Skip to main content
Log in

On classical models of Spin

  • Published:
Foundations of Physics Letters

Abstract

We discuss two classical situations that lead to probabilities characteristic for systems with spin-1/2. (a) Pitowsky model: It is demonstrated that the definition of spin functions does not imply which circle (a parallel or a great circle) on the sphere should be taken as a probability space in calculation of conditional probabilities. Pitowsky's choice of parallels must be formulated as an assumption about the model. It is shown that the model explicitly avoiding this difficulty is possible and no contradiction with the Bell Theorem is found. The modification is based on a new pathological decomposition of the sphere and belongs to a class of hidden variable theories with undetected signals. (b) Aerts model: We show the importance of the “polarization effect” of the measurements for the sake of obtaining a non-Kolmogorovian probability model. It is also shown that the conditioning by a change of state leads in general to the non-Kolmogorovian probability calculus.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. I. Pitowsky,Phys. Rev. D 27, 2316 (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  2. (a) D. Aerts,J. Math. Phys. 27, 202 (1986). (b) D. Aerts, “The origin of the non classical character of the quantum probability model,” inInformation, Complexity and Control in Quantum Physics, A. Blanquiere, S. Dinier, and G. Lochak, eds. (Springer, New York, 1987). (c) D. Aerts,Helv. Phys. Acta 64, 1 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  3. S. P. Gudder,J. Math. Phys. 25, 2397 (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  4. I. Pitowsky,Quantum Probability — Quantum Logic, Lecture Notes in Physics321 (Springer, New York, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  5. E. T. Jaynes,Found. Phys. 3, 477 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  6. R. Jozsa,Found. Phys. 19, 1327 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  7. M. Czachor,Phys. Lett. A 129, 291 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  8. P. Billingsley,Probability and Measure (Wiley, New York, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  9. P. M. Pearle,Phys. Rev. D 2, 1418 (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  10. B. Mielnik,Commun. Math. Phys. 9, 55 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

2. For example, let ∀Cw,zx∈Cw,zµc ({yC w,zS +|δ(x,y) ≤π/2})=µ c(C w,zS +)= 1/2µ c(C w,z). Pitowsky spheres with white points distributed onC w,z in this way exist. The proof is exactly analogous to this of Theorem 1 in [1]. Then (**) = 1 -θ/π, if one takesC w,z as the probability space. This example seems very instructive.

3. If the chargeq falls down on some point then it clearly has not fallen down on another one. Having given a result of a measurement we cannot, within the model with polarization, talk in a sensible way about its alternative: We can think either aboutsuccessive measurements (then the Bell inequality is not derivable) or ask “What would have happened if...,” but then we deal with a different problem (in Aerts' terminology [2b] this is anobservation) and obtain again Eq. (8) (there is no complementarity but there is no model of spin either).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Czachor, M. On classical models of Spin. Found Phys Lett 5, 249–264 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00692802

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00692802

Key words

Navigation