Recent content by bobbytkc

Yes, I believe that is correct. As far as I understand it, in order for anyone to retrieve the information, he needs both parts of the two qubit system . Any interception and measurement of one qubit will destroy the quantum correlation, and prevent the original state from being retrieved...

The requirement that the trace is equal to 1 is the assumption of conservation of probability, so there is already an implicit assumption of the probabilistic interpretation in that statement.

It is really very simple. It is just not possible to use quantum entanglement for communication. This is proven by the 'no signalling theorem', which says that quantum correlations cannot be used for signalling. The idea is quite easy to grasp. Quantum mechanics is inherently probabilistic, so...

It is called Born's rule, which says that the square of the probability amplitude gives the probability of an outcome. This is an implicit assumption in quantum mechanics, in fact, it is part of the axioms that make up quantum mechanics. If you are still confused, the fact is that the...

What C? I believe Bell's theorem is only bipartite,no?

You are talking about Bohmian mechanics? Bohmian mechanics has hidden variables (in that particles have definite position and momentum, but still obeys Schrodinger's equations), however, the cost is that it is distinctively non local, so it still falls under the umbrella of Bell's theorem...

His paper is interesting, but I have heard a convincing explanation for why it is probably not significant: Assuming that all his mathematics are correct, he still assumes that the measurement outcomes follow some weird algebra which when combined together, to give a desired value which he...

Yes indeed, there are degrees of entanglement. There are even measures of how entangled these particles are, such as the von neumann entropy, and the purity of a single particle in an entangled pair of particles, or the amount of violation of some Bell's inequality. Entanglement between...

It is indeed much simpler, if you are familiar with the notation. In my elementary solution, the OP still needed to perform the same calculations for the y and z components to completely prove that it is a cross product.

No, not really, electrons associated with different atoms have different quantum numbers, the thing is, position is not a good quantum number to use, since the state of the electron is in general, not localised, so it does not have a definite position. So it is not really about 'how far...

No, you are specifically saying that teleportation is not possible due to the size of the object. I simply presented a counter example where teleportation is possible even if you have millions of particles, suggesting perhaps that simply the size alone is not enough to prevent teleportation from...

It probably does not exist, in my opinion. For example, it is in principle, possible to have a macroscopic lattice of spin particles in a pure state with all its spin pointing in the same (but unknown direction). In this case, the state is expressible in exactly the same way as a single...

I think he just used L because the spin at another site is acting on another subsystem (i.e. another atom). The overall behaviour is similar to composing angular momentum and spin together, as the angular momentum and spin can be treated as two separate subsystems. In any case, to prevent...

There are only two possible BASIS states for the spin states for an electron since they are spin 1/2. However, there an infinite number of spin states for an electron because you can make any number of other states by performing a linear combination of these 2 states. I hope I got your question...

I think there is some confusion here. There are two states, yes, so in principle, you can form an infinite number of states through linear combinations, but those are one particle states. For a two particle state, the only one allowed is the state where one particle is spin up and the other...