Talk:Photon entanglement

Naming

Surely there is a better name for this article than "Brief explanation of entanglement in terms of photons"? Maybe "Photon entanglement"? --maru (talk) contribs 20:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I had to remove a paragraph that was false, I explain why in the paragraph after it. i will continue to avenge these atrocities of physics misinformation.MaizeAndBlue86 (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Notation

Bra-ket notation is used for the formulae in the article.

WriterHound (talk) 02:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Technical

Is this article supposed to make any sense to people who aren't well-versed in theoretical physics? RobertM525 (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC) === I agree. And this problem happens more than I'd like on Wikipedia, many physics papers with interesting content are "unreadable" because the author is far more concerned with obscure formulas than a practical explanation. 200.189.118.162 (talk)

Better to remove this article

It is complete jibberish and without any references. On balance it will confuse more people than the very few who might have a remote chance of following any of it. So it is better to remove it. Would even the writer understand it on returning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.5.175.129 (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Jibberish, better to start off as a one sentence stub. I suggest:

Photon entanglement is the quantum entanglement of photons. 115.128.13.35 (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I vote to keep this article, as I think it is well written. A particular strength is that it gives one of the most accessible (hence best) explanations of bra-ket notation ever, and applies it well to the subject under examination. There are many physics articles on wikipedia that are overly dense and provide mathematical derivations rather than explanations, and perhaps deserve serious revision. However in this case the article has a good balance, and hence a recommendation to retain it. The article may not have an encyclopedic tone, but that can be remedied. John Pons (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Bohr-Einstein debate

I find your notation quite confusing:

$\left|\Psi \right\rangle =1/{\sqrt {2}}{1/{\sqrt {2}}[\left|1,45\right\rangle +\left|1,135\right\rangle ]1/{\sqrt {2}}[\left|2,45\right\rangle +\left|2,135\right\rangle ]+1/{\sqrt {2}}[\left|1,45\right\rangle -\left|1,135\right\rangle ]1/{\sqrt {2}}[\left|2,45\right\rangle -\left|2,135\right\rangle ]}$
= $1/2({\sqrt {2}}){[\left|1,45\right\rangle \left|2,45\right\rangle +\left|1,45\right\rangle \left|2,135\right\rangle +\left|1,135\right\rangle \left|2,45\right\rangle +\left|1,135\right\rangle \left|2,135\right\rangle +\left|1,45\right\rangle \left|2,45\right\rangle -\left|1,45\right\rangle \left|2,135\right\rangle -\left|1,135\right\rangle \left|2,45\right\rangle +\left|1,135\right\rangle \left|2,135\right\rangle }$
= $1/{\sqrt {2}}{\left|1,45\right\rangle \left|2,45\right\rangle +\left|1,135\right\rangle \left|2,135\right\rangle }$

e.g. the notation of the first two (reciprocal square roots of two) is unclean;

$\left|\Psi \right\rangle =1/{\sqrt {2}}{1/{\sqrt {2}}[\left|1,45\right\rangle ]}$

Maybe you could use this type of notation

${1 \over {\sqrt {2}}}$

This would make a lot easier to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPBoyd (talk • contribs) 02:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

covert chanel validity

is the work done by the guys of http://www.iet.ntnu.no/groups/optics/qcr/other.html scientific enought to say that it is possible to eavesdrop on a QKD system? if so, it would be worth mentioning 62.131.79.136 (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Condition for photon entanglement

Dose photons could entangled with each other during polarization ? HARIPRASHAD RAVIKUMAR (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)