Skip to main content
Learn

Entanglement

The correlation that has no classical explanation. Two entangled qubits share a fate — measure one and you instantly know the other, no matter the distance. This is quantum computing's most powerful resource.

What Makes It Strange

Two classical coins can both show heads — but that's just because each was heads independently. Entangled qubits are different: neither one has a definite value until measured, yet their outcomes are perfectly correlated. Einstein called this “spooky action at a distance.”

Classical

Correlated coins

Two coins in separate boxes. You peek at one — it's heads. The other might be heads or tails. Each coin had a definite state all along. Boring.

Quantum

Entangled qubits

Neither qubit is 0 or 1 until measured. But when you measure one, the other's outcome is instantly determined. Not because it was predetermined — because they share a single quantum state.

Metaphor

Two dice that always sum to 7 — but neither die has a value until you look. And it doesn't matter if they're on opposite sides of the universe. The correlation isn't hidden information — it's the fundamental nature of the quantum state.

Creating Entanglement

A Bell state is the simplest entangled state — two qubits, maximally correlated. It takes just two gates: a Hadamard (H) to create superposition, then a CNOT to entangle.

|0\u27E9|0\u27E9H|00\u27E9(|0\u27E9+|1\u27E9)|0\u27E9/\u221A2(|00\u27E9+|11\u27E9)/\u221A200 or 11SuperpositionEntangleMeasure
Step 1H gate

Puts q0 into superposition: equal chance of 0 or 1.

Step 2CNOT

Flips q1 if q0 is 1. Now their fates are linked.

Step 3Measure

Always get 00 or 11. Never 01 or 10. That's entanglement.

The Four Bell States

There are exactly four maximally entangled two-qubit states. They differ in which outcomes are correlated and whether there's a relative phase. Click to explore each one.

+1/\u221A2|00⟩|01⟩|10⟩+1/\u221A2|11⟩

Both qubits always agree

If q0 is 0, q1 is 0. If q0 is 1, q1 is 1.

Circuit: H on q0, then CNOT

From Product to Bell

Entanglement isn't binary — states can be partially entangled. Drag the slider to smoothly transition from a separable product state |00\u27E9 to a maximally entangled Bell state |\u03A6+\u27E9. Watch the concurrence climb from 0 to 1.

|00\u27E9|\u03A6+\u27E9
50%|00⟩|01⟩|10⟩50%|11⟩Concurrence1.00Entropy1.00Maximally entangled (Bell state)0.71|00\u27E9 + 0.71|11\u27E9
Concurrence

1.000

0 = separable, 1 = max entangled
von Neumann entropy

1.000

0 = pure subsystem, 1 = maximally mixed

Two Kinds of Multi-Qubit Entanglement

With three or more qubits, entanglement comes in fundamentally different flavors. GHZ and W states can't be converted into each other, even with local operations. They represent two distinct classes of quantum correlation.

GHZ State(|000\u27E9+|111\u27E9)/\u221A2W State(|001\u27E9+|010\u27E9+|100\u27E9)/\u221A3q0q1q2q0q1q2Lose one qubit:All entanglement lostConcurrence = 0Lose one qubit:Entanglement survivesConcurrence = 2/3\u2717\u2713
PropertyGHZW
State(|000⟩+|111⟩)/√2(|001⟩+|010⟩+|100⟩)/√3
EntanglementAll-or-nothingDistributed
Lose 1 qubitAll entanglement gone2/3 entanglement survives
Use caseQuantum error detectionQuantum networks
FragilityExtremely fragileRobust to qubit loss
Our dataGHZ-3: 88.9% (Tuna-9)Not yet tested on hardware
Metaphor

A chain vs a web — GHZ entanglement is a chain: break any link and the whole thing fails. W entanglement is a web: cut a strand and the rest holds. Both are useful for different things.

Entanglement on Real Hardware

Bell state fidelity — the probability of getting the correct correlated outcome — is the simplest measure of how well a quantum processor can create entanglement. We tested it across three processors, sweeping qubit pairs and circuit sizes.

Bell State Fidelity

Emulator100.0%IBM Torino99.0%default qubitsIQM Garnet98.4%best pairIQM mean96.3%22 pairs sweptTuna-9 q[2,4]96.6%best pairTuna-9 q[4,6]93.5%IQM worst91.2%Tuna-9 q[0,1]87.0%worst pair80%85%90%95%100%

GHZ Scaling: How Fast Does Entanglement Decay?

As you entangle more qubits, fidelity drops. At 50 qubits, IBM Torino achieves only 8.5% — barely above random noise. This decay rate is a key metric for quantum error correction readiness.

0%25%50%75%100%3q5q10q50qGHZ qubits100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%98.1%76.6%62.2%8.5%93.9%81.8%54.7%88.9%83.8%EmulatorIBM TorinoIQM GarnetTuna-9
99.05%

IBM Torino

22/29

IQM Garnet (96.3% mean)

50 qubits

8.5% fidelity (IBM)

Why Entanglement Matters

Entanglement isn't just a curiosity — it's the resource that makes quantum computing more powerful than classical computing. Every quantum advantage relies on it.

Key Terms

Bell state

One of four maximally entangled two-qubit states (Φ+, Φ−, Ψ+, Ψ−). The simplest entangled states.

Concurrence

A measure of two-qubit entanglement from 0 (separable) to 1 (maximally entangled). For pure states: C = |sin(2θ)|.

von Neumann entropy

Entropy of the reduced density matrix. S = 0 for a pure (unentangled) subsystem, S = 1 for maximally mixed (maximally entangled).

GHZ state

(|000...0⟩+|111...1⟩)/√2. All-or-nothing entanglement. Fragile: losing one qubit destroys all entanglement.

W state

Equal superposition of single-excitation states. Robust: entanglement partially survives qubit loss. Concurrence 2/3 after tracing out one qubit.

Separable state

A state that can be written as a product |a⟩⊗|b⟩. No entanglement. Local measurements are independent.

Density matrix

ρ = |ψ⟩⟨ψ|. Encodes both probabilities (diagonal) and coherence (off-diagonal). Partial trace reveals entanglement.

Bell inequality

Classical correlations are bounded by Bell's inequality. Quantum entanglement violates it — proving correlations have no classical explanation.

Monogamy

Entanglement is monogamous: if A is maximally entangled with B, A cannot be entangled with C at all. Constrains multi-party entanglement.

LOCC

Local Operations and Classical Communication. The operations you can do without sharing quantum states. GHZ and W can't be converted under LOCC.

References

[1]Einstein, Podolsky & Rosen, "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?" Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935)

[2]Bell, "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox," Physics 1, 195 (1964)

[3]Aspect, Dalibard & Roger, "Experimental Realization of Bell's Inequalities," Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1804 (1982)

[4]Greenberger, Horne & Zeilinger, "Going Beyond Bell's Theorem," in Bell's Theorem, Quantum Theory, and Conceptions of the Universe (1989)

[5]Dür, Vidal & Cirac, "Three qubits can be entangled in two inequivalent ways," Phys. Rev. A 62, 062314 (2000)

[6]Our experimental data: Bell and GHZ fidelity across IBM Torino, QI Tuna-9, and IQM Garnet (2025-2026)

Explore More

About Quantum Entanglement

Entanglement is a quantum correlation with no classical analogue. When two qubits are entangled, measuring one instantly determines the other — regardless of distance. The four Bell states are the simplest entangled states, each producing perfectly correlated (or anti-correlated) measurement outcomes.

GHZ and W states extend entanglement to three or more qubits with different properties. A GHZ state is maximally entangled but fragile — losing one qubit destroys all entanglement. A W state is more robust: losing one qubit still leaves the remaining qubits partially entangled.

This explorer includes real hardware fidelity data from IBM Quantum and Quantum Inspire (Tuna-9), showing how well current processors can prepare and maintain entangled states.