John Bell 1964 toy model for spin

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around John Bell's 1964 toy model for spin, specifically focusing on the implications of hidden variables in quantum mechanics and the measurement of spin states. Participants explore the mathematical formulation of the model, the role of measurement angles, and the challenges posed by entangled particles.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses difficulty in understanding the derivation of the measurement result sign λ⋅a' and its dependence on the hidden variable λ and the measurement direction a.
  • Another participant clarifies that the sign λ⋅a' arises from the dot product of the hidden variable and the measurement angle, suggesting it functions well under certain conditions but fails with entangled particles.
  • A third participant notes that the angle a' is related to the known particle polarization and can be computed once a measurement angle is selected, emphasizing the importance of the pure spin state assumption.
  • Details about the experimental setup are provided, including the random selection of measurement angles and the statistical consistency with quantum mechanics predictions, which challenge the hidden variable model.
  • There is a focus on the angle θ' between a' and p, with a participant seeking clarification on how this angle influences the results derived from Bell's equations.
  • One participant corrects their earlier post to specify that a' is computed using equation 5 from Bell's paper, linking it to the polarization angle of a pure particle.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding and interpretation of the toy model, with some agreeing on the need for further specification of a' while others highlight the limitations of the model in the context of entangled particles. No consensus is reached on the implications of the hidden variable model.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reveals limitations in understanding the derivation of certain angles and results, as well as the dependence on the assumption of pure spin states versus entangled states. The mathematical steps involved in deriving results from Bell's equations remain a point of contention.

jf117
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
Description of the toy model for spin contained in the 1964 article by John Bell
I have never been able to fully grasp John Bell toy model for spin in his 1964 article. He starts with a particle with pure spin state p. There exists a hidden variable called λ with a probability distribution given by a uniform distribution over the hemisphere λp > 0. I guess this uniform distribution is ρ(λ)=1/(4π) if λp > 0, and 0 otherwise. Then it is written that the result of a measurement of spin along a direction a is sign λ⋅a' where I have absolutely no idea from where the a' come. I am missing something evident, but cannot understand what. Can anyone help me or point me to some in-depth and detailed reading on this toy model? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I believe the article you are referring to is this one.
That tick notation is described from equations 4 and 7. It is only used when a fixed (ie, "pure") particle polarization is presumed.

The sign λ⋅a' is the result of measurement using a hidden variable λ. I would call it a "straw horse" in contrast to a "toy model". It is a hidden variable that works perfectly well so long as you don't measure the entangled particle. But as Bell shows later in the article, it fails to account for the combined measurement results of both particles.

To be specific: sign λ⋅a' is the sign (ie, plus or minus) of the dot product of the hidden variable (λ) and the a specif angle between a and p.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for your comment, @.Scott. It says a' depends on a and p in a way to be specified. Fine, as it is to be specified, I can live with that until a' is used. But then <σa> is calculated and the result depends on θ', which is the angle between a' and p. Perhaps knowing how that result (equation (5) in Bell article) is obtained can shed some light on a'.
 
The measurement angles at detectors A and B are a and b respectively. Given a known particle polarization angle, once a measurement angle is selected, the corresponding a' and b' can be computed. But this is only valid when the particle has a "pure spin state" - that is, it is not entangled.

As a note: during an actual experiment, the measurement angles are commonly selected from three values: roughly -15°, 0°, and +15°.

The final experiment being described involves many measurement with different a/b combinations. And each a and b is best chosen randomly an instant before the measurement is made.

Here's that sequence:
1) A pair of entangled particles are targeted at two measurement stations.
2) After it is too late to signal the other measurement station, each station randomly picks a measurement angle (a or b).
3) The measurements are made.
4) The experiment is repeated at least a few hundred times.
5) Those statistics are consistent with QM predictions, but they confound any attempt to use the "sign λ⋅a'" model (or any other model using a function of only a λ and the a's) to explain the result.
jf117 said:
It says a' depends on a and p in a way to be specified. Fine, as it is to be specified, I can live with that until a' is used. But then <σa> is calculated and the result depends on θ', which is the angle between a' and p. Perhaps knowing how that result (equation (5) in Bell article) is obtained can shed some light on a'.
I have corrected my original post. Vector a' is an angle between a and the polarization angle of a "pure" (ie, unentangled) particle. It's an angle computed using equation 5 and the paragraph that precedes equation 5 in Bell's paper.
 

Similar threads

Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
810
  • · Replies 63 ·
3
Replies
63
Views
8K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
12K
  • · Replies 63 ·
3
Replies
63
Views
10K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
8K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K