- 4

- 0

I read two articles recently and I am wondering if I have the correct interpretation of them.

They deal with joint weak measurement and Hardy's paradox.

Is the result of the "Direct observation of Hardy's paradox by joint weak measurement with an entangled photon pair" paper indicating that the wave function is, indeed, already 'collapsed' before we look? That is, does an objective reality already exist, at least in terms of probability? Or does this only point out that statements about past actions can now be made without disruption of the system? I am slightly confused about a few aspects of this. Another is, does this prediction of these past events mean that predictions about the future of other observations is also then possible, reducing the number of future realities to one, or at least one most probable? Or does the indeterminacy still apply and we only have a probable result, which can be affected by measurements and observation?

Summary article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090304091231.htm

Full paper: http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1367-2630/11/3/033011/njp9_3_033011.html

Second article:

http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/paradox_lost_quantum_physicists_say_they_have_resolved_hardys_annihilation_problem

A response about both would be great, as they have different methods of attaining their results.

I still don't see how this overcomes HUP. I understand that the amount of uncertainty required is larger than the presence of the instruments for detection, but I don't see how this really resolves anything in theory. I can see the practical applications, but I'm foggy as to what this clears up or lends itself more towards. (decoherence, many worlds, Copenhagen, etc) Any help would be appreciated greatly!

Thanks! First-timer poster here :)

They deal with joint weak measurement and Hardy's paradox.

Is the result of the "Direct observation of Hardy's paradox by joint weak measurement with an entangled photon pair" paper indicating that the wave function is, indeed, already 'collapsed' before we look? That is, does an objective reality already exist, at least in terms of probability? Or does this only point out that statements about past actions can now be made without disruption of the system? I am slightly confused about a few aspects of this. Another is, does this prediction of these past events mean that predictions about the future of other observations is also then possible, reducing the number of future realities to one, or at least one most probable? Or does the indeterminacy still apply and we only have a probable result, which can be affected by measurements and observation?

Summary article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090304091231.htm

Full paper: http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1367-2630/11/3/033011/njp9_3_033011.html

Second article:

http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/paradox_lost_quantum_physicists_say_they_have_resolved_hardys_annihilation_problem

A response about both would be great, as they have different methods of attaining their results.

I still don't see how this overcomes HUP. I understand that the amount of uncertainty required is larger than the presence of the instruments for detection, but I don't see how this really resolves anything in theory. I can see the practical applications, but I'm foggy as to what this clears up or lends itself more towards. (decoherence, many worlds, Copenhagen, etc) Any help would be appreciated greatly!

Thanks! First-timer poster here :)

Last edited by a moderator: