QM: Spin States of Electrons & Positrons

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter cragar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Spin
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the spin states of electrons and positrons, particularly in the context of quantum mechanics (QM) and entanglement. Participants explore the implications of measuring spin states, the nature of indistinguishability in quantum systems, and the interpretation of quantum states in systems like helium atoms and pi-mesons.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that measuring one electron's spin state instantaneously determines the spin state of the other electron due to entanglement.
  • Others clarify that while one can state the relationship between the spins, the interpretation of what occurs during measurement varies and is subject to different interpretations of QM.
  • A participant emphasizes that the two-electron state should be represented as an entangled state, indicating that electrons cannot be labeled as distinct entities.
  • Some argue that the electrons can be treated as distinguishable under certain conditions, such as applying an external field to separate them, challenging the notion of indistinguishability.
  • There is a contention regarding whether the system of two electrons with opposite spins should obey Fermi-Dirac or Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics, with differing views on the implications of their spin states.
  • Participants note that electrons do not have definite spin states until measured, and the preparation of quantum states can lead to valid representations without definitive spins assigned to individual electrons.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of measuring spin states, the nature of indistinguishability, and the statistical behavior of the system. No consensus is reached on these points, indicating ongoing debate.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of definitions and interpretations in quantum mechanics, particularly regarding the measurement process and the nature of quantum states. Limitations in understanding the implications of spin states and indistinguishability are acknowledged.

cragar
Messages
2,546
Reaction score
3
If I have two electrons in the ground state of a helium atom, then one is spin up and the other is spin down . And there is no way of knowing which spin state each electron is until I measure it. So when I measure one electron to be spin up does this instantaneously make the other one spin down? Or if this doesn't work with the helium atom let's use a neutral pi-meson that decays into and electron and positron .
I have studied QM a little bit and any input will be much appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I believe it does.

Once one is measured, the other is known.
 
To be picky about the wording, I would say that when we measure one electron to be spin up, we know that the other electron must now be spin down. Whether that means we have actually "done" something to the other electron to "make" it spin down, I think there is no generally accepted answer (it depends on interpretations of QM).
 
ok i see, interesting
 
In addition I would like to stress the meaning of the two-electron state. |up, down> is not fully correct, it must read |up, down> - |down, up>. What does that mean?

You can't say that the first electron has spin=up and the second electron has spin=down; you can't even "label" the two electrons, they do not exist as separate entities, that's why you have this entangled quantum state. Instead you have to say that one electron has spin=up, the other one has spin=down w/o referring to "this electron" or to "the first electron". Trying to distinguish the two electrons will results in classical statistics which is ruled out for quantum systems experimentally.
 
ok but if i know the state of one of them then i know he state of the other one
 
Yes, you are right, but you can only say "one electron has spin=up, the other one has spin=down". One should be careful and try to avoid to say "this electron" or "that electron"; as long as they are inside the Helium atom (and not separated by some experiment) they are not individual electrons (like classical coins).
 
great answer
i think tom
 
tom.stoer said:
Yes, you are right, but you can only say "one electron has spin=up, the other one has spin=down". One should be careful and try to avoid to say "this electron" or "that electron"; as long as they are inside the Helium atom (and not separated by some experiment) they are not individual electrons (like classical coins).

I don't believe this is so, since the two electrons have opposite spins they are no longer indistinguishable. One could easily separate the two by applying an external field and exploiting the Zeeman effect to break the degeneracy of the ground state. Thus you would say that there is a distinct and distinguishable electron with spin up and a distinct and distinguishable electron with spin down. The N! gibbs factor should not be applied here and thus the system WOULD obey classical statistics and not quantum ones would it not? Keep in mind that the derivation of distinguishability is firmly linked to the parity of an electron ground-state and thus if they WERE distinguishable they would be Pauli excluded but they are not (since they have different spin) and thus they can't be indistinguishable.
 
  • #10
maverick_starstrider said:
I don't believe this is so, since the two electrons have opposite spins they are no longer indistinguishable. One could easily separate the two by applying an external field and exploiting the Zeeman effect to break the degeneracy of the ground state. [...]

Then I'm afraid you don't understand what <indistinguishable> really means. The notion applies to the state of the compound system and to the values of the measurable observables prior_to_measurement.
 
  • #11
dextercioby said:
Then I'm afraid you don't understand what <indistinguishable> really means. The notion applies to the state of the compound system and to the values of the measurable observables prior_to_measurement.

So you're saying that a system of two electrons for which one is spin up and the other is spin down behaves as a system of size N=2 obeying Fermi-Dirac statistics and not Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics? I would say, provided there exists no mechanism in our Hamiltonian which allows spins to flip, that this system would obey classical statistics (Maxwell-Boltzmann). There exists no mechanism through which they compete for states.
 
  • #12
The electrons are not in a spin state until you measure them.
 
  • #13
cragar said:
The electrons are not in a spin state until you measure them.
You can prepare a quantum state, e.g. S=0 which means you have a "spin state" |up, down> - |down, up>; you do not have a definitre spin for one electron, but as a quantum state it's perfectly valid.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Measuring electron spin and measuring entangled electron spin
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Undergrad About nature of superposition of states
  • · Replies 124 ·
5
Replies
124
Views
9K
Undergrad What is the quantum spin of a single electron in an (atomic) orbital?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Undergrad Participatory Anthropic Principle
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Bell's Theorem - why product of (2)spins can be +1 (Griffith's text)
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
High School 1-photon emission possible from electron-positron annihilation?
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
Undergrad Understanding Measurement Probability in Electron Spin: Explained by Susskind
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
5K
Undergrad Spin expectation value for one particle vs actual measurement
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Undergrad Can I find a particle in two states simultaneously?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate Exclusion principle in Helium 3
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K