- #1
Sonderval
- 234
- 11
Dear experts,
I'm currently working my way through the paper Masanes, Galley, Müller, https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.11060.
On page 3, they define what they call a bi-local measurement: If we have two systems a and b and we define an outcome probability function for some measurement f on system a and g on system b, the pair of measurements can be represented by a product
$$ (f \ast g) (\psi \otimes \phi) = f(\psi) g(\phi)$$
I find this very confusing because it seems to me to deny the possibility of entanglement: If the two states ##\psi## and ##\phi## are entangled (for example, two electrons entangled so that their spin is always the same), I think this statement does not hold anymore. (Probability for first electron to measure up could be 0.5, probability for second to measure down could also be 0.5, but combined probability would be zero.)
Probably I'm mis-interpreting something in the paper, but I have no idea where my mistake lies.
Any help is appreciated.
I'm currently working my way through the paper Masanes, Galley, Müller, https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.11060.
On page 3, they define what they call a bi-local measurement: If we have two systems a and b and we define an outcome probability function for some measurement f on system a and g on system b, the pair of measurements can be represented by a product
$$ (f \ast g) (\psi \otimes \phi) = f(\psi) g(\phi)$$
I find this very confusing because it seems to me to deny the possibility of entanglement: If the two states ##\psi## and ##\phi## are entangled (for example, two electrons entangled so that their spin is always the same), I think this statement does not hold anymore. (Probability for first electron to measure up could be 0.5, probability for second to measure down could also be 0.5, but combined probability would be zero.)
Probably I'm mis-interpreting something in the paper, but I have no idea where my mistake lies.
Any help is appreciated.