Measuring which path in Hardy's paradox, results

In summary, the conversation discusses a paper by Yakir Aharonov and others about Hardy's paradox. It introduces the notation used in the paper and mentions two detectors, C and D, for positrons and electrons. The paper claims that when both D+ and D- click, both of the which path detectors also click. However, the person speaking does not understand this and believes that the particles should collapse into the other three combinations with equal probability. Upon further review of the paper, they realize that the measurements were performed after the state collapsed and that the detectors in no+ and o- are combined into a joint detector. This means that if D+ and D- clicked, the joint detector for no+o- must have clicked as
  • #1
msumm21
218
16
I am reading a paper from Yakir Aharonov and others revisiting Hardy's paradox and I have a question. Let me state the notation first as brief as possible so that we can use it in the discussion:

* a positron e+ goes through either the overlapping arm o+ or the non overlapping arm no+ of a Mach-Zhender interferometer (MZI)
* an electron e- goes through either the overlapping arm o- or the non overlapping arm no- of another MZI
* the two detectors that e+ (resp. e-) may register in after passing the the MZI are C+ and D+ (resp. C- and D-)
* when a single MZI is operated independently without which path measurements the particles always go into the C detector (destructive interference to D) -- C always "clicks"

Now, when the arms of the MZI overlap to give Hardy's experiment, Ahranov et. al claim that, if detectors are placed within no+ and o-, then every situation in which both D+ and D- click, both of the which path detectors also click. I do not understand that. I do understand that, if a detector is in o- ONLY then every time D+ and D- click then o- must have clicked (otherwise e+ would have "interfered with itself" such that it would have to go into C+). However, if both the no+ and o- detectors are there, then I would expect 1/4 of the time there would be annihilation as usual (both e+ and e- enter overlapping arms), but the other 3/4 of the time the particles would collapse to the other 3 combinations no+o-, no+no-, and o+no-with equal probability. And, in each of the latter 3 cases, there would be a 1/4 chance of both particles being registered in their D detectors, right? So why would a measurement of, say no+no-, prevent the D detectors from clicking? Is it somehow impossible to register no+no-? Once the particles "collapse" into the non overlapping arms I'd think their should be no interference and they should independtly have 0.5 probability of going into D (.25 probability of D+D-). I guess I am missing something.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I just reviewed that paper again and I think I caught 2 problems. Maybe someone could confirm if I'm thinking of this correctly now. The two things I missed previously:

1) The author said that the measurements were performed at a spot on the MZIs AFTER annihilation would have occurred -- i.e. after the state collapsed to the superposition |no+o-> + |no+no-> + |o+no->.

2) The detectors in no+ and o- are actually combined into a joint detector which only clicks if the state collapses to |no+o-> and thus can't distinguish between the other two states as I previously thought. So, if this joint detector does not click, then the state only collapses to |no+no-> + |o+no->. In this state, the electron will destructively interfere with itself at the D- detector and hence must enter the C- detector. Therefore, if D+ and D- clicked in a run of this experiment, we immediately know that the joint detector for no+o- must have clicked (otherwise there was no way to get D-).

Correct?
 

1. How do you measure the path in Hardy's paradox?

The path in Hardy's paradox can be measured by using a series of detectors and measuring the probabilities of particles passing through each detector. This can give an indication of which path the particles are taking.

2. What is the significance of measuring the path in Hardy's paradox?

Measuring the path in Hardy's paradox can provide insight into the nature of quantum mechanics and the concept of wave-particle duality. It also has implications for the understanding of causality and the role of observation in quantum systems.

3. Are there any limitations to measuring the path in Hardy's paradox?

Yes, there are limitations to measuring the path in Hardy's paradox. The process of measurement can interfere with the quantum system and alter the results, making it difficult to obtain accurate measurements. Additionally, the uncertainty principle states that it is impossible to know both the position and momentum of a particle with absolute certainty, which can also impact the accuracy of the measurements.

4. Can the path in Hardy's paradox be measured without affecting the outcome?

No, according to the laws of quantum mechanics, the act of measurement will always have an impact on the outcome of a quantum system. This is due to the principle of superposition, which states that a quantum system can exist in multiple states simultaneously until it is observed or measured.

5. How does the measurement of the path in Hardy's paradox relate to other quantum paradoxes?

The measurement of the path in Hardy's paradox is closely related to other quantum paradoxes, such as the double-slit experiment and the EPR paradox. These paradoxes all involve the concept of wave-particle duality and the role of observation in determining the behavior of quantum systems. They highlight the strange and counterintuitive nature of quantum mechanics and the challenges in understanding and interpreting it.

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
840
Replies
2
Views
736
Replies
1
Views
632
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
721
Replies
35
Views
4K
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
1K
Back
Top