Why Does Bell's Calculation Yield a Negative Cosine?

Adam Lewis
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I am trying to reproduce Bell's calculation for the expectation value of paired spin measurements on particles in the singlet state. For unit vectors \hat{a} and \hat{b} we want to calculate

P(a,b)=<\psi|(\hat{a}\cdot\vec{\sigma})(\hat{b} \cdot \vec{\sigma})|\psi>

where |\psi> is the singlet state.

Via the commutation and anticommutation relations for the Pauli matrices the enclosed operator is simply

(\hat{a}\cdot\hat{b})I + \imath\vec{\sigma}\cdot(\hat{a}\times\hat{b}).

As a scalar the dot product can be pulled from the bra-ket, leaving (\hat{a}\cdot\hat{b})<\psi|I|\psi>=(\hat{a}\cdot \hat{b}) since the singlet state is normalized. The cross product's expectation value turns out to vanish. Thus the final answer is

P(a,b)=(\hat{a}\cdot\hat{b})=\cos(\theta).

The answer usually quoted, however, is -\cos(\theta), and I can't figure out where the minus sign is coming from. Any ideas?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, that would get you the minus sign. But I had thought the fact the spins were anti-parallel to be already encoded by the singlet state. It seems odd to me that you should have to insert this information again via the operator. Maybe I'm misunderstanding how \vec{\sigma} is supposed to work?
 
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