I Bell's Theorem - why product of (2)spins can be +1 (Griffith's text)

Sparky_
Messages
227
Reaction score
5
TL;DR Summary
Table of products of the spin of electron and positron shows the product can be +1
Hello,

Within Griffith's text - chap 12 section 12.2 page 423 - this is a brief summary of Bell's Theorem and description of Bell's 1964 work.

There is a table on page 423 showing the spin of the electron and positron (from pi meson decay) - these would be in the singlet state, one would be spin up and the other spin down

the table has some rows showing both having spin up or both having spin down so the product is +1

I don't see (yet) how you can have the product be +1

I feel like it is because the detectors are not fixed

Figure 12.2 (page 424) shows a diagram of the experiment - where the two detectors' orientation is shown to be free.

There is not enough detail describing the detectors nor what happens when they rotate past horizontal -

will a detector give the negative result if it is upside down - (or it's unit vector has a component pointing down)?

Thanks
-Sparky
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sparky_ said:
Summary:: Table of products of the spin of electron and positron shows the product can be +1

Hello,

Within Griffith's text - chap 12 section 12.2 page 423 - this is a brief summary of Bell's Theorem and description of Bell's 1964 work.

There is a table on page 423 showing the spin of the electron and positron (from pi meson decay) - these would be in the singlet state, one would be spin up and the other spin down

the table has some rows showing both having spin up or both having spin down so the product is +1

I don't see (yet) how you can have the product be +1

I feel like it is because the detectors are not fixed

Figure 12.2 (page 424) shows a diagram of the experiment - where the two detectors' orientation is shown to be free.

There is not enough detail describing the detectors nor what happens when they rotate past horizontal -

will a detector give the negative result if it is upside down - (or it's unit vector has a component pointing down)?

Thanks
-Sparky
That table records the two spin measurements about the respective axes. The product is simply the product of two numbers. Nothing more.
 
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
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
According to recent podcast between Jacob Barandes and Sean Carroll, Barandes claims that putting a sensitive qubit near one of the slits of a double slit interference experiment is sufficient to break the interference pattern. Here are his words from the official transcript: Is that true? Caveats I see: The qubit is a quantum object, so if the particle was in a superposition of up and down, the qubit can be in a superposition too. Measuring the qubit in an orthogonal direction might...
Back
Top