Confusion about preparing ensemble of particles and no-cloning theorem

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the preparation of an ensemble of particles in quantum mechanics and its relationship to the no-cloning theorem. Participants explore the implications of these concepts, particularly focusing on whether preparing an ensemble requires knowledge of the wavefunction and how this relates to the ability to copy quantum states.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that preparing an ensemble of particles requires all particles to have the same wavefunction, questioning if this contradicts the no-cloning theorem, which states that an unknown quantum state cannot be copied.
  • Another participant asks for clarification on the essential difference between preparing an ensemble and copying an unknown quantum state.
  • A participant expresses confusion about the nature of ensembles, stating that they believed all particles in an ensemble must have the same wavefunction, but acknowledges a misunderstanding after receiving clarification.
  • It is noted that an ensemble is typically described by a density matrix and that it is not necessary for all individual systems in the ensemble to share the same wavefunction.
  • Participants discuss the equivalence of making measurements on an ensemble and performing repeated measurements on a single system, referencing the ergodic hypothesis.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit disagreement regarding the nature of ensembles and the implications of the no-cloning theorem. Some participants believe that all particles in an ensemble must have the same wavefunction, while others argue that this is not a requirement.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions about the definitions of ensembles and wavefunctions, as well as the implications of the no-cloning theorem in this context.

kof9595995
Messages
676
Reaction score
2
To get a distribution of some dynamic variable of a wavefunction, we actually need to prepare an ensemble of particles, in which all the particles have the same wavefunction, right?
And no-cloning theorem states that it's impossible to copy an unknown quantum state.
So is this a contradiction?
I've figured that in order to prepare an ensemble we have to know the wavefunction, so it doesn't really fit the situation under which the no-cloning theorem applies. But I can't really give myself a clear and detailed reasoning to convince myself. Could you guys help me explain it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Maybe I was not specific enough, let's start with: what's the essential difference between preparing an ensemble and copying an unknown quantum state?
 
Emm...still no one, that's strange, is there something wrong about my question, or the way I asked?
 
I am not sure I understand the question. An ensemble is something with statistical properties, usually described via a density matrix. There is no reason to assume that all the individual systems in the ensemble have the same wavefunction (in fact, one usually assumes that this is NOT the case).
Making a measurement on an ensemble is usually equivalent to repeated measurements on a single system, i.e. the ergodic hypothesis.
 
f95toli said:
I am not sure I understand the question. An ensemble is something with statistical properties, usually described via a density matrix. There is no reason to assume that all the individual systems in the ensemble have the same wavefunction (in fact, one usually assumes that this is NOT the case).
Making a measurement on an ensemble is usually equivalent to repeated measurements on a single system, i.e. the ergodic hypothesis.
Well, seems I was under the false impression that all particles in an ensemble should have a same wavefunction, thanks for clarifying. But then I can't understand ensemble interpretation, I always thought to verify the Born's statistical interpretation, we need to prepare exactly the same wavefunctions.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 309 ·
11
Replies
309
Views
17K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 120 ·
5
Replies
120
Views
10K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
6K
Replies
18
Views
2K