- #1
N88
- 225
- 12
Admins: Please excuse my E and brackets in the title, and correct if possible.
My questions are these, please:
1. What is the physical significance of [itex] (\hat{a}\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}_{1})
[/itex]
in [itex]
\left\langle (\hat{a}\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}_{1})(-\boldsymbol{\sigma}_{2}\cdot\hat{b})\right\rangle
[/itex]?
2. This QM formulation appears (to me) to be local and realistic: but I take it that that is not the mainstream view?
The questions arise in calculating the expectation for the famous EPRB experiment.
I understand the orientations of the detectors and representing the intrinsic spin of a spin-half particle by s = (hbar/2) [itex]\boldsymbol{\sigma}[/itex] where [itex]\boldsymbol{\sigma}[/itex] is the intrinsic spin vector. So the QM formulation looks (to me) to be local and realistic.
PS: I have a derivation of the correct result which looks to be local and realistic. But I have not found the same approach in any textbook, so my derivation may be non-mainstream. That's why I would like to check the physical significance of the mainstream result first (and in detail).
Thank you.
My questions are these, please:
1. What is the physical significance of [itex] (\hat{a}\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}_{1})
[/itex]
in [itex]
\left\langle (\hat{a}\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}_{1})(-\boldsymbol{\sigma}_{2}\cdot\hat{b})\right\rangle
[/itex]?
2. This QM formulation appears (to me) to be local and realistic: but I take it that that is not the mainstream view?
The questions arise in calculating the expectation for the famous EPRB experiment.
I understand the orientations of the detectors and representing the intrinsic spin of a spin-half particle by s = (hbar/2) [itex]\boldsymbol{\sigma}[/itex] where [itex]\boldsymbol{\sigma}[/itex] is the intrinsic spin vector. So the QM formulation looks (to me) to be local and realistic.
PS: I have a derivation of the correct result which looks to be local and realistic. But I have not found the same approach in any textbook, so my derivation may be non-mainstream. That's why I would like to check the physical significance of the mainstream result first (and in detail).
Thank you.