Jump to content

User:Johnjbarton/sandbox/quantum entanglement concept

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Johnjbarton (talk | contribs) at 19:28, 22 November 2024 (Paradox: ce). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

History

Article headline regarding the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) paradox paper, in the May 4, 1935 issue of The New York Times

Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr engaged in a long-running collegial dispute about the meaning of quantum mechanics, now known as the Bohr–Einstein debates. During these debates, Einstein introduced a thought experiment about a box that emits a photon. He noted that the experimenter's choice of what measurement to make upon the box will change what can be predicted about the photon, even if the photon is very far away. This argument, which Einstein had formulated by 1931, was an early recognition of the phenomenon that would later be called entanglement.[1] That same year, Hermann Weyl observed in his textbook on group theory and quantum mechanics that quantum systems made of multiple interacting pieces exhibit a kind of Gestalt.[2][3] In 1932, Erwin Schrödinger wrote down the defining equations of quantum entnglement but set them aside, unpublished.[4] In 1935, Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen published a paper on what is now known as the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) paradox, a thought experiment that attempted to show that "the quantum-mechanical description of physical reality given by wave functions is not complete."[5] Their concept had two systems interact, then separate, and they showed that afterwards quantum mechanics cannot describe the two systems individually.

Shortly after this paper appeared, 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."[6] Schrödinger followed up with a full paper defining and discussing the notion of entanglement,[7] saying "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."[8] Like Einstein, Schrödinger was dissatisfied with the concept of entanglement, reasoning that "we do not have a quantum mechanics that takes into account relativity theory".[9] Einstein later famously derided entanglement as "spukhafte Fernwirkung"[10] or "spooky action at a distance."

In 1946, John Archibald Wheeler suggested studying the polarization of pairs of gamma-ray photons produced by electron-positron annihilation.[11] Chien-Shiung Wu and I. Shaknov carried out this experiment in 1949,[12] thereby demonstrating that the entangled particle pairs considered by EPR could be created in the laboratory.[13]

Despite Schrödinger's claim of its importance, little work on entanglement was published for decades after his paper was published.[7] In 1964 John S. Bell showed that quantum entanglement predicted a different kind of correlation, one not discussed in the EPR paper, and this correlation cannot be reproduced by any local hidden variable theory alternative to quantum mechanics.[14][15]: 405  His results became known as Bell's inequality and it has been subjected to numerous experimental tests. An early experimental breakthrough was due to Carl Kocher,[16][17] 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.[citation needed] Stuart Freedman and John Clauser built on Kocher's experiment and found a violation of the local realism limit in 1972.[18] Alain Aspect and his team improved upon this test in 1982, and many other experiments followed.[19][20][21]

While Bell actively discouraged students from pursuing work like his as too esoteric, after a talk at Oxford a student named Artur Ekert suggested that these entanglement correlations could be used as a resource for communication.[22]: 315  Ekert followed up by publishing a quantum key distribution protocol called E91 that uses the violation of a Bell's inequality as a proof of security.[23][24]: 874

In 1992, the entanglement concept was leveraged to propose quantum teleportation,[25] an effect that was realized experimentally in 1997.[26][27][28]

Beginning in the mid-1990's, Anton Zeilinger used the generation of entanglement via parametric down-conversion to develop entanglement swapping.[22]: 317  and demonstrate quantum cryptography with entangled photons.[29][30]

In 2022, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Aspect, Clauser, and Zeilinger "for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science".[31]

Concept

Wavefunctions

The wavefunction for two non-interacting particles can be written as the product of two one-particle wavefunctions:[32]: 253  In this case particle 1 can be said to be in state a and particle 2 in state b. Other wavefunctions built up from linear combinations (also known as superpositions) of single-particle wavefunctions cannot be factored as a product of states, for example: These are entangled states, that is to say, they do not represent individual particles but an inseparable whole.[8]: 555 Measurements on such a system results in characteristics of only one of the terms in the sum, in proportion to the square of its weight in the combination. For the above state, the predicted energy measurements can be summarized as:

Predicted energy measurements
Probability Measurement 1 Measurement 2
36%
64%

The first measurement gives one of the values randomly, but the second measurement is correlated with the first one.[32]: 253  In entanglement, measurements of properties become correlated.[33][7]: 812

Spin systems

Entanglement is often introduced using spin states.[7] Descriptions often use two experimentalists, Alice and Bob, each with their own lab and spin-measurement equipment.[34]: 150  Working independently, Alice and Bob might measure a spin in their labs as spin up or spin down, giving a total of four outcomes or degrees of freedom. A composite space of states describes systems that include the spins in the two labs together. Using the bra–ket notation, Alice measuring spin up while Bob measures spin down in the same experiment could be written as . When the states in the two labs interact before measurement, new non-classical entangled states arise that cannot be described as two independent spins. The total quantum space has six degrees of freedom.[34]: 166  The entangled singlet state: is an example of a state of the composite system that has no analog among the states that represent results in the two labs independently. This singlet state is an example of a maximally entangled state. The entanglement means Alice and Bob will measure correlated spin values: if Bob measures spin up in his lab on Alpha Centauri, Alice in Palo Alto measures spin down. However, nothing happens to Alice's model immediately after Bob's measurement.[34]: 166  Alice's measurements are correlated with Bob's but they have no knowledge of the correlation until they communicate with each other.[35]: 95

Bell states

Bell states are four entangled basis states that describe a two particle system:[24][36]: 873  Also called EPR states, these states are maximally entangled and a measurement on these states is equally likely to find a subsystem in as to find . Bell states play an important role in quantum information and communication theory.

Multipartite systems

An entangled state of three particles called the Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger state allows succinct, deterministic evidence against any local hidden-variable theory.[37]: 367 This state can be written as a wavefunction:[38]: 152  where the function f represents the physical separation of three measurements on the state and the numbers in angle brackets represent spin states identified by their eigenvalue along the z axis. At each location 1, 2, or 3, spin operators along other axes x and y have these effects: If measurements are along the y axis are applied at locations 2 and 3 and along x at location 1, the wavefunction is an eigenstate of the combined operators eigenvalue 1: If however all three measurements are the x axis, the eigenvalue is -1:[39] A model for this state as independent particles with inherent spin properties would predict that the measurement at location 1 would depend only the the particle, not on the measurements at the other 2 locations. Such a model would predict a +1, exactly the opposite the observed value.

Mermin's three state thought experiment device

N. David Mermin demonstrated the non-classical quantum entanglement results from a three particle state with a thought experiment that used three identical detectors. Each detector flashed red or green depending on the eigenvalue (1, -1); each detector has a switch corresponding to the axis measured (x, y). A source in the middle emits particles into all three detectors. Mermin shows how the results that correspond to quantum mechanics cannot be predicted if you assume that particles from the source contain instructions on how to respond to the switch settings.[39]

Multipartite states are useful in quantum teleportation and entanglement swapping,[37]: 377  and are used in quantum computing systems.[40]

Quantum teleportation and entanglement swapping

If Alice and Bob share a Bell state, Alice can tell Bob over a telephone call how to reproduce a quantum state, , she has in her lab. Alice performs measurements on the quantum state using the Bell state and tells Bob the results. Bob operates on his Bell state to create a state that matches Alice's . The is said to be "quantum teleported" through the Bell state quantum channel with the understanding that classical communications limited to the speed of light are required.[41]: 27 [24]: 875 

Entanglement states from independent sources can become entangled through Bell state analysis.

Entanglement swapping is a form of quantum teleportation. Four particles are involved, arriving at locations labeled Alice, Bob, Clare, and David. Two independent and separate sources of entanglement each send two particle states with one particle from each source, for Bob and Clare, entering a Bell state analysis. Together Bob and Clare project onto a Bell state basis and tell Alice and Bob the results. Alice and Bob they can operate on their states to find that their particles from independent sources are entangled.[24]: 876 

Practical complications

Simple descriptions of entanglement use pure states. A general theoretical analysis also involves

Paradox

Two quantum paradoxes relate to entanglement. These arise from a misuse of quantum concepts.[35]: 94 

The first paradox is known as the EPR paradox. A singlet state, as discussed in the spin example but with the component states marked A for Alice and B for Bob, shows that if Alice measures spin up, Bob will measure spin down: their results are correlated. Since the particles Alice and Bob measure came from the same source, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen argued that origin of the correlation lies inside those particles.[39]: 732  John Stewart Bell showed that the EPR reasoning meant that the particles would have simultaneous properties of spin along other axes, properties that cannot be known according to quantum mechanics. Experiments measure correlations between Alice's and Bob's measurements of spin along these other axes, correlations that the EPR reasoning do not predict.[44]: 40  The intuitive EPR reasoning is not correct. Another way to say this is that the entangled singlet state completely specifies the composite system but contains no information about the components.[34]: 231  There are no hidden variables to explain the correlations. The component information only appears after a measurement.

Without local hidden variables to explain the correlation, the alternative would seem to be "spooky action at a distance".[44]: 40  In this model, Alice's measurement seems to causes action that instantaneously alters the state even if Bob is far away. However, the quantum mechanics model does not account for the principle of relativity and this instantaneous change is an illusion.[35]: 95  The results on Alice's end have no effect on Bob's knowledge. Alice's results are not known to Bob. Nothing at his distant location has changed. His only options are to measure the state himself or wait to hear from Alice using communications at the speed of light.[34]: 226 

Emergent time

There is a fundamental conflict, referred to as the problem of time, between the way the concept of time is used in quantum mechanics, and the role it plays in general relativity. In standard quantum theories time acts as an independent background through which states evolve, while general relativity treats time as a dynamical variable which relates directly with matter. Part of the effort to reconcile these approaches to time results in the Wheeler–DeWitt equation, which predicts the state of the universe is timeless or static, contrary to ordinary experience.[45] Work started by Don Page and William Wootters[46][47][48] suggests that the universe appears to evolve for observers on the inside because of energy entanglement between an evolving system and a clock system, both within the universe.[45] In this way the overall system can remain timeless while parts experience time via entanglement. The issue remains an open question closely related to attempts at theories of quantum gravity.[49][50]

Emergent gravity

In general relativity gravity arises from the curvature of spacetime and that curvature derives from the distribution of matter. However, matter is governed by quantum mechanics. Integration of these two theories faces many problems. In an (unrealistic) model space called the anti-de Sitter space, the AdS/CFT correspondence allows a quantum gravitational system to be related to a quantum field theory without gravity.[51] Using this correspondence, Mark Van Raamsdonk suggested that spacetime arises as an emergent phenomenon of the quantum degrees of freedom that are entangled and live in the boundary of the spacetime.[52]

  1. ^ Howard, Don (1990). "Nicht Sein Kann Was Nicht Sein Darf, or The Prehistory of EPR, 1909–1935: Einstein's Early Worries About The Quantum Mechanics of Composite Systems" (PDF). In Miller, A. I. (ed.). Sixty-Two Years of Uncertainty. New York: Plenum Press. pp. 61–111.
  2. ^ Weyl, Hermann (1931). Gruppentheorie und Quantenmechanik [Group Theory and Quantum Mechanics]. Translated by Robertson, H. P. (2nd ed.). pp. 92–93.
  3. ^ Heathcote, Adrian (2021). "Multiplicity and indiscernability". Synthese. 198 (9): 8779–8808. doi:10.1007/s11229-020-02600-8. For Weyl clearly anticipated entanglement by noting that the pure state of a coupled system need not be determined by the states of the composites [...] Weyl deserves far more credit than he has received for laying out the basis for entanglement—more than six years before Schrödinger coined the term.
  4. ^ Christandl, Matthias (2006). The Structure of Bipartite Quantum States – Insights from Group Theory and Cryptography (PhD thesis). University of Cambridge. pp. vi, iv. arXiv:quant-ph/0604183. Bibcode:2006PhDT.......289C.
  5. ^ 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.
  6. ^ Kumar, M., Quantum, Icon Books, 2009, p. 313.
  7. ^ a b c d Schroeder, Daniel V. (2017-11-01). "Entanglement isn't just for spin". American Journal of Physics. 85 (11): 812–820. arXiv:1703.10620. doi:10.1119/1.5003808. ISSN 0002-9505.
  8. ^ a b Schrödinger, Erwin (1935). "Discussion of probability relations between separated systems". Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. 31 (4): 555–563. Bibcode:1935PCPS...31..555S. doi:10.1017/S0305004100013554. S2CID 121278681.
  9. ^ Alisa Bokulich, Gregg Jaeger, Philosophy of Quantum Information and Entanglement, Cambridge University Press, 2010, p. xv.
  10. ^ 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.)
  11. ^ Wheeler, J. A. (1946). "Polyelectrons". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 48 (3): 219–238. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1946.tb31764.x.
  12. ^ 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.
  13. ^ Duarte, F. J. (2012). "The origin of quantum entanglement experiments based on polarization measurements". European Physical Journal H. 37 (2): 311–318. Bibcode:2012EPJH...37..311D. doi:10.1140/epjh/e2012-20047-y.
  14. ^ Bell, J. S. (1964). "On the Einstein-Poldolsky-Rosen paradox". Physics Physique Физика. 1 (3): 195–200. doi:10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195.
  15. ^ Mermin, N. David (1981). "Quantum Mysteries for Anyone". The Journal of Philosophy. 78 (7): 397–408. doi:10.2307/2026482. ISSN 0022-362X. JSTOR 2026482.
  16. ^ Kocher, C. A.; Commins, E. D. (1967). "Polarization Correlation of Photons Emitted in an Atomic Cascade". Physical Review Letters. 18 (15): 575–577. Bibcode:1967PhRvL..18..575K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.18.575.
  17. ^ Kocher, Carl Alvin (1967-05-01). Polarization Correlation of Photons Emitted in an Atomic Cascade (PhD thesis). University of California.
  18. ^ 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.
  19. ^ 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.
  20. ^ 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.
  21. ^ 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.
  22. ^ a b Gilder, Louisa (2009). The age of entanglement: when quantum physics was reborn (1. Vintage Book ed.). New York, NY: Vintage Books. ISBN 978-1-4000-9526-1.
  23. ^ 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.
  24. ^ a b c d 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.
  25. ^ Bennett, Charles H.; Brassard, Gilles; Crépeau, Claude; Jozsa, Richard; Peres, Asher; Wootters, William K. (1993-03-29). "Teleporting an Unknown Quantum State via Dual Classical and Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen Channels". Physical Review Letters. 70 (13): 1895–1899. Bibcode:1993PhRvL..70.1895B. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.46.9405. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.70.1895. PMID 10053414.
  26. ^ Lindley, David (2010-01-08). "Landmarks: Teleportation is not Science Fiction". Physics: 1. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.70.1895. Retrieved 2024-11-16.
  27. ^ Bouwmeester, Dik; Pan, Jian-Wei; Mattle, Klaus; Eibl, Manfred; Weinfurter, Harald; Zeilinger, Anton (1997-12-01). "Experimental quantum teleportation". Nature. 390 (6660): 575–579. arXiv:1901.11004. Bibcode:1997Natur.390..575B. doi:10.1038/37539. S2CID 4422887.
  28. ^ Boschi, D.; Branca, S.; De Martini, F.; Hardy, L.; Popescu, S. (1998-02-09). "Experimental Realization of Teleporting an Unknown Pure Quantum State via Dual Classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Channels". Physical Review Letters. 80 (6): 1121–1125. arXiv:quant-ph/9710013. Bibcode:1998PhRvL..80.1121B. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.1121. S2CID 15020942.
  29. ^ Jennewein, T.; Simon, C.; Weihs, G.; Weinfurter, H.; Zeilinger, A. (2000). "Quantum Cryptography with Entangled Photons". Physical Review Letters. 84 (20): 4729–4732. arXiv:quant-ph/9912117. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.4729.
  30. ^ Del Santo, F; Schwarzhans, E. (2022). ""Philosophysics" at the University of Vienna: The (Pre-) History of Foundations of Quantum Physics in the Viennese Cultural Context". Physics in Perspective. 24 (2–3): 125–153. arXiv:2011.11969. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198844495.013.0026 (inactive 21 November 2024).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2024 (link)
  31. ^ "The Nobel Prize in Physics 2022" (Press release). The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. 4 October 2022. Retrieved 5 October 2022.
  32. ^ a b Griffiths, David J.; Schroeter, Darrell F. (20 November 2019). Introduction to Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-10314-5.
  33. ^ Bokulich, Alisa; Jaeger, Gregg, eds. (2010). Philosophy of Quantum Information and Entanglement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. xiii–xxx. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511676550.002. ISBN 978-0-521-89876-8. Entanglement can be understood as an extraordinary degree of correlation between states of quantum systems – a correlation that cannot be given an explanation in terms of something like a common cause.
  34. ^ a b c d e f Susskind, Leonard; Friedman, Art; Susskind, Leonard (2014). Quantum mechanics: the theoretical minimum; [what you need to know to start doing physics]. The theoretical minimum / Leonard Susskind and George Hrabovsky. New York, NY: Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-06290-4.
  35. ^ a b c Peres, Asher; Terno, Daniel R. (2004-01-06). "Quantum information and relativity theory". Reviews of Modern Physics. 76 (1): 93–123. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.76.93. ISSN 0034-6861.
  36. ^ 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. (2012). "Generating, manipulating and measuring entanglement 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.
  37. ^ a b Erhard, Manuel; Krenn, Mario; Zeilinger, Anton (2020). "Advances in high-dimensional quantum entanglement". Nature Reviews Physics. 2 (7): 365–381. doi:10.1038/s42254-020-0193-5. ISSN 2522-5820.
  38. ^ Peres, Asher (1993). Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods. Kluwer. §11-6. ISBN 0-7923-2549-4.
  39. ^ a b c Mermin, N. David (1990-08-01). "Quantum mysteries revisited". American Journal of Physics. 58 (8): 731–734. Bibcode:1990AmJPh..58..731M. doi:10.1119/1.16503. ISSN 0002-9505. S2CID 119911419.
  40. ^ Cruz, Diogo; Fournier, Romain; Gremion, Fabien; Jeannerot, Alix; Komagata, Kenichi; Tosic, Tara; Thiesbrummel, Jarla; Chan, Chun Lam; Macris, Nicolas; Dupertuis, Marc‐André; Javerzac‐Galy, Clément (2019). "Efficient Quantum Algorithms for GHZ and W States, and Implementation on the IBM Quantum Computer". Advanced Quantum Technologies. 2 (5–6). doi:10.1002/qute.201900015. ISSN 2511-9044.
  41. ^ Nielsen, Michael A.; Chuang, Isaac L. (2010). Quantum computation and quantum information (10 ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. ISBN 978-0-521-63503-5.
  42. ^ Benatti, F.; Floreanini, R.; Franchini, F.; Marzolino, U. (2020-09-25). "Entanglement in indistinguishable particle systems". Physics Reports. Entanglement in indistinguishable particle systems. 878: 1–27. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2020.07.003. ISSN 0370-1573.
  43. ^ Aharonov, Yakir; Rohrlich, Daniel (2005). Quantum paradoxes: quantum theory for the perplexed. Physics textbook. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH. ISBN 978-3-527-40391-2.
  44. ^ a b Mermin, N. David (1985). "Is the Moon There When Nobody Looks? Reality and the Quantum Theory". Physics Today. 38 (4): 38. doi:10.1063/1.880968.
  45. ^ a b 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.
  46. ^ Page, Don N.; Wootters, William K. (1983-06-15). "Evolution without evolution: Dynamics described by stationary observables". Physical Review D. 27 (12): 2885–2892. Bibcode:1983PhRvD..27.2885P. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.27.2885.
  47. ^ Rovelli, Carlo (1990-10-15). "Quantum mechanics without time: A model". Physical Review D. 42 (8): 2638–2646. Bibcode:1990PhRvD..42.2638R. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.42.2638. PMID 10013133.
  48. ^ Giovannetti, Vittorio; Lloyd, Seth; Maccone, Lorenzo (2015-08-26). "Quantum time". Physical Review D. 92 (4): 045033. arXiv:1504.04215. Bibcode:2015PhRvD..92d5033G. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.045033. hdl:1721.1/98287. S2CID 85537706.
  49. ^ Altaie, M. Basil; Hodgson, Daniel; Beige, Almut (2022-06-03). "Time and Quantum Clocks: A Review of Recent Developments". Frontiers in Physics. 10. doi:10.3389/fphy.2022.897305. ISSN 2296-424X.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  50. ^ Isham, C. J. (1993). Ibort, L. A.; Rodríguez, M. A. (eds.). Integrable Systems, Quantum Groups, and Quantum Field Theories. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. pp. 157–287. doi:10.1007/978-94-011-1980-1_6. ISBN 978-94-011-1980-1.
  51. ^ Swingle, Brian (2018-03-10). "Spacetime from Entanglement". Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics. 9 (1): 345–358. doi:10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-033117-054219. ISSN 1947-5454.
  52. ^ Van Raamsdonk, Mark (2010). "Building up spacetime with quantum entanglement". International Journal of Modern Physics D. 19 (14): 2429–2435. doi:10.1142/S0218271810018529. ISSN 0218-2718.