Campuses:
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
classes:2009:fall:phys4101.001:q_a_1209 [2009/12/10 15:21] – yk | classes:2009:fall:phys4101.001:q_a_1209 [2009/12/19 17:23] (current) – x500_sohnx020 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
Another question about [4.151]. | Another question about [4.151]. | ||
What if I switch alpha and beta, we would get < | What if I switch alpha and beta, we would get < | ||
- | Is this the same as 4.151? I mean Kai will be different finally. | + | Is this the same as 4.151? I mean Kai will be different finally? |
+ | |||
+ | ===Yuichi=== | ||
+ | Your < | ||
==== Zeno 12/8 11:45am ==== | ==== Zeno 12/8 11:45am ==== | ||
Line 49: | Line 52: | ||
===Yuichi=== | ===Yuichi=== | ||
This is an elegant way to solve a problems for sure, but I don't think it is an efficient way to find the solution necessarily. | This is an elegant way to solve a problems for sure, but I don't think it is an efficient way to find the solution necessarily. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Jake22 12/15 4:30==== | ||
+ | What are some suggested alternatives to using 4.178 for describing a two level system (like one of states spin up and spin down) that may allow the two particle state to be expressed without entanglement, | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Blackbox 5:30 === | ||
+ | 4.178 shows only one state with m=0 carries s=0 which is singlet case. I don't think there may exist other good alternatives for this espression. | ||
--------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------- |