Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that it is impossible to measure two properties of a particle (like $S_z$ and $S_x$) with certainty at the same time. Consider the following experiment (from this page):

enter image description here

The middle part is a radioactive substance (of total spin of zero) which emits electron pairs in opposite directions. The right filter is oriented at 0 degrees (measuring $S_z$) and the left one oriented at 90 degrees (measuring $S_x$).

Here is the part which I don't understand: if an electron passes through the left filter, it means that $S_x$ = +h/2. Therefore, the corresponding right electron has $S_x$ = -h/2. Now, the right electron is also passing through the $S_z$ filter at the same time, and hence we can measure $S_z$.

Isnt this against the uncertainty principle and what does the principles of relativity have to say about this? Sure it will take time to communicate the $S_x$ result, but we are measuring $S_x$ and $S_z$ at the same time. Therefore, aren't we able to measure both of the properties at the same time, even though the result of one measurement is communicated at a later time?

  • $\begingroup$ Welcome to physics.SE! You can put dollar signs before and after your math to make it be displayed properly. $\endgroup$ – user4552 Jan 1 '18 at 14:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "Therefore, aren't we able to measure both of the properties at the same time" - But there is no electron state with definite values for $S_x$ and $S_z$. $\endgroup$ – Alfred Centauri Jan 1 '18 at 14:59

If you observe the left-hand electron to get through the filter, this is equivalent to preparing the right-hand electron in the state $S_x=-\hbar/2$. Actually, you could have done that without entanglement. Just take an unpolarized electron beam that's going to the right, and pass it through a filter that requires $S_x=-\hbar/2$. Then pass it through a second filter that requires $S_z=+\hbar/2$. This doesn't mean that the electron has definite values of both $S_x$ and $S_z$ simultaneously. After the $S_z$ measurement, the electron no longer has a definite value of $S_x$.

BTW, there is no uncertainty principle of the standard form for $S_x$ and $S_z$, although they are not compatible observables, just like $p$ and $x$ are not compatible observables. But you can make this paradox into an equivalent one by having the electrons be emitted from a particle at rest in the lab frame, so they're in entangled states $p_1=-p_2$. Then you can put them through $x$ and $p$ filters. The resolution of the paradox is the same.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Hi! I agree with your response but here's my argument: we are not actually measuring $S_x$ of the right electron directly. We are deriving it from the left electron's result. But at the same time, we measure $S_z$. Since it is at the same time, its not like measuring $S_x$ first and then $S_z$. $\endgroup$ – Ravi Sankar Jan 1 '18 at 16:00
  • $\begingroup$ @RaviSankar: When A and B are entangled, there is no distinction between measuring A and measuring B. Measuring A also means measuring B. $\endgroup$ – user4552 Jan 1 '18 at 16:48
  • $\begingroup$ Yes! That's what I am curious about. When we measure the left electron, we get the corresponding property of the right electron and at the EXACT time, we also measure a different property (and presumably, get the "right" result since the measurement operations are not sequential; they are done parallel) $\endgroup$ – Ravi Sankar Jan 1 '18 at 17:15
  • $\begingroup$ @RaviSankar, (1) after the measurements, the left electron has definite $S_x$ (with indefinite $S_z$) and the right electron has definite $S_z$ (with indefinite $S_x$). This must be the case since there is no electron state with definite values of $S_x$ and $S_z$, (2) you insist that the measurements occur at the same "EXACT" time but the time of measurement is itself uncertain. $\endgroup$ – Alfred Centauri Jan 1 '18 at 18:28
  • $\begingroup$ @AlfredCentauri Can you please help me out on the (2) point? Why is the time of measurement uncertain $\endgroup$ – Ravi Sankar Jan 2 '18 at 4:29

This seems to correspond to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox (in the Bohm formulation) which has since been resolved.

| cite | improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.