Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 52 references

Testing spooky action between free-traveling electron-positron pairs

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Bhabha scattering of a few-GeV positron beam off a fixed target can create a controllable source of free, nearly maximally entangled electron-positron pairs whose spin correlation is read out by two downstream scatterings.

desk verdict Solid entanglement predictions for Bhabha scattering, but the 'feasibility' claim is a simulation that ignores target transport and evaluates no Bell observable. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07597 v1 pith:WU5TL66F submitted 2025-02-11 hep-ph hep-exphysics.pop-phquant-ph

Leyun Gao , Alim Ruzi , Qite Li , Chen Zhou , Qiang Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-exphysics.pop-phquant-ph
keywords quantumentanglementBellinequalityBhabhascatteringfixed-targetexperimentelectron-positronpairsMøllerpolarizationcorrelationconcurrence
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Quantum entanglement has so far been demonstrated for confined electron pairs or for short-lived heavy particles like top quarks, not for freely traveling electrons and positrons at high energies. This paper argues that a fixed-target experiment—a few-GeV positron beam hitting a thin aluminum target—can act as a bright, controllable source of entangled electron-positron pairs, because Bhabha scattering in a specific angular window produces a state close to the Bell state, with concurrence up to 0.9996 and CHSH correlator up to 2.8281 (nearly the quantum maximum). Since a single flying electron's spin cannot be measured directly, the paper proposes to read out the pair correlation by letting the positron and electron scatter off two separate polarized iron targets, converting the spin correlation into a joint angular distribution of the secondary scatterings. Simulating this full cascade with WHIZARD, the authors find a yield ratio of 1.29 ± 0.03 between the entangled state and an unpolarized product state for fully polarized targets, and 1.010 ± 0.009 for 20% polarized targets, at event rates of order 100 per second. The conclusion is a concrete experimental route to testing Bell non-locality with free-traveling, GeV-scale charged leptons.

What carries the argument

The central object is the spin density matrix ρf of the final e+e− pair, computed at tree level from the coherent sum of s- and t-channel Bhabha amplitudes as a function of the center-of-mass scattering angle θ′e+. Entanglement is quantified by concurrence C(ρf) and the optimized CHSH correlator I2 = 2√(λ1+λ2). The load-bearing identity is the near-equality of the generated state to the Bell state (RR+LL)/√2 (where R and L label right- and left-handed helicities) in a specific lab-frame angular window (0.05 rad ≤ θe+ ≤ 0.1 rad), which pushes C to 0.9996 and I2 to 2.8281. The measurement procedure converts the unmeasurable single-particle spin into a two-body angular correlation: the primary positron scatters off a polarized target electron (Bhabha) and the primary electron scatters off another polarized target electron (Møller), and the joint distribution of the two secondary scattering angles in their center-of-mass frames, weighted by the product of cross sections, is compared for different assumed primary spin states.

What would settle it

A run measuring the joint angular distribution of the two secondary scatterings for the phase-space window 0.05 ≤ θe+ ≤ 0.1 rad should yield the ratio 1.010 ± 0.009 between the (LL+RR)/√2 and unpolarized hypotheses with 20% polarized targets; any significant deviation would indicate the central feasibility claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the spin-1/2 qubits carried by free electron-positron pairs produced in Bhabha scattering are not only entangled but can be measured without ever measuring a single flying electron's spin. Because the primary pair is generated in a known phase-space region where the density matrix is close to (RR+LL)/√2 with 1% admixtures of the other Bell states, the polarization correlation can be mapped to the joint angular distribution of two independent secondary scattering processes—Bhabha scattering for the positron and Møller scattering for the electron—each against polarized electrons in separate iron foils. The paper demonstrates with WHIZARD simulations of the full 1→4 process that this cascade setup yields a joint distribution that distinguishes the entangled state from an uncorrelated product state with a yield ratio 1.29 ± 0.03 (for 100% polarized targets) and 1.010 ± 0.009 (for 20% polarized targets), at rates of order $10^{2}$ events per second. Full quantum state tomography of an arbitrary mixed state remains out of reach with this probe, but the paper argues that the prior knowledge of the primary scattering restricts the support to a few linear combinations of the computational basis, making the correlation measurement feasible.

Load-bearing premise

The feasibility numbers hinge on polarizing the electrons in the two secondary iron targets (idealized first to 100%, then 20%) and on the secondary scatterings being clean single-hit events at tree order, with no background, detector loss, or reconstruction inefficiency.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 1 GeV positron beam with 10^12/s flux on a 10 cm aluminum target produces ~1.9×10^9 entangled pairs per second, so the source is bright enough for high-statistics experiments.
  • The same method extends to other beam energies (3 and 10 GeV) with similar maximal entanglement, and analogous setups could work with electron beams, not just positron beams.
  • Because the entanglement is maximal in the specific phase-space window, the measurement reduces to discriminating between a few known states rather than full tomography, which the paper shows is distinguishable with a ratio of 1.29 for 100% polarized targets.
  • The scheme provides a path to test Bell inequality violation (I2 up to 2.8281, close to the quantum maximum 2√2 ≈ 2.8284) using free-traveling leptons at GeV energies, complementing measurements with confined electrons or top quarks.
  • With 20% polarized secondary targets the discrimination shrinks to about 1%, but the high rate still allows 2.5×10^4 efficient events in roughly 11 minutes, which may compensate for lower polarization purity.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference (editorial): the same two-stage scattering readout could apply to other pair-production channels, such as muon pairs or photon conversion, wherever the primary spin density matrix is fixed by event selection.
  • Inference (editorial): the sharp predicted ratio of 1.010 at 20% target polarization is a quantitative falsifier for the tree-level modeling; a prototype run at modest statistics that disagrees with it would force inclusion of radiative corrections or background processes.
  • Inference (editorial): the paper's idealization of fully spin-aligned target electrons omits Fermi motion and multiple scattering in the iron foils; whether the 1% discriminating effect at 20% polarization survives those smearings is the next open question.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that Bhabha scattering of a few-GeV positron beam off a fixed target produces free-traveling electron-positron pairs with near-maximal entanglement, characterized by concurrence up to 0.9996 and optimal CHSH values up to 2.828. It then proposes a two-secondary-target scheme in which the positron and electron scatter off polarized iron targets, with the joint angular distribution of the two secondary scatterings used to distinguish the entangled state from an unpolarized state. The authors report a discriminating ratio of 1.29 for the entangled versus unpolarized hypothesis and estimate event rates that they argue make the measurement feasible.

Significance. The theoretical characterization of Bhabha final states as a high-energy entangled source is a useful addition to the growing literature on quantum information at colliders, and the use of tree-level QED with public event generators and no fitted parameters is a strength. The proposed two-target readout scheme is conceptually novel and, if realized, would be a valuable step toward measuring spin correlations of free-traveling leptons. However, the feasibility conclusion rests on several idealized assumptions that are not yet supported: the density-matrix normalization in Eq. (1) is nonstandard, target transport effects are omitted, the polarized-target assumptions are not tied to any concrete technology, and the proposed measurement does not implement a Bell test. These issues are addressable in revision, but they currently prevent the central feasibility claim from being established.

major comments (5)
  1. [Theoretical framework, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) does not give the density matrix of an unpolarized initial state. For unpolarized beams the correctly normalized object is rho_f = [sum_{s1,s2} M_{s3's4',s1s2} M*_{s3s4,s1s2}] / [sum_{s1,s2,s3s4} |M_{s3s4,s1s2}|^2], with the normalization in the overall denominator. In Eq. (1) the denominator sum_{s3''s4''} |M|^2 is inside the sum over s1 and s2, which normalizes each initial-helicity configuration separately before averaging with equal weight. These two objects coincide only if the four initial-helicity cross sections are equal, which is not generally true in Bhabha scattering and is not demonstrated. Since the concurrence, the CHSH values in Table I, and the 90% (RR+LL)/sqrt(2) decomposition in the following section are all derived from this object, the quantitative claims need to be recomputed with the correct unpolarized density matrix.
  2. [Measurement section, Fig. 3 and rate estimates] The feasibility calculation treats the primary and secondary leptons as free beams traversing 10 cm of Al (about 1.1 radiation lengths) and 10 cm of Fe (about 5.7 radiation lengths) each. For a 0.389 GeV electron, multiple Coulomb scattering in 10 cm of Al gives theta0 ~ 0.04 rad, comparable to the selected 0.05-0.1 rad window, and bremsstrahlung causes an O(1) energy loss; in 10 cm of Fe the degradation is much larger. The MadGraph/WHIZARD simulation and the quoted 1.4x10^2/s four-body rate do not include ionization loss, bremsstrahlung, multiple scattering, or the need for the final-state particles to escape the targets. The limitation note in the same passage lists process modeling and background suppression but not target transport. A material-transport simulation, or at least a quantitative estimate of these effects, is required before the free-traveling premise and rate claim can be considered established.
  3. [Measurement section, Fig. 4 and the 1.29 ratio] The central discriminating number, 1.29 +/- 0.03, is obtained by optimizing over a 'contiguous smooth area', but neither the area nor the optimization procedure is specified. This ratio is the main quantitative support for the claim that the entangled and unpolarized hypotheses can be distinguished, so the lack of a precise definition makes the result non-reproducible. Please specify the exact selection and provide a closure test or pseudo-experiment.
  4. [Measurement section, target polarization] The analysis assumes that the secondary-target electrons are first 100% polarized and then 20% polarized, aligned with the beam direction, but no concrete target technology is identified. A 10 cm thick solid target with high net electron polarization is not currently available; for example, the net spin polarization of all atomic electrons in magnetized iron is of order 10% at most. The projected discriminating ratios at 100% and 20% polarization therefore rest on an unvalidated experimental premise. A discussion of a realistic polarized target, including material, thickness, achievable polarization, and beam-heating limits, is needed.
  5. [Measurement section and abstract] The paper's abstract and title invoke Bell inequality violation, but the proposed two-target measurement uses a single fixed spin-quantization axis (target electron spins aligned with the beam) and reports a yield ratio between two assumed states. No procedure is given for implementing at least two measurement settings per side, for random and space-like separated setting choices, or for converting the observed joint angular distribution into a CHSH correlator. The I2 values in the theoretical section characterize the source under optimal projective measurements; they are not measured by the proposed setup. If the claim is limited to measuring polarization correlations of a state assumed from QED, this should be stated clearly; if a Bell test is intended, the missing elements must be specified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] The sentence 'Various experimental measurements ... can be an eager with the entangled pair source established' appears to contain a typo; it should probably read 'can be achieved with' or 'can be compared with'.
  2. [Theoretical framework] Equation (3) is rendered as 'I2 = 2 p lambda1 + lambda2', which is ambiguous; it should be typeset as I2 = 2 sqrt(lambda1 + lambda2).
  3. [Table I] The table caption does not define E_min(e+), E_min(e-), theta_min(e+), and theta_min(e-); please add explicit definitions so the table is self-contained.
  4. [Figure 2 caption] The caption does not state the pseudorapidity selection used in each panel or the meaning of the gray regions beyond the text; please document these choices in the caption.
  5. [Measurement section] The sentence 'Within the studied energy range, spin entanglement is observed with a lower bound of approximately 1.3 rad for theta'_mu' in the source section appears to contain a notation mismatch; the variable theta'_mu is not introduced and should be replaced with the electron/positron angle used in this paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity found; the entanglement and CHSH values are computed from standard QED amplitudes with no fitted inputs, and the secondary-scattering study is a Monte Carlo feasibility demonstration rather than a derivation that reduces to its assumptions.

full rationale

The paper's entanglement claims are derived directly from the standard tree-level QED amplitude via Eq. (1), with no fitted parameters; the concurrence and optimal CHSH values are computed from the resulting density matrix using standard definitions, so no step reduces to its own input. The primary-state results (C up to 0.9996, I2 up to 2.8281) follow from the computed density matrix and standard entanglement monotones, and they do not depend on the later secondary-scattering discussion. The secondary-scattering study is a Monte Carlo feasibility estimate: the authors generate events from the same QED amplitudes and compare joint angular distributions for different assumed polarization states of the intermediate particles. This is a self-consistency check of the proposed measurement scheme, not an empirical test, but it is not circular because the quoted discrimination ratio (1.29) is computed from the QED cross sections rather than defined as an input, and the entanglement claims would stand even if the secondary-scattering proposal were removed. The only self-citation (Ref. [23]) supplies methodological context (a kinematic approach previously used for muons) and is not load-bearing; the load-bearing external results (Fedida-Serafini, Wootters, Horodecki, CHSH) are independent theoretical results. Concerns about target polarization, radiation-length transport through the aluminum and iron targets, backgrounds, or detector efficiencies are experimental-feasibility and correctness risks, not instances of circular reasoning. Therefore the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central results rest on standard QED helicity-amplitude formalism and on default assumptions of unpolarized beams and idealized polarized secondary targets. No new physical entities are introduced. The main hand-chosen inputs are the angular phase-space cuts and the target polarization levels, which determine the quoted entanglement values and the discrimination ratios.

free parameters (2)
  • Primary angular phase-space cuts = θ'e+ ≤ 3 rad, then lab selection 0.05 rad ≤ θe+ ≤ 0.1 rad
    Hand-picked to isolate high-entanglement events. The headline numbers (C up to 0.953, I2 up to 2.8281, 23.4% of entangled events) are quoted inside this region, so the central claim depends on these cuts.
  • Secondary target polarization = 100% (idealized) then 20%
    The signal ratio (1.29 for 100%, 1.010 for 20%) depends directly on this assumed value; real achievable electron-spin polarization in the target is not measured.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Initial state of primary Bhabha scattering is unpolarized
    Used in deriving Eq. (1); standard for a fixed-target positron beam hitting an unpolarized target, but it sets the reference state.
  • domain assumption Tree-level QED with lepton masses is sufficient
    MadGraph and WHIZARD are used at tree level; higher-order corrections could shift the predicted concurrence and CHSH values at the percent level.
  • ad hoc to paper Electron spins in secondary targets are aligned with the beam direction
    The 'simplified ideal scenario' in the Measurement section assumes 100% alignment, then 20%; the entire sensitivity estimate depends on this.
  • ad hoc to paper Backgrounds and detector effects are negligible
    Rates are computed from pure scattering processes without beam background, multiple scattering, or detector acceptance; the authors note these may dominate real analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Testing spooky action between free-traveling electron-positron pairs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WU5TL66F

@misc{pith2026250207597,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Testing spooky action between free-traveling electron-positron pairs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WU5TL66F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07597}
}
abstract

Quantum entanglement is a cornerstone of quantum mechanics. While the entanglement of confined electron pairs has been established early on, the entanglement of free-traveling electron pairs, particularly at high energies, remains largely unexplored due to the substantial challenges involved in measuring the spins of free-traveling electrons. In this study, we investigate the entanglement and the Bell inequality violation of free-traveling electron-positron pairs generated in a fixed-target experiment. This experimental setup facilitates the creation of a controllable source of entangled electron-positron pairs, where entangled events are produced in specific phase spaces. Based on this source and the prior knowledge of the entangled state, we demonstrate the feasibility of measuring the polarization correlations of the entangled $e^+e^-$ pairs through their individual secondary scatterings off two separate additional targets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07597 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (a) Polar angles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Final state scatter plots colored by (top) the concurrence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Schematic diagram of the proposed cascade on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Joint angular distributions of the two secondary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Einstein, B

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935)

    work page 1935

  2. [2]

    To quantify the dif- ference between the angular distributions resulting from the (LL + RR) / √ 2 and U Ustates, we optimize the ra- tio of the yields of (LL + RR) / √ 2 to U Uin a contiguous smooth area, yielding a value of 1 .29 ± 0.03, where the uncertainty is estimated with the Poisson counting error for the Monte Carlo events. It corresponds to 4 .4 ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    J. S. Bell, On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, Physics Physique Fizika 1, 195 (1964)

    1964

  4. [4]

    S. J. Freedman and J. F. Clauser, Experimental Test of Local Hidden-Variable Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett.28, 938 (1972)

    work page 1972

  5. [5]

    J. F. Clauser and A. Shimony, Bell’s theorem: Experi- mental tests and implications, Rept. Prog. Phys.41, 1881 (1978)

    work page 1978

  6. [6]

    Fabbrichesi, R

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, and G. Panizzo, Testing Bell Inequalities at the LHC with Top-Quark Pairs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 161801 (2021), arXiv:2102.11883 [hep- ph]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    A. J. Barr, Testing Bell inequalities in Higgs boson de- cays, Phys. Lett. B825, 136866 (2022), arXiv:2106.01377 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Ashby-Pickering, A

    R. Ashby-Pickering, A. J. Barr, and A. Wierzchucka, Quantum state tomography, entanglement detection and Bell violation prospects in weak decays of massive parti- cles, JHEP 05, 020, arXiv:2209.13990 [quant-ph]

    arXiv

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Fabbrichesi, R

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, E. Gabrielli, and L. Mar- zola, Bell inequalities and quantum entanglement in weak gauge boson production at the LHC and future colliders, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 823 (2023), arXiv:2302.00683 [hep- ph]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    A. J. Barr, M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, E. Gabrielli, and L. Marzola, Quantum entanglement and Bell in- equality violation at colliders, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 139, 104134 (2024), arXiv:2402.07972 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Fabbrichesi, R

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, and E. Gabrielli, Con- straining new physics in entangled two-qubit systems: top-quark, tau-lepton and photon pairs, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 162 (2023), arXiv:2208.11723 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Fabbrichesi and L

    M. Fabbrichesi and L. Marzola, Dipole momenta and compositeness of the τ lepton at Belle II, Phys. Rev. D 109, 095026 (2024), arXiv:2401.04449 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Lo Chiatto, Interference Resurrection of the τ Dipole through Quantum Tomography (2024) arXiv:2408.04553 [hep-ph]

    P. Lo Chiatto, Interference Resurrection of the τ Dipole through Quantum Tomography (2024) arXiv:2408.04553 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Observation of quantum entan- glement with top quarks at the ATLAS detector, Nature 633, 542 (2024), arXiv:2311.07288 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    C. S. Wu and I. Shaknov, The Angular Correlation of Scattered Annihilation Radiation, Phys. Rev. 77, 136 (1950). 6

    1950

  8. [16]

    C. N. Yang, C. S. Wu’s Contributions: A Retrospective in 2015, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 30, 1530050 (2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    Babson and E

    J. Babson and E. Ma, Decay Product Correlation of τ +τ − From e+e− Annihilation, Phys. Rev. D 26, 2497 (1982)

    1982

  10. [18]

    Privitera, Decay correlations in e+e− → τ +τ − as a test of quantum mechanics, Phys

    P. Privitera, Decay correlations in e+e− → τ +τ − as a test of quantum mechanics, Phys. Lett. B 275, 172 (1992)

    1992

  11. [19]

    H. K. Dreiner, Bell’s inequality and tau physics at LEP, in 2nd Workshop on Tau Lepton Physics (1992) arXiv:hep-ph/9211203

    1992 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Ehat¨ aht, M

    K. Ehat¨ aht, M. Fabbrichesi, L. Marzola, and C. Veelken, Probing entanglement and testing Bell inequality viola- tion with e+e− → τ +τ − at Belle II, Phys. Rev. D 109, 032005 (2024), arXiv:2311.17555 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Ma and T

    K. Ma and T. Li, Testing Bell inequality through H → τ τat CEPC, Chin. Phys. C 48, 103105 (2024), arXiv:2309.08103 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    M. M. Altakach, P. Lamba, F. Maltoni, K. Mawatari, and K. Sakurai, Quantum information and CP measurement in H → τ +τ − at future lepton colliders, Phys. Rev. D 107, 093002 (2023), arXiv:2211.10513 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Fabbrichesi and L

    M. Fabbrichesi and L. Marzola, Quantum tomography with τ leptons at the FCC-ee: Entanglement, Bell inequality violation, sin θW , and anomalous couplings, Phys. Rev. D 110, 076004 (2024), arXiv:2405.09201 [hep- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    L. Gao, A. Ruzi, Q. Li, C. Zhou, L. Chen, X. Zhang, Z. Sun, and Q. Li, Quantum state tomography with muons (2024) arXiv:2411.12518 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Fedida and A

    S. Fedida and A. Serafini, Tree-level entanglement in quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 107, 116007 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Cheng, T

    K. Cheng, T. Han, and M. Low, Quantum Tomog- raphy at Colliders: With or Without Decays (2024) arXiv:2410.08303 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    J. R. Petta, A. C. Johnson, J. M. Taylor, E. A. Laird, A. Yacoby, M. D. Lukin, C. M. Marcus, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Coherent Manipulation of Coupled Electron Spins in Semiconductor Quantum Dots, Science 309, 1116955 (2005)

    2005

  20. [28]

    B. M. Garraway and S. Stenholm, Does a flying electron spin?, Contemporary Physics 43, 147 (2002)

    2002

  21. [29]

    Gaskell, Electron polarimetry, in Polarized Beam Dy- namics and Instrumentation in Particle Accelerators: USPAS Summer 2021 Spin Class Lectures, edited by F

    D. Gaskell, Electron polarimetry, in Polarized Beam Dy- namics and Instrumentation in Particle Accelerators: USPAS Summer 2021 Spin Class Lectures, edited by F. M´ eot, H. Huang, V. Ptitsyn, and F. Lin (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2023) pp. 301–314

    2021

  22. [30]

    Fedida and A

    S. Fedida and A. Serafini, Tree-level entanglement in quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 107, 116007 (2023), arXiv:2209.01405 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009), arXiv:quant-ph/0702225

    2009 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Chitambar and G

    E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Quantum resource theories, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 025001 (2019), arXiv:1806.06107 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    W. K. Wootters, Entanglement of formation of an ar- bitrary state of two qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2245 (1998), arXiv:quant-ph/9709029

    1998 arXiv

  26. [34]

    R. M. Gingrich and C. Adami, Quantum Entanglement of Moving Bodies, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 270402 (2002), arXiv:quant-ph/0205179

    2002 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Hill and W

    S. Hill and W. K. Wootters, Entanglement of a pair of quantum bits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 5022 (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9703041

    1997 arXiv

  28. [36]

    J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Proposed experiment to test local hidden variable theo- ries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880 (1969)

    1969

  29. [37]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and M. Horodecki, Violating Bell inequality by mixed spin-1/2 states: necessary and sufficient condition, Phys. Lett. A 200, 340 (1995)

    1995

  30. [38]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro, The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations, JHEP 07...

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    Cervera-Lierta, J

    A. Cervera-Lierta, J. I. Latorre, J. Rojo, and L. Rottoli, Maximal Entanglement in High Energy Physics, SciPost Phys. 3, 036 (2017), arXiv:1703.02989 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Gerlach and O

    W. Gerlach and O. Stern, Experimental test of the ap- plicability of the quantum their to the magnetic field, Z. Phys. 9, 349 (1922)

    1922

  33. [41]

    Batelaan, T

    H. Batelaan, T. J. Gay, and J. J. Schwendiman, Stern- Gerlach effect for electron beams, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 4517 (1997)

    1997

  34. [42]

    Brillouin, Is it possible to test by a direct experiment the hypothesis of the spinning electron?, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 14, 755 (1928)

    L. Brillouin, Is it possible to test by a direct experiment the hypothesis of the spinning electron?, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 14, 755 (1928)

    1928

  35. [43]

    stern- gerlach effect for electron beams

    G. H. Rutherford and R. Grobe, Comment on “stern- gerlach effect for electron beams”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 4772 (1998)

    1998

  36. [44]

    Batelaan and T

    H. Batelaan and T. J. Gay, Batelaan and gay reply:, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 4773 (1998)

    1998

  37. [45]

    B. M. Garraway and S. Stenholm, Observing the spin of a free electron, Phys. Rev. A 60, 63 (1999)

    1999

  38. [46]

    McGregor, R

    S. McGregor, R. Bach, and H. Batelaan, Transverse quantum stern–gerlach magnets for electrons, New Jour- nal of Physics 13, 065018 (2011)

    2011

  39. [47]

    Kohda, S

    M. Kohda, S. Nakamura, Y. Nishihara, K. Kobayashi, T. Ono, J.-i. Ohe, Y. Tokura, T. Mineno, and J. Nitta, Spin–orbit induced electronic spin separation in semicon- ductor nanostructures, Nature communications 3, 1082 (2012)

    2012

  40. [48]

    M. M. Dellweg and C. M¨ uller, Spin-Polarizing Interfero- metric Beam Splitter for Free Electrons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 070403 (2017), arXiv:1607.08793 [quant-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Ghazaryan, M

    A. Ghazaryan, M. Lemeshko, and A. G. Volosniev, Fil- tering spins by scattering from a lattice of point magnets, Communications Physics 3, 178 (2020), arXiv:2004.04511 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Aulenbacher, E

    K. Aulenbacher, E. Chudakov, D. Gaskell, J. Grames, and K. D. Paschke, Precision electron beam polarimetry for next generation nuclear physics experiments, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 27, 1830004 (2018)

    2018

  43. [51]

    Kilian, T

    W. Kilian, T. Ohl, and J. Reuter, WHIZARD: Simulating Multi-Particle Processes at LHC and ILC, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1742 (2011), arXiv:0708.4233 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Moretti, T

    M. Moretti, T. Ohl, and J. Reuter, O’Mega: An Op- timizing matrix element generator (2001), arXiv:hep- ph/0102195

    2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.