Quantum entanglement is often called spooky/surprising/unintuitive, but they key question is to understand why.
To understand that, you have to understand why it is fundamentally impossible for the entangled particle pair be in a predefined state according to experiments done e.g. where one is deterministically yes and the other deterministically down.
In other words, why local hidden-variable theory is not valid.
How to generate entangled particles:
- particle decay, notably pair production
- for photons, notably: spontaneous parametric down-conversion, e.g.: www.youtube.com/watch?v=tn1sEaw1K2k "Shanni Prutchi Construction of an Entangled Photon Source" by HACKADAY (2015). Estimatd price: 5000 USD.
Bell's Theorem: The Quantum Venn Diagram Paradox by minutephysics (2017)
Source. Contains the clearest Bell test experiment description seen so far.
It clearly describes the photon-based 22.5, 45 degree/85%/15% probability photon polarization experiment and its result conceptually.
It does not mention spontaneous parametric down-conversion but that's what they likely hint at.
Done in Collaboration with 3Blue1Brown.
Question asking further clarification on why the 100/85/50 thing is surprising: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/357039/why-is-the-quantum-venn-diagram-paradox-considered-a-paradox/597982#597982
Bell's Inequality I by ViaScience (2014)
Source. Quantum Entanglement & Spooky Action at a Distance by Veritasium (2015)
Source. Gives a clear explanation of a thought Bell test experiments with electron spin of electron pairs from photon decay with three 120-degree separated slits. The downside is that he does not clearly describe an experimental setup, it is quite generic.Quantum Mechanics: Animation explaining quantum physics by Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky (2013)
Source. Usual Eugene, good animations, and not too precise explanations :-) youtu.be/iVpXrbZ4bnU?t=922 describes a conceptual spin entangled electron-positron pair production Stern-Gerlach experiment as a Bell test experiments. The 85% is mentioned, but not explained at all.Quantum Entanglement: Spooky Action at a Distance by Don Lincoln (2020)
Source. This only has two merits compared to Video 3. "Quantum Entanglement & Spooky Action at a Distance by Veritasium (2015)": it mentions the Aspect et al. (1982) Bell test experiment, and it shows the continuous curve similar to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bell.svg. But it just does not clearly explain the bell test.
Quantum Entanglement Lab by Scientific American (2013)
Source. The hosts interview Professor Enrique Galvez of Colgate University who shows briefly the optical table setup without great details, and then moves to a whiteboard explanation. Treats the audience as stupid, doesn't say the keywords spontaneous parametric down-conversion and Bell's theorem which they clearly allude to. You can even them showing a two second footage of the professor explaining the rotation experiments and the data for it, but that's all you get.This experiment seems to be really hard to do, and so there aren't many super clear demonstration videos with full experimental setup description out there unfortunately.
Wikipedia has a good summary at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#Overview
For single-photon non-double-slit experiments see: single photon production and detection experiments. Those are basically a pre-requisite to this.
photon experiments:
- aapt.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1119/1.4955173 "Video recording true single-photon double-slit interference" by Aspden and Padgetta (2016). Abstract says using spontaneous parametric down-conversion detection of the second photon to know when to turn the camera on
electron experiments: single electron double slit experiment.
Non-elementary particle:
- 2019-10-08: 25,000 Daltons
- interactive.quantumnano.at/letsgo/ awesome interactive demo that allows you to control many parameters on a lab. Written in Flash unfortunately, in 2015... what a lack of future proofing!
Single Photon Interference by Veritasium (2013)
Source. Claims to do exactly what we want, but does not describe the setup precisely well enough. Notably, does not justify how he knows that single photons are being produced.You can't get more direct than this in terms of proving that photons exist!
The particular case of the double-slit experiment will be discussed at: single particle double slit experiment.
Production:
Detectors are generally called photomultipliers:
Bibliography:
- iopscience.iop.org/book/978-0-7503-3063-3.pdf Quantum Mechanics in the Single Photon Laboratory by Waseem, Ilahi and Anwar (2020)
Phenomena that produces photons in pairs as it passes through a certain type of crystal.
You can then detect one of the photons, and when you do you know that the other one is there as well and ready to be used. two photon interference experiment comes to mind, which is the basis of photonic quantum computer, where you need two photons to be produced at the exact same time to produce quantum entanglement.
One Photon In, TWO Photons Out by JQInews (2010)
Source. Features Alan Migdall of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Produced by the Joint Quantum Institute (JQI).
Mentions that this phenomena is useful to determine the efficiency of a single photon detector, as you have the second photon of the pair as a control.
Also briefly describes how the input energy and momentum must balance out the output energy and momentum of the two photons coming out (determined by the output frequency and angle).
Shows the crystal close up of the crystal branded "Cleveland Crystals Inc.". Mentions that only one in a billion photon gets scattered.
Also shows a photomultiplier tube.
Then shows their actual optical table setup, with two tunnels of adjustable angle to get photons with different properties.
How do you produce a single photon? by Physics World (2015)
Source. Very short whiteboard video by Peter Mosley from the University of Bath, but it's worth it for newbs. Basically describes spontaneous parametric down-conversion.
One interesting thing he mentions is that you could get single photons by making your sunglasses thicker and thicker to reduce how many photons pass, but one big downside problem is that then you don't know when the photon is going to come through, that becomes essentially random, and then you can't use this technique if you need two photons at the same time, which is often the case, see also: two photon interference experiment.