Entanglement correlations, singlet spin state

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the measurement of a pair of electrons in a singlet spin state and the implications of Alice's measurement on Bob's results. Participants explore why measuring one electron's spin does not lead to a collapse into other eigenstates, despite the presence of non-zero inner products with the initial state. The conversation highlights the importance of the antisymmetry requirement for fermions, which restricts the possible outcomes of measurements to the singlet state configurations. It is concluded that Alice's measurement cannot produce states outside the initial superposition due to these constraints. Overall, the discussion emphasizes the foundational principles of quantum mechanics governing measurement and state collapse.
  • #31
zonde said:
For two electrons to be entangled they have to originate from single place and then move to two different places by unitary evolution. So it's preservation of wave function under unitary evolution that is required as well.

I'm not sure what makes you say that ... electrons in a singlet state are always entangled, right? In fact, in atomic and molecular systems, aren't *all* of the electrons entangled with each other under normal circumstances? This entanglement appears as the exchange integral in electronic structure calculations, for example, which needs to be handled properly to get results that agree with experiment.

I guess what you were saying above applies to macroscopic entanglement experiments
like Aspect etc., but I don't think it is generally correct.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
SpectraCat said:
I'm not sure what makes you say that ... electrons in a singlet state are always entangled, right? In fact, in atomic and molecular systems, aren't *all* of the electrons entangled with each other under normal circumstances? This entanglement appears as the exchange integral in electronic structure calculations, for example, which needs to be handled properly to get results that agree with experiment.

I guess what you were saying above applies to macroscopic entanglement experiments
like Aspect etc., but I don't think it is generally correct.
I do not quite understand what are your objections.
Entangled particles do not appear from nowhere at two remote places. There has to be some preparation procedure (source) of entangled pair in experiment, right?
 
  • #33
zonde: regarding the pauli exclusion principle thing, what i am saying is that i don't think the pauli explusion principle is something you should have to explicitly apply when doing analysis, it should be automatic, a consequence of the more basic rules for constructing wave functions. see, for example p204 of Griffths "Intro to QM, 2nd Ed"
 
  • #34
zonde said:
I do not quite understand what are your objections.
Entangled particles do not appear from nowhere at two remote places. There has to be some preparation procedure (source) of entangled pair in experiment, right?

Yes, I agree. My only concern was with the apparent generality of your statement:
For two electrons to be entangled they have to originate from single place and then move to two different places by unitary evolution. So it's preservation of wave function under unitary evolution that is required as well.

My point is that your statement applies to macroscopically entangled particles generated in laboratory experiments. Quantum entanglement is a much more general physical phenomenon.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K