interactions can take numerous
forms. One of the most commonly used methods is
spontaneous parametric down-conversion to generate a pair of
photons entangled in polarization.[68][92] Other methods include
the use of a fiber coupler to confine and mix photons, photons
emitted from decay cascade of the bi-exciton in a quantum
dot,[93] the use of the Hong–Ou–Mandel effect, etc. Quantum
entanglement of a particle and its antiparticle, such as an
electron and a positron, can be created by partial overlap of the
corresponding quantum wave functions in Hardy's
interferometer.[94][95] In the earliest tests of Bell's theorem, the
entangled particles were generated using atomic cascades.[23]
It is also possible to create entanglement between quantum
systems that never directly interacted, through the use of
entanglement swapping. Two independently prepared, identical
particles may also be entangled if their wave functions merely
spatially overlap, at least partially.[96]

Testing a system for entanglement[edit]

A density matrix ρ is called separable if it can be written as a

convex sum of product states, namely

with probabilities. By definition, a state is entangled if

it is not separable.
For 2-Qubit and Qubit-Qutrit systems (2 × 2 and 2 × 3
respectively) the simple Peres–Horodecki criterion provides both
a necessary and a sufficient criterion for separability, and thus—
inadvertently—for detecting entanglement. However, for the
general case, the criterion is merely a necessary one for
separability, as the problem becomes NP-hard when
generalized.[97][98] Other separability criteria include (but not
limited to) the range criterion, reduction criterion, and those
based on uncertainty relations.[99][100][101][102] See Ref.[103] for
a review of separability criteria in discrete-variable systems and
Ref.[104] for a review on techniques and challenges in
experimental entanglement certification in discrete-variable
systems.
A numerical approach to the problem is suggested by Jon
"Geometrical aspects of entanglement".[105] Leinaas et al. offer
a numerical approach, iteratively refining an estimated
separable state towards the target state to be tested, and
checking if the target state can indeed be reached. An
implementation of the algorithm (including a built-in Peres-
Horodecki criterion testing) is "StateSeparator" web-app.
In continuous variable systems, the Peres-Horodecki criterion
also applies. Specifically, Simon[106] formulated a particular
version of the Peres-Horodecki criterion in terms of the second-
order moments of canonical operators and showed that it is
necessary and sufficient for -mode Gaussian states (see
Ref.[107] for a seemingly different but essentially equivalent
approach). It was later found[108] that Simon's condition is also
necessary and sufficient for -mode Gaussian states, but no
longer sufficient for -mode Gaussian states. Simon's
condition can be generalized by taking into account the higher
order moments of canonical operators[109][110] or by using
entropic measures.[111][112]
In 2016, China launched the world’s first quantum
communications satellite.[113] The $100m Quantum Experiments
at Space Scale (QUESS) mission was launched on 16 Aug
2016, from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center in northern
China at 01:40 local time.[citation needed]
For the next two years, the craft – nicknamed "Micius" after the
ancient Chinese philosopher – will demonstrate the feasibility of
quantum communication between Earth and space, and test
quantum entanglement over unprecedented distances.[citation
needed]

In the 16 June 2017, issue of Science, Yin et al. report setting a

new quantum entanglement distance record of 1,203 km,
demonstrating the survival of a two-photon pair and a violation
of a Bell inequality, reaching a CHSH valuation of 2.37 ± 0.09,
under strict Einstein locality conditions, from the Micius satellite
to bases in Lijian, Yunnan and Delingha, Quinhai, increasing the
efficiency of transmission over prior fiberoptic experiments by an
order of magnitude.[114][115]

Naturally entangled systems[edit]

The electron shells of multi-electron atoms always consist of
entangled electrons. The correct ionization energy can be
calculated only by consideration of electron entanglement.[116]
Photosynthesis[edit]
It has been suggested that in the process of photosynthesis,
entanglement is involved in the transfer of energy between light-
harvesting complexes and photosynthetic reaction centers
where the energy of each absorbed photon is harvested in the
form of chemical energy. Without such a process, the efficient
conversion of light into chemical energy cannot be explained.
Using femtosecond spectroscopy, the coherence of
entanglement in the Fenna-Matthews-Olson complex was
measured over hundreds of femtoseconds (a relatively long time
in this regard) providing support to this theory.[117][118]
However, critical follow-up studies question the interpretation of
these results and assign the reported signatures of electronic
quantum coherence to nuclear dynamics in the chromophores
or to the experiments being performed at cryogenic rather than
physiological temperatures.[119][120][121][122][123][124][125]

Entanglement of macroscopic objects[edit]

In 2020, researchers reported the quantum entanglement
between the motion of a millimeter-sized mechanical oscillator
and a disparate distant spin system of a cloud of atoms.[126][127]
Later work complemented this work by quantum-entangling two
mechanical oscillators.[128][129][130]

Entanglement of elements of living systems[edit]

In October 2018, physicists reported producing quantum

entanglement using living organisms, particularly between
photosynthetic molecules within living bacteria and quantized
light.[131][132]
Living organisms (green sulphur bacteria) have been studied as
mediators to create quantum entanglement between otherwise
non-interacting light modes, showing high entanglement
between light and bacterial modes, and to some extent, even
entanglement within the bacteria.[133]

See also[edit]
Bound entanglement
Concurrence
CNOT gate
 Einstein's thought experiments
Entanglement distillation
Entanglement witness
ER = EPR
Faster-than-light communication
Multipartite entanglement
Normally distributed and uncorrelated does not imply
independent
Pauli exclusion principle
Quantum coherence
Quantum computing
Quantum discord
Quantum network
Quantum phase transition
Quantum pseudo-telepathy
Quantum teleportation
Retrocausality
Separable state
Spontaneous parametric down-conversion
Squashed entanglement
Stern–Gerlach experiment
Ward's probability amplitude

References[edit]
1. ^ Overbye, Dennis (10 October 2022). "Black Holes May Hide a
Mind-Bending Secret About Our Universe – Take gravity, add
quantum mechanics, stir. What do you get? Just maybe, a
holographic cosmos". The New York Times. Retrieved 10
October 2022.
2. ^ Jump up to: a b c Einstein, Albert; Podolsky, Boris; Rosen,
Nathan (1935). "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of
Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?". Phys. Rev. 47 (10):
777–780. Bibcode:1935PhRv...47..777E.
doi:10.1103/PhysRev.47.777.
3. ^ Jump up to: a b Schrödinger, Erwin (1935). "Discussion of
probability relations between separated systems". Mathematical
 555–563. Bibcode:1935PCPS...31..555S.
doi:10.1017/S0305004100013554. S2CID 121278681.
4. ^ Schrödinger, Erwin (1936). "Probability relations between
separated systems". Mathematical Proceedings of the
Cambridge Philosophical Society. 32 (3): 446–452.
Bibcode:1936PCPS...32..446S.
doi:10.1017/S0305004100019137. S2CID 122822435.
5. ^ Physicist John Bell depicts the Einstein camp in this debate in
his article entitled "Bertlmann's socks and the nature of reality",
p. 143 of Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics:
"For EPR that would be an unthinkable 'spooky action at a
distance'. To avoid such action at a distance they have to
attribute, to the space-time regions in question, real properties in
advance of observation, correlated properties, which
predetermine the outcomes of these particular observations.
Since these real properties, fixed in advance of observation, are
not contained in quantum formalism, that formalism for EPR is
incomplete. It may be correct, as far as it goes, but the usual
quantum formalism cannot be the whole story." And again on p.
144 Bell says: "Einstein had no difficulty accepting that affairs in
different places could be correlated. What he could not accept
was that an intervention at one place could influence,
immediately, affairs at the other." Downloaded 5 July 2011 from
Bell, J. S. (1987). Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum
Mechanics (PDF). CERN. ISBN 0521334950. Archived from the
original (PDF) on 12 April 2015. Retrieved 14 June 2014.
6. ^ Jump up to: a b Yin, Juan; Cao, Yuan; Yong, Hai-Lin; Ren, Ji-
Gang; Liang, Hao; Liao, Sheng-Kai; Zhou, Fei; Liu, Chang; Wu,
Yu-Ping; Pan, Ge-Sheng; Li, Li; Liu, Nai-Le; Zhang, Qiang;
Peng, Cheng-Zhi; Pan, Jian-Wei (2013). "Bounding the speed of
'spooky action at a distance". Physical Review Letters. 110 (26):
260407. arXiv:1303.0614. Bibcode:2013PhRvL.110z0407Y.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.260407. PMID 23848853.
S2CID 119293698.
7. ^ Jump up to: a b Matson, John (13 August 2012). "Quantum
teleportation achieved over record distances". Nature News.
doi:10.1038/nature.2012.11163. S2CID 124852641.
8. ^ Jump up to: a b Francis, Matthew (30 October 2012).
"Quantum entanglement shows that reality can't be local". Ars
Technica. Retrieved 22 August 2023.
9. ^ Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the
Laws of the Universe, London, 2004, p. 603.
10. ^ Griffiths, David J. (2004), Introduction to Quantum Mechanics
(2nd ed.), Prentice Hall, ISBN 978-0-13-111892-8
11. ^ Jump up to: a b Kocher, C. A.; Commins, E. D. (1967).
 Cascade". Physical Review Letters. 18 (15): 575–577.
Bibcode:1967PhRvL..18..575K.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.18.575.
12. ^ Jump up to: a b c Kocher, Carl Alvin (1 May 1967).
"POLARIZATION CORRELATION OF PHOTONS EMITTED IN
AN ATOMIC CASCADE".
13. ^ Hensen, B.; et al. (21 October 2015). "Loophole-free Bell
inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3
kilometres". Nature. 526 (7575): 682–686. arXiv:1508.05949.
Bibcode:2015Natur.526..682H. doi:10.1038/nature15759.
hdl:2117/79298. PMID 26503041. S2CID 205246446. See also
free online access version.
14. ^ Markoff, Jack (21 October 2015). "Sorry, Einstein. Quantum
Study Suggests 'Spooky Action' Is Real". The New York Times.
Retrieved 21 October 2015.
15. ^ Lee, K. C.; Sprague, M. R.; Sussman, B. J.; Nunn, J.;
Langford, N. K.; Jin, X.- M.; Champion, T.; Michelberger, P.;
Reim, K. F.; England, D.; Jaksch, D.; Walmsley, I. A. (2
December 2011). "Entangling macroscopic diamonds at room
temperature". Science. 334 (6060): 1253–1256.
Bibcode:2011Sci...334.1253L. doi:10.1126/science.1211914.
PMID 22144620. S2CID 206536690.
16. ^ Siegel, Ethan. "No, We Still Can't Use Quantum Entanglement
To Communicate Faster Than Light". Forbes. Retrieved 6
January 2023.
17. ^ Jump up to: a b "Quantum entanglement visualized for the first
time ever". AdvancedScienceNews.com. 1 September 2023.
Archived from the original on 2 September 2023. Retrieved 2
September 2023.
18. ^ Jump up to: a b Zia, D.; et al. (14 August 2023).
"Interferometric imaging of amplitude and phase of spatial
biphoton states,". Nature Photonics.
doi:10.1038/s41566-023-01272-3. Archived from the original on
2 September 2023. Retrieved 2 September 2023.
19. ^ Kumar, M., Quantum, Icon Books, 2009, p. 313.
20. ^ Alisa Bokulich, Gregg Jaeger, Philosophy of Quantum
Information and Entanglement, Cambridge University Press,
2010, p. xv.
21. ^ Letter from Einstein to Max Born, 3 March 1947; The Born-
Einstein Letters; Correspondence between Albert Einstein and
Max and Hedwig Born from 1916 to 1955, Walker, New York,
1971. Cited in Hobson, M. P.; et al. (1998). "Quantum
Entanglement and Communication Complexity". SIAM J.
Comput. 30 (6): 1829–1841. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.20.8324.)
22. ^ Bell, J. S. (1964). "On the Einstein-Poldolsky-Rosen paradox".
Physics Physique Физика. 1 (3): 195–200.
doi:10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195.
23. ^ Jump up to: a b c Freedman, Stuart J.; Clauser, John F. (1972).
"Experimental Test of Local Hidden-Variable Theories". Physical
Review Letters. 28 (14): 938–941.
Bibcode:1972PhRvL..28..938F.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.28.938.
24. ^ Aspect, Alain; Grangier, Philippe; Roger, Gérard (1982).
"Experimental Realization of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm
Gedankenexperiment: A New Violation of Bell's Inequalities".
Physical Review Letters. 49 (2): 91–94.
Bibcode:1982PhRvL..49...91A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.91.
25. ^ Kocher, C. A. (1971). "Time correlations in the detection of
successively emitted photons". Annals of Physics. 65 (1): 1–18.
Bibcode:1971AnPhy..65....1K.
doi:10.1016/0003-4916(71)90159-X.
26. ^ Hanson, Ronald (2015). "Loophole-free Bell inequality
violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres".
Nature. 526 (7575): 682–686. arXiv:1508.05949.
Bibcode:2015Natur.526..682H. doi:10.1038/nature15759.
PMID 26503041. S2CID 205246446.
27. ^ Aspect, Alain (16 December 2015). "Closing the Door on
Einstein and Bohr's Quantum Debate". Physics. 8: 123.
Bibcode:2015PhyOJ...8..123A. doi:10.1103/Physics.8.123.
28. ^ C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard. "Quantum cryptography:
Public key distribution and coin tossing". In Proceedings of IEEE
International Conference on Computers, Systems and Signal
Processing, volume 175, p. 8. New York, 1984.
http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/files/us-bennetc
/BB84highest.pdf Archived 30 January 2020 at the Wayback
Machine
29. ^ Ekert, A.K. (1991). "Quantum cryptography based on Bell's
theorem". Phys. Rev. Lett. 67 (6): 661–663.
Bibcode:1991PhRvL..67..661E.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.67.661. ISSN 0031-9007.
PMID 10044956. S2CID 27683254.
30. ^ "The Nobel Prize in Physics 2022". Nobel Prize (Press
release). The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences . 4 October
2022. Retrieved 5 October 2022.
31. ^ Asher Peres, Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods,
Kluwer, 1993; ISBN 0-7923-2549-4 p. 115.
32. ^ Anderson, Rupert W. (28 March 2015). The Cosmic
Compendium: Interstellar Travel (First ed.). The Cosmic
Compendium. p. 100. ISBN 9781329022027.
33. ^ Gibney, Elizabeth (2017). "Cosmic Test Bolsters Einstein's
"Spooky Action at a Distance"". Scientific American.
34. ^ I. Gerhardt; Q. Liu; A. Lamas-Linares; J. Skaar; V. Scarani; V.
Makarov; C. Kurtsiefer (2011), "Experimentally faking the
violation of Bell's inequalities", Phys. Rev. Lett., 107 (17):
170404, arXiv:1106.3224, Bibcode:2011PhRvL.107q0404G,
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.170404, PMID 22107491,
S2CID 16306493
35. ^ Santos, E. (2004). "The failure to perform a loophole-free test
of Bell's Inequality supports local realism". Foundations of
Physics. 34 (11): 1643–1673. Bibcode:2004FoPh...34.1643S.
doi:10.1007/s10701-004-1308-z. S2CID 123642560.
36. ^ Zbinden, H.; et al. (2001). "Experimental test of nonlocal
quantum correlations in relativistic configurations". Phys. Rev. A.
63 (2): 22111. arXiv:quant-ph/0007009.
Bibcode:2001PhRvA..63b2111Z.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.63.022111. S2CID 44611890.
37. ^ Some of the history of both referenced Zbinden, et al.
experiments is provided in Gilder, L., The Age of Entanglement,
Vintage Books, 2008, pp. 321–324.
38. ^ Cirel'son, B. S. (1980). "Quantum generalizations of Bell's
inequality". Letters in Mathematical Physics. 4 (2): 93–100.
Bibcode:1980LMaPh...4...93C. doi:10.1007/BF00417500.
S2CID 120680226.
39. ^ Wu, C. 's.; Shaknov, I. (1950). "The Angular Correlation of
Scattered Annihilation Radiation". Physical Review. 77 (1): 136.
Bibcode:1950PhRv...77..136W. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.77.136.
40. ^ Xiao-song Ma; Stefan Zotter; Johannes Kofler; Rupert Ursin;
Thomas Jennewein; Časlav Brukner; Anton Zeilinger (26 April
2012). "Experimental delayed-choice entanglement swapping".
Nature Physics. 8 (6): 480–485. arXiv:1203.4834.
Bibcode:2012NatPh...8..480M. doi:10.1038/nphys2294.
S2CID 119208488.
41. ^ Megidish, E.; Halevy, A.; Shacham, T.; Dvir, T.; Dovrat, L.;
Eisenberg, H. S. (2013). "Entanglement Swapping between
Photons that have Never Coexisted". Physical Review Letters.
110 (21): 210403. arXiv:1209.4191.
Bibcode:2013PhRvL.110u0403M.
doi:10.1103/physrevlett.110.210403. PMID 23745845.
S2CID 30063749.
42. ^ "Classical carrier could create entanglement".
physicsworld.com. 11 December 2013. Retrieved 14 June 2014.
43. ^ "Loophole-free Bell test | Ronald Hanson". Archived from the
original on 4 July 2018. Retrieved 24 October 2015.
 from a paradox". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2014.15781.
S2CID 124976589. Retrieved 13 October 2014.
45. ^ Rozatkar, Gaurav (16 August 2018). "Demonstration of
quantum entanglement". OSF.
46. ^ Moreva, Ekaterina (2014). "Time from quantum entanglement:
an experimental illustration". Physical Review A. 89 (5): 052122.
arXiv:1310.4691. Bibcode:2014PhRvA..89e2122M.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.89.052122. S2CID 118638346.
47. ^ Aron, Jacob (25 October 2013). "Entangled toy universe
shows time may be an illusion". Retrieved 8 January 2022.
48. ^ David Deutsch, The Beginning of infinity. Page 299
49. ^ "Quantum Experiment Shows How Time 'Emerges' from
Entanglement". Medium. 23 October 2013. Retrieved 13
October 2014.
50. ^ Van Raamsdonk, Mark (19 June 2010). "Building up
spacetime with quantum entanglement". General Relativity and
Gravitation. 42 (10): 2323–2329. arXiv:1005.3035.
Bibcode:2010GReGr..42.2323V.
doi:10.1007/s10714-010-1034-0. ISSN 0001-7701.
S2CID 189843725.
51. ^ Lee, Jae-Weon; Kim, Hyeong-Chan; Lee, Jungjai (2013).
"Gravity from quantum information". Journal of the Korean
Physical Society. 63 (5): 1094–1098. arXiv:1001.5445.
Bibcode:2013JKPS...63.1094L. doi:10.3938/jkps.63.1094.
ISSN 0374-4884. S2CID 118494859.
52. ^ Swingle, Brian; Van Raamsdonk, Mark (12 May 2014).
"Universality of Gravity from Entanglement". arXiv:1405.2933
[hep-th].
53. ^ Brunner, Nicolas; Cavalcanti, Daniel; Pironio, Stefano;
Scarani, Valerio; Wehner, Stephanie (2014). "Bell nonlocality".
Reviews of Modern Physics. 86 (2): 419–478. arXiv:1303.2849.
Bibcode:2014RvMP...86..419B.
doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.86.419. S2CID 119194006.
54. ^ Werner, R. F. (1989). "Quantum States with Einstein–
Podolsky–Rosen correlations admitting a hidden-variable
model". Physical Review A. 40 (8): 4277–4281.
Bibcode:1989PhRvA..40.4277W.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.40.4277. PMID 9902666.
55. ^ Augusiak, R.; Demianowicz, M.; Tura, J.; Acín, A. (2015).
"Entanglement and nonlocality are inequivalent for any number
of parties". Physical Review Letters. 115 (3): 030404.
arXiv:1407.3114. Bibcode:2015PhRvL.115c0404A.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.030404. hdl:2117/78836.
PMID 26230773. S2CID 29758483.
 Peres conjecture by showing Bell nonlocality from bound
entanglement". Nature Communications. 5 (1): 5297.
arXiv:1405.4502. Bibcode:2014NatCo...5.5297V.
doi:10.1038/ncomms6297. PMID 25370352. S2CID 5135148.
57. ^ In the literature "non-locality" is sometimes used to
characterize concepts that differ from the non-existence of a
local hidden variable model, e.g., whether states can be
distinguished by local measurements and which can occur also
for non-entangled states (see, e.g., Charles H. Bennett; David P.
DiVincenzo; Christopher A. Fuchs; Tal Mor; Eric Rains; Peter W.
Shor; John A. Smolin; William K. Wootters (1999). "Quantum
nonlocality without entanglement". Phys. Rev. A. 59 (2):
1070–1091. arXiv:quant-ph/9804053.
Bibcode:1999PhRvA..59.1070B.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.59.1070. S2CID 15282650.). This non-
standard use of the term is not discussed here.
58. ^ Jaeger G, Shimony A, Vaidman L (1995). "Two Interferometric
Complementarities". Phys. Rev. 51 (1): 54–67.
Bibcode:1995PhRvA..51...54J. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.51.54.
PMID 9911555.
59. ^ Nielsen, Michael A.; Chuang, Isaac L. (2000). Quantum
Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University
Press. pp. 112–113. ISBN 978-0-521-63503-5.
60. ^ Laloe, Franck (2001), "Do We Really Understand Quantum
Mechanics", American Journal of Physics, 69 (6): 655–701,
arXiv:quant-ph/0209123, Bibcode:2001AmJPh..69..655L,
doi:10.1119/1.1356698
61. ^ Gurvits L (2003). "Classical deterministic complexity of
Edmonds' Problem and quantum entanglement". Proceedings of
the thirty-fifth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing.
p. 10. arXiv:quant-ph/0303055. doi:10.1145/780542.780545.
ISBN 978-1-58113-674-6. S2CID 5745067.{{cite book}}:
CS1 maint: date and year (link)
62. ^ Horodecki M, Horodecki P, Horodecki R (1996). "Separability
of mixed states: necessary and sufficient conditions". Physics
Letters A. 223 (1): 210. arXiv:quant-ph/9605038.
Bibcode:1996PhLA..223....1H. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.252.496.
doi:10.1016/S0375-9601(96)00706-2. S2CID 10580997.
63. ^ Dirac, Paul Adrien Maurice (1930). "Note on exchange
phenomena in the Thomas atom" (PDF). Mathematical
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. 26 (3):
376–385. Bibcode:1930PCPS...26..376D.
doi:10.1017/S0305004100016108.
64. ^ Fan, H; Korepin V; Roychowdhury V (2004). "Entanglement in
a Valence-Bond Solid State". Physical Review Letters. 93 (22):
227203. arXiv:quant-ph/0406067.
 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.227203. PMID 15601113.
S2CID 28587190.
65. ^ Franchini, F.; Its, A. R.; Korepin, V. E.; Takhtajan, L. A. (2010).
"Spectrum of the density matrix of a large block of spins of the
XY model in one dimension". Quantum Information Processing.
10 (3): 325–341. arXiv:1002.2931.
doi:10.1007/s11128-010-0197-7. S2CID 6683370.
66. ^ Chitambar, Eric; Gour, Gilad (2019). "Quantum resource
theories". Reviews of Modern Physics. 91 (2): 025001.
arXiv:1806.06107. Bibcode:2019RvMP...91b5001C.
doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.91.025001. S2CID 119194947.
67. ^ Georgiev, Danko D.; Gudder, Stanley P. (2022). "Sensitivity of
entanglement measures in bipartite pure quantum states".
Modern Physics Letters B. 36 (22): 2250101–2250255.
arXiv:2206.13180. Bibcode:2022MPLB...3650101G.
doi:10.1142/S0217984922501019. S2CID 250072286.
68. ^ Jump up to: a b c Horodecki, Ryszard; Horodecki, Pawel;
Horodecki, Michal; Horodecki, Karol (2009). "Quantum
entanglement". Reviews of Modern Physics. 81 (2): 865–942.
arXiv:quant-ph/0702225. Bibcode:2009RvMP...81..865H.
doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.81.865. S2CID 59577352.
69. ^ Grassl, M.; Rötteler, M.; Beth, T. (1998). "Computing local
invariants of quantum-bit systems". Phys. Rev. A. 58 (3):
1833–1839. arXiv:quant-ph/9712040.
Bibcode:1998PhRvA..58.1833G.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.58.1833. S2CID 15892529.
70. ^ B. Kraus (2010). "Local unitary equivalence of multipartite pure
states". Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2): 020504. arXiv:0909.5152.
Bibcode:2010PhRvL.104b0504K.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.020504. PMID 20366579.
S2CID 29984499.
71. ^ M. A. Nielsen (1999). "Conditions for a Class of Entanglement
Transformations". Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (2): 436. arXiv:quant-
ph/9811053. Bibcode:1999PhRvL..83..436N.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.436. S2CID 17928003.
72. ^ Gour, G.; Wallach, N. R. (2013). "Classification of Multipartite
Entanglement of All Finite Dimensionality". Phys. Rev. Lett. 111
(6): 060502. arXiv:1304.7259. Bibcode:2013PhRvL.111f0502G.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.060502. PMID 23971544.
S2CID 1570745.
73. ^ Horodecki, M.; Horodecki, P.; Horodecki, R. (1998). "Mixed-
state entanglement and distillation: Is there a bound
entanglement in nature?". Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (1998):
5239–5242. arXiv:quant-ph/9801069.
Bibcode:1998PhRvL..80.5239H.
74. ^ H. M. Wiseman; S. J. Jones; A. C. Doherty (2007). "Steering,
Entanglement, Nonlocality, and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen
Paradox". Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (14): 140402. arXiv:quant-
ph/0612147. Bibcode:2007PhRvL..98n0402W.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.140402. PMID 17501251.
S2CID 30078867.
75. ^ Cerf, Nicolas J.; Cleve, Richard. "Information-theoretic
interpretation of quantum error-correcting codes" (PDF).
76. ^ Jump up to: a b Plenio, Martin B.; Virmani, Shashank (2007).
"An introduction to entanglement measures". Quant. Inf. Comp.
1: 1–51. arXiv:quant-ph/0504163.
Bibcode:2005quant.ph..4163P.
77. ^ Vedral, Vlatko (2002). "The role of relative entropy in quantum
information theory". Reviews of Modern Physics. 74 (1):
197–234. arXiv:quant-ph/0102094.
Bibcode:2002RvMP...74..197V.
doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.74.197. S2CID 6370982.
78. ^ Hill, S; Wootters, W. K. (1997). "Entanglement of a Pair of
Quantum Bits". Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (26): 5022–5025.
arXiv:quant-ph/9703041. Bibcode:1997PhRvL..78.5022H.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.5022. S2CID 9173232.
79. ^ Peres, Asher (1993). Quantum Theory: Concepts and
Methods. Kluwer. pp. 260–270. ISBN 0-7923-2549-4.
OCLC 28854083.
80. ^ Wolchover, Natalie (25 April 2014). "New Quantum Theory
Could Explain the Flow of Time". www.wired.com. Quanta
Magazine. Retrieved 27 April 2014.
81. ^ Lami, Ludovico; Regula, Bartosz (23 January 2023). "No
second law of entanglement manipulation after all". Nature
Physics. 19 (2): 184–189. arXiv:2111.02438.
Bibcode:2023NatPh..19..184L.
doi:10.1038/s41567-022-01873-9. S2CID 242757348. Retrieved
17 February 2023.
82. ^ Huang, Yichen (21 March 2014). "Computing quantum discord
is NP-complete". New Journal of Physics. 16 (3): 033027.
arXiv:1305.5941. Bibcode:2014NJPh...16c3027H.
doi:10.1088/1367-2630/16/3/033027. S2CID 118556793.
83. ^ Bouwmeester, Dik; Pan, Jian-Wei; Mattle, Klaus; Eibl,
Manfred; Weinfurter, Harald & Zeilinger, Anton (1997).
"Experimental Quantum Teleportation" (PDF). Nature. 390
(6660): 575–579. arXiv:1901.11004.
Bibcode:1997Natur.390..575B. doi:10.1038/37539.
S2CID 4422887.
84. ^ Richard Jozsa; Noah Linden (2002). "On the role of
entanglement in quantum computational speed-up".
 Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and
Engineering Sciences. 459 (2036): 2011–2032. arXiv:quant-
ph/0201143. Bibcode:2003RSPSA.459.2011J.
CiteSeerX 10.1.1.251.7637. doi:10.1098/rspa.2002.1097.
S2CID 15470259.
85. ^ Ekert, Artur K. (1991). "Quantum cryptography based on Bell's
theorem". Physical Review Letters. 67 (6): 661–663.
Bibcode:1991PhRvL..67..661E.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.67.661. PMID 10044956.
S2CID 27683254.
86. ^ Juan Yin; Yu-Huai Li; Sheng-Kai Liao; Meng Yang; Yuan Cao;
Liang Zhang; Ji-Gang Ren; Wen-Qi Cai; Wei-Yue Liu; Shuang-
Lin Li; Rong Shu; Yong-Mei Huang; Lei Deng; Li Li; Qiang
Zhang; Nai-Le Liu; Yu-Ao Chen; Chao-Yang Lu; Xiang-Bin
Wang; Feihu Xu; Jian-Yu Wang; Cheng-Zhi Peng; Artur K.
Ekert; Jian-Wei Pan (2020). "Entanglement-based secure
quantum cryptography over 1,120 kilometres". Nature. 582
(7813): 501–505. Bibcode:2020Natur.582..501Y.
doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2401-y. PMID 32541968.
S2CID 219692094.
87. ^ R. Renner; N. Gisin; B. Kraus (2005). "An information-theoretic
security proof for QKD protocols". Phys. Rev. A. 72: 012332.
arXiv:quant-ph/0502064. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.72.012332.
S2CID 119052621.
88. ^ S. Pirandola; U. L. Andersen; L. Banchi; M. Berta; D.
Bunandar; R. Colbeck; D. Englund; T. Gehring; C. Lupo; C.
Ottaviani; J. L. Pereira; M. Razavi; J. Shamsul Shaari; M.
Tomamichel; V. C. Usenko; G. Vallone; P. Villoresi; P. Wallden
(2020). "Advances in quantum cryptography". Adv. Opt. Photon.
12 (4): 1012–1236. arXiv:1906.01645.
Bibcode:2020AdOP...12.1012P. doi:10.1364/AOP.361502.
S2CID 174799187.
89. ^ Kitagawa, Masahiro; Ueda, Masahito (1993). "Squeezed Spin
States" (PDF). Phys. Rev. A. 47 (6): 5138–5143.
Bibcode:1993PhRvA..47.5138K. doi:10.1103/physreva.47.5138.
hdl:11094/77656. PMID 9909547.
90. ^ Wineland, D. J.; Bollinger, J. J.; Itano, W. M.; Moore, F. L.;
Heinzen, D. J. (1992). "Spin squeezing and reduced quantum
noise in spectroscopy". Phys. Rev. A. 46 (11): R6797–R6800.
Bibcode:1992PhRvA..46.6797W.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.46.R6797. PMID 9908086.
91. ^ Holland, M. J; Burnett, K (1993). "Interferometric detection of
optical phase shifts at the Heisenberg limit". Physical Review
Letters. 71 (9): 1355–1358. Bibcode:1993PhRvL..71.1355H.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.71.1355. PMID 10055519.
92. ^ Shadbolt, P. J.; Verde, M. R.; Peruzzo, A.; Politi, A.; Laing, A.;
Lobino, M.; Matthews, J. C. F.; Thompson, M. G.; O'Brien, J. L.
 and mixture with a reconfigurable photonic circuit". Nature
Photonics. 6 (1): 45–59. arXiv:1108.3309.
Bibcode:2012NaPho...6...45S. doi:10.1038/nphoton.2011.283.
S2CID 56206588.
93. ^ Akopian, N. (2006). "Entangled Photon Pairs from
Semiconductor Quantum Dots". Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2): 130501.
arXiv:quant-ph/0509060. Bibcode:2006PhRvL..96b0501D.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.020501. PMID 16486553.
S2CID 22040546.
94. ^ Hardy, Lucien (1992). "Quantum mechanics, local realistic
theories, and Lorentz-invariant realistic theories". Physical
Review Letters. 68 (20): 2981–2984.
Bibcode:1992PhRvL..68.2981H.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.2981. PMID 10045577.
95. ^ Georgiev, Danko; Cohen, Eliahu (2022). "Entanglement
measures for two-particle quantum histories". Physical Review
A. 106 (6): 062437. arXiv:2212.07502.
Bibcode:2022PhRvA.106f2437G.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.106.062437. S2CID 254685902.
96. ^ Lo Franco, Rosario; Compagno, Giuseppe (14 June 2018).
"Indistinguishability of Elementary Systems as a Resource for
Quantum Information Processing". Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (24):
240403. arXiv:1712.00706. Bibcode:2018PhRvL.120x0403L.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.240403. PMID 29957003.
S2CID 49562954.
97. ^ Gurvits, L., Classical deterministic complexity of Edmonds'
problem and quantum entanglement, in Proceedings of the 35th
ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, ACM Press, New
York, 2003.
98. ^ Sevag Gharibian (2010). "Strong NP-Hardness of the
Quantum Separability Problem". Quantum Information and
Computation. 10 (3&4): 343–360. arXiv:0810.4507.
doi:10.26421/QIC10.3-4-11. S2CID 621887.
99. ^ Hofmann, Holger F.; Takeuchi, Shigeki (22 September 2003).
"Violation of local uncertainty relations as a signature of
entanglement". Physical Review A. 68 (3): 032103. arXiv:quant-
ph/0212090. Bibcode:2003PhRvA..68c2103H.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.68.032103. S2CID 54893300.
100. ^ Gühne, Otfried (18 March 2004). "Characterizing
Entanglement via Uncertainty Relations". Physical Review
Letters. 92 (11): 117903. arXiv:quant-ph/0306194.
Bibcode:2004PhRvL..92k7903G.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.117903. PMID 15089173.
S2CID 5696147.
101. ^ Gühne, Otfried; Lewenstein, Maciej (24 August 2004).
 Review A. 70 (2): 022316. arXiv:quant-ph/0403219.
Bibcode:2004PhRvA..70b2316G.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.70.022316. S2CID 118952931.
102. ^ Huang, Yichen (29 July 2010). "Entanglement criteria via
concave-function uncertainty relations". Physical Review A. 82
(1): 012335. Bibcode:2010PhRvA..82a2335H.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.82.012335.
103. ^ Gühne, Otfried; Tóth, Géza (2009). "Entanglement detection".
Physics Reports. 474 (1–6): 1–75. arXiv:0811.2803.
Bibcode:2009PhR...474....1G.
doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2009.02.004. S2CID 119288569.
104. ^ Friis, Nicolai; Vitagliano, Giuseppe; Malik, Mehul; Huber,
Marcus (2019). "Entanglement certification from theory to
experiment". Nature Reviews Physics. 1: 72–87.
arXiv:1906.10929. doi:10.1038/s42254-018-0003-5.
ISSN 2522-5820. S2CID 125658647.
105. ^ Leinaas, Jon Magne; Myrheim, Jan; Ovrum, Eirik (2006).
"Geometrical aspects of entanglement". Physical Review A. 74
(1): 012313. arXiv:quant-ph/0605079.
Bibcode:2006PhRvA..74a2313L.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.74.012313. S2CID 119443360.
106. ^ Simon, R. (2000). "Peres-Horodecki Separability Criterion for
Continuous Variable Systems". Physical Review Letters. 84
(12): 2726–2729. arXiv:quant-ph/9909044.
Bibcode:2000PhRvL..84.2726S.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.2726. PMID 11017310.
S2CID 11664720.
107. ^ Duan, Lu-Ming; Giedke, G.; Cirac, J. I.; Zoller, P. (2000).
"Inseparability Criterion for Continuous Variable Systems".
Physical Review Letters. 84 (12): 2722–2725. arXiv:quant-
ph/9908056. Bibcode:2000PhRvL..84.2722D.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.2722. PMID 11017309.
S2CID 9948874.
108. ^ Werner, R. F.; Wolf, M. M. (2001). "Bound Entangled Gaussian
States". Physical Review Letters. 86 (16): 3658–3661.
arXiv:quant-ph/0009118. Bibcode:2001PhRvL..86.3658W.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.3658. PMID 11328047.
S2CID 20897950.
109. ^ Shchukin, E.; Vogel, W. (2005). "Inseparability Criteria for
Continuous Bipartite Quantum States". Physical Review Letters.
95 (23): 230502. arXiv:quant-ph/0508132.
Bibcode:2005PhRvL..95w0502S.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.230502. PMID 16384285.
S2CID 28595936.
110. ^ Hillery, Mark; Zubairy, M.Suhail (2006). "Entanglement
 (5): 050503. arXiv:quant-ph/0507168.
Bibcode:2006PhRvL..96e0503H.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.050503. PMID 16486912.
S2CID 43756465.
111. ^ Walborn, S.; Taketani, B.; Salles, A.; Toscano, F.; de Matos
Filho, R. (2009). "Entropic Entanglement Criteria for Continuous
Variables". Physical Review Letters. 103 (16): 160505.
arXiv:0909.0147. Bibcode:2009PhRvL.103p0505W.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.160505. PMID 19905682.
S2CID 10523704.
112. ^ Yichen Huang (October 2013). "Entanglement Detection:
Complexity and Shannon Entropic Criteria". IEEE Transactions
on Information Theory. 59 (10): 6774–6778.
doi:10.1109/TIT.2013.2257936. S2CID 7149863.
113. ^ "China launches world's first quantum science satellite".
physicsworld.com. 16 August 2016. Retrieved 7 December
2021.
114. ^ Yin, Juan; Cao, Yuan; Li, Yu-Huai; Liao, Sheng-Kai; Zhang,
Liang; Ren, Ji-Gang; Cai, Wen-Qi; Liu, Wei-Yue; Li, Bo; Dai,
Hui; Li, Guang-Bing; Lu, Qi-Ming; Gong, Yun-Hong; Xu, Yu; Li,
Shuang-Lin; Li, Feng-Zhi; Yin, Ya-Yun; Jiang, Zi-Qing; Li, Ming;
Jia, Jian-Jun; Ren, Ge; He, Dong; Zhou, Yi-Lin; Zhang, Xiao-
Xiang; Wang, Na; Chang, Xiang; Zhu, Zhen-Cai; Liu, Nai-Le;
Chen, Yu-Ao; Lu, Chao-Yang; Shu, Rong; Peng, Cheng-Zhi;
Wang, Jian-Yu; Pan, Jian-Wei (2017). "Satellite-based
entanglement distribution over 1200 kilometers". Science. 356
(6343): 1140–1144. arXiv:1707.01339.
doi:10.1126/science.aan3211. PMID 28619937.
115. ^ "China's quantum satellite achieves 'spooky action' at record
distance". 14 June 2017.
116. ^ Frank Jensen: Introduction to Computational Chemistry. Wiley,
2007, ISBN 978-0-470-01187-4.
117. ^ lcyarris (10 May 2010). "Untangling the Quantum
Entanglement Behind Photosynthesis: Berkeley scientists shine
new light on green plant secrets - Berkeley Lab". Berkeley Lab
News Center. Retrieved 23 August 2023.
118. ^ Mohan Sarovar, Akihito Ishizaki, Graham R. Fleming, K.
Birgitta Whaley: Quantum entanglement in photosynthetic light
harvesting complexes. arXiv:0905.3787
119. ^ Tempelaar, R.; Jansen, T. L. C.; Knoester, J. (2014).
"Vibrational Beatings Conceal Evidence of Electronic Coherence
in the FMO Light-Harvesting Complex". Journal of Physical
Chemistry B. 118 (45): 12865–12872. doi:10.1021/jp510074q.
PMID 25321492.
120. ^ Christenson, N.; Kauffmann, H. F.; Pullerits, T.; Mancal, T.
 Complexes". Journal of Physical Chemistry B. 116 (25):
7449–7454. arXiv:1201.6325. Bibcode:2012arXiv1201.6325C.
doi:10.1021/jp304649c. PMC 3789255. PMID 22642682.
121. ^ Kolli, A.; O’Reilly, E. J.; Scholes, G. D.; Olaya-Castro, A.
(2012). "The fundamental role of quantized vibrations in
coherent light harvesting by cryptophyte algae". Journal of
Chem. Phys. 137 (17): 174109. arXiv:1203.5056.
Bibcode:2012JChPh.137q4109K. doi:10.1063/1.4764100.
PMID 23145719. S2CID 20156821.
122. ^ Butkus, V.; Zigmantas, D.; Valkunas, L.; Abramavicius, D.
(2012). "Vibrational vs. electronic coherences in 2D spectrum of
molecular systems". Chem. Phys. Letters. 545 (30): 40–43.
arXiv:1201.2753. Bibcode:2012CPL...545...40B.
doi:10.1016/j.cplett.2012.07.014. S2CID 96663719.
123. ^ Tiwari, V.; Peters, W. K.; Jonas, D. M. (2013). "Electronic
resonance with anticorrelated pigment vibrations drives
photosynthetic energy transfer outside the adiabatic framework".
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA. 110
(4): 1203–1208. doi:10.1073/pnas.1211157110. PMC 3557059.
PMID 23267114.
124. ^ Thyrhaug, E.; Zidek, K.; Dostal, J.; Bina, D.; Zigmantas, D.
(2016). "Exciton Structure and Energy Transfer in the
Fenna−Matthews−Olson Complex". Journal of Physical
Chemistry Letters. 7 (9): 1653–1660.
doi:10.1021/acs.jpclett.6b00534. PMID 27082631.
S2CID 26355154.
125. ^ Fujihashi, Y.; Fleming, G. R.; Ishizaki, A. (2015). "Impact of
environmentally induced fluctuations on quantum mechanically
mixed electronic and vibrational pigment states in
photosynthetic energy transfer and 2D electronic spectra".
Journal of Chem. Phys. 142 (21): 212403. arXiv:1505.05281.
Bibcode:2015JChPh.142u2403F. doi:10.1063/1.4914302.
PMID 26049423. S2CID 1082742.
126. ^ "Quantum entanglement realized between distant large
objects". phys.org. Retrieved 9 October 2020.
127. ^ Thomas, Rodrigo A.; Parniak, Michał; Østfeldt, Christoffer;
Møller, Christoffer B.; Bærentsen, Christian; Tsaturyan,
Yeghishe; Schliesser, Albert; Appel, Jürgen; Zeuthen, Emil;
Polzik, Eugene S. (21 September 2020). "Entanglement
between distant macroscopic mechanical and spin systems".
Nature Physics. 17 (2): 228–233. arXiv:2003.11310.
doi:10.1038/s41567-020-1031-5. ISSN 1745-2481.
S2CID 214641162. Retrieved 9 October 2020.
128. ^ "Vibrating drumheads are entangled quantum mechanically".
Physics World. 17 May 2021. Retrieved 14 June 2021.
 Woolley, Matthew J.; Sillanpää, Mika A. (7 May 2021).
"Quantum mechanics–free subsystem with mechanical
oscillators". Science. 372 (6542): 625–629. arXiv:2009.12902.
Bibcode:2021Sci...372..625M. doi:10.1126/science.abf5389.
ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 33958476. S2CID 221971015.
Retrieved 14 June 2021.
130. ^ Kotler, Shlomi; Peterson, Gabriel A.; Shojaee, Ezad; Lecocq,
Florent; Cicak, Katarina; Kwiatkowski, Alex; Geller, Shawn;
Glancy, Scott; Knill, Emanuel; Simmonds, Raymond W.;
Aumentado, José; Teufel, John D. (7 May 2021). "Direct
observation of deterministic macroscopic entanglement".
Science. 372 (6542): 622–625. arXiv:2004.05515.
Bibcode:2021Sci...372..622K. doi:10.1126/science.abf2998.
ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 33958475. S2CID 233872863.
Retrieved 14 June 2021.
131. ^ Marletto, C.; Coles, D. M.; Farrow, T.; Vedral, V. (2018).
"Entanglement between living bacteria and quantized light
witnessed by Rabi splitting". Journal of Physics
Communications. 2 (10): 101001. arXiv:1702.08075.
Bibcode:2018JPhCo...2j1001M. doi:10.1088/2399-6528/aae224.
S2CID 119236759.
132. ^ O'Callaghan, Jonathan (29 October 2018). ""Schrödinger's
Bacterium" Could Be a Quantum Biology Milestone – A recent
experiment may have placed living organisms in a state of
quantum entanglement". Scientific American. Retrieved 29
October 2018.
133. ^ Krisnanda, T.; Marletto, C.; Vedral, V.; Paternostro, M.;
Paterek, T. (2018). "Probing quantum features of photosynthetic
organisms". npj Quantum Information. 4: 60. arXiv:1711.06485.
Bibcode:2018npjQI...4...60K. doi:10.1038/s41534-018-0110-2.

Further reading[edit]
Albert, David Z.; Galchen, Rivka (2009). "Was Einstein Wrong?:
A Quantum Threat to Special Relativity". Scientific American.
300 (3): 32–39. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0309-32.
PMID 19253771.
Bengtsson I.; Życzkowski K. (2006). "Geometry of Quantum
States". An Introduction to Quantum Entanglement. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. second, revised edition (2017)
Bub, Jeffrey (2019). "Quantum Entanglement and Information".
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford, California:
Stanford University.
Cramer JG (2015). The Quantum Handshake: Entanglement,
Nonlocality and Transactions. Springer Verlag.
Duarte FJ (2019). Fundamentals of Quantum Entanglement.
Bristol, UK: Institute of Physics. ISBN 978-0-7503-2226-3.
Gühne O, Tóth G (2009). "Entanglement detection". Physics
Reports. 474 (1–6): 1–75. arXiv:0811.2803.
Bibcode:2009PhR...474....1G.
doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2009.02.004. S2CID 119288569.
Bhaskara VS, Panigrahi PK (2017). "Generalized concurrence
measure for faithful quantification of multiparticle pure state
entanglement using Lagrange's identity and wedge product".
Quantum Information Processing. 16 (5): 118.
arXiv:1607.00164. Bibcode:2017QuIP...16..118B.
doi:10.1007/s11128-017-1568-0. S2CID 43754114.
Swain SN, Bhaskara VS, Panigrahi PK (2022). "Generalized
entanglement measure for continuous-variable systems". Phys.
Rev. A. 105 (5): 052441. arXiv:1706.01448.
Bibcode:2022PhRvA.105e2441S.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.105.052441. S2CID 239885759.
Jaeger G (2009). Entanglement, Information, and the
Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Heildelberg: Springer.
ISBN 978-3-540-92127-1.
Steward EG (2008). Quantum Mechanics: Its Early
Development and the Road to Entanglement. Imperial College
Press. ISBN 978-1-86094-978-4.

External links[edit]
Explanatory video by Scientific American magazine
Entanglement experiment with photon pairs – interactive
Audio – Cain/Gay (2009) Astronomy Cast Entanglement
Spooky Actions At A Distance?: Oppenheimer Lecture, Prof.
David Mermin (Cornell University) Univ. California, Berkeley,
2008. Non-mathematical popular lecture on YouTube, posted
Mar 2008
"Quantum Entanglement versus Classical Correlation"
(Interactive demonstration)