network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | ||
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 1 year, 8 months |
| seen | Mar 4 at 17:46 | |
| stats | profile views | 54 |
|
Mar 17 |
awarded | Popular Question |
|
Feb 28 |
awarded | Nice Question |
|
Dec 26 |
accepted | When does a pot not spill? |
|
Oct 2 |
awarded | Nice Question |
|
Sep 5 |
awarded | Yearling |
|
Aug 25 |
comment |
How can new interpretations of QM help? @RonMaimon: Not an existing one. Any interpretation that could be found in the future. However, if there is no practical problem to solve, even a new interpretation wouldn't provide new value. Btw, is the work of Hooft considered serious? Did he have any concrete results? |
|
Jun 5 |
comment |
Adding 3 electron spins Thanks. I tried a brute force approach diagonalizing the 8x8 matrix for total angular momentum. The result was img31.imageshack.us/img31/6228/3spins.png. The cyclic operator turned out to be nice and also works for 4 spins. I need to study your approach - I forgot the basics :) A bit surprising that there is no easy answer. |
|
Jun 5 |
comment |
Show quantum entanglement to a classical thinker I'll have to study that paper. Then just a last question. Has there been absolutely no objection to the set up? Because the CHSH inequality should (apart from statistics) allow for a statement no matter what physically happens unexpectedly. Unless there are additional assumptions about physical measurements needed. Of course you do not need 100% correlation but only above a limit. |
|
Jun 5 |
comment |
Show quantum entanglement to a classical thinker Thanks, talks exactly about this question. The answer of Frédéric describes it a bit more, too. |
|
Jun 4 |
accepted | Show quantum entanglement to a classical thinker |
|
Jun 4 |
comment |
Show quantum entanglement to a classical thinker This is pretty good answer to the question :) Does that mean there is an experiment which is close to 100% winning? It could be an objection if the required state is not realizable. How can I find that experimental test? |
|
Jun 4 |
comment |
Show quantum entanglement to a classical thinker Thanks! This looks quite promising and I have to study this closer! I read the CHSH inequality, but havent got a deeper grasp on it. When a layman asked me what I'm trying to understand, I knew which way I wanted to answer, but wasn't sure how to frame the CHSH this way. |
|
Jun 4 |
asked | Show quantum entanglement to a classical thinker |
|
Jun 4 |
comment |
Adding 3 electron spins I cannot access the paper :( [EDIT: link fixed but I'd have to be in the institutite :)] So to get my results (in terms of spins up/down for each particle) I can take the direct sum of them. Then I will get j/jz states on the RHS and I rearrange for them. The basis j/jz is not complete and will give degeneracies once I try to rearrange for terms on the RHS? Is that the part I was missing? Which other quantum number should I use to distinguish between degeneracies? |
|
Jun 4 |
comment |
Adding 3 electron spins I'm not sure if I understand what you describe. Is that example for 3 spins? Eigenstates should consist of a sum of $|xyz>$ combinations where x,y,z are spin up/down?! If you use total momentum and and z-part you will need an additional quantum number. Can you post an answer deriving at least the total spin 1/2 states for 3 electrons? I can asure you many theorists in the department got stuck there. |
|
Jun 4 |
comment |
Adding 3 electron spins @Emilio: I'll keep that as a reference. Supposedly that book offers a solution, but I don't have it and only wanted to know a short outline :) |
|
Jun 4 |
comment |
Adding 3 electron spins @qoqosz: That comment is quite unhelpful. Read the whole question where I already write some objections, that puzzled other theorists who thought "it is straighforward". |
|
Jun 4 |
awarded | Nice Question |
|
Jun 3 |
asked | Adding 3 electron spins |
|
Jun 3 |
awarded | Teacher |
