In the course

Supports Chapter 20

Keep watching

Related videos

10 videos · 5 h 33 min

  • Lecture · MIT

    Lecture 24: Entanglement: QComputing, EPR, and Bell's Theorem

    MIT OpenCourseWare · Allan Adams · 2013

    A full MIT 8.04 lecture by Allan Adams. The first part previews quantum computing (the no-cloning theorem, met briefly in Part 5 and fully in Chapter 24, and the Deutsch–Jozsa algorithm of Chapter 23); the last part is devoted to the EPR experiment and Bell's inequality, the ideal bridge from this chapter to the next. Best watched after the lesson.

  • Lecture · MIT

    Entanglement

    MIT OpenCourseWare · Barton Zwiebach

    A 13-minute segment of Barton Zwiebach's MIT 8.04 (Spring 2016) devoted to entanglement. Watch it next to this section's factoring argument and keep the definition in front of you: a joint state is entangled exactly when it cannot be written as one particle's state times the other's.

  • Lecture · Oxford

    IQIS Lecture 3.6 — Shared randomness

    Artur Ekert

    A short segment from the entanglement lecture of Artur Ekert's quantum-information course, posted on his own channel. It comes between 'Bell states' (3.4) and 'Quantum teleportation' (3.7), and its subject, shared randomness, is this section's 'perfect agreement, perfect randomness' in quantum-information language. Ekert is also the physicist who proposed turning such correlations into a secret key (Part 7).

  • Lecture · MIT

    18. Two State Systems (continued), Multiparticle States and Tensor Products

    MIT OpenCourseWare · Barton Zwiebach · 2013

    The lecture from MIT 8.05 Quantum Physics II (Barton Zwiebach, 2013) that goes with Chapter 20. The whole course is in the Lecture Hall.

  • Lecture · Oxford

    016 Composite Systems - Entanglement and Operators

    University of Oxford · James Binney · 2009–10

    The lecture from University of Oxford Quantum Mechanics (James Binney, 2009–10) that goes with Chapter 20. The whole course is in the Lecture Hall.

  • Course · MIT

    Quantum Physics I

    MIT OpenCourseWare · Allan Adams · 2013

    Allan Adams' celebrated course starts from superposition and the experimental facts, builds the wavefunction, operators and the Schrödinger equation, then tours scattering, hydrogen, identical particles and band structure before closing on entanglement and Bell's theorem. Calculus and a little linear algebra are enough to keep up.

  • Course · Oxford

    Quantum Mechanics

    University of Oxford · James Binney · 2009–10

    James Binney's Oxford course, given over Michaelmas Term 2009 and Hilary Term 2010 and built on probability amplitudes and Dirac notation from the very first lecture. Highlights: tunnelling and radioactive decay, the EPR argument and Bell's inequality, spin and the Stern–Gerlach experiment, and a full treatment of hydrogen.

  • Lecture · Perimeter

    The Quantum Revolution: Shohini Ghose Public Lecture

    Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics · Shohini Ghose · 2020

    Physicist Shohini Ghose of Wilfrid Laurier University surveys the quantum technologies that grow out of superposition and entanglement, from quantum computers to secure communication. A clear public lecture given at Perimeter Institute in March 2020.

  • Explainer · Fermilab

    Quantum Entanglement: Spooky Action at a Distance

    Fermilab

    Fermilab's Dr. Don Lincoln explains what the phrase 'quantum entanglement' means and how two objects can be linked by quantum effects. As you watch, keep two questions in mind: what exactly is correlated, and could anything in the setup carry a message? Part 5 of the lesson settles the second question with a two-line calculation.

  • Explainer · YouTube

    Why Can't You Use Quantum Mechanics To Communicate Faster Than Light?

    Looking Glass Universe

    A short, careful argument for why entangled particles cannot carry messages, using the same Alice-and-Bob setup as Part 5. The video speaks of the particles 'affecting' each other; treat that as one way of talking (Part 5 explains why it is interpretation-dependent) and focus on the proof that Bob's results stay random.