A question on calculating entangled spin probability

rede96
Messages
663
Reaction score
16
I was trying to understand the QM tests done to show the violation of Bell’s inequality. In the example given this was done by testing the polarization of entangled photons which were positively correlated.

So in the example Alice and Bob are detecting the polarisation for the two entangled photons, using 3 detectors chosen at random, which are at angles of 0 degrees, 120 degrees and 240 degrees.

I was told that the quantum rule to predict the number of matches (e.g. both detected the same spin or both do not detect same spin) was cos^2(Alice's Angle - Bob's Angle)

As these angles are all equidistant then it is easy to see that the overall result will be 0.25 without doing all the individual test, as each individual test’s probability is 0.25

But let’s say the three detectors being used were at angles 10, 60 and 200?

Doing it long hand, i.e. calculating each individual test and adding up all the matches I get appx 0.66

But how would I calculate the expected result without doing all the individual tests? (so I can check I am doing it right!)

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
I've got the answer now thanks.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top