Decoherence thought experiment

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a thought experiment involving decoherence in quantum computing, specifically examining the implications of measurements made by two observers, Alice and Bob, on a memory qubit and the associated photons emitted from a quantum computer. The scope includes theoretical considerations of quantum states, measurement, and the no-cloning theorem.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a scenario where a memory qubit in a quantum computer is measured by two distant observers, Alice and Bob, leading to different classical bits and questioning who has decohered.
  • Another participant argues that the proposal violates the no-cloning theorem, stating that it is impossible to copy an arbitrary quantum state and questions the need for two qubits and two observers without entanglement.
  • A later reply suggests an alternative approach involving entangling multiple photons with the memory location, allowing for uncertain measurements, while still aiming for Bob to infer the state of the memory location over time.
  • Several participants express agreement that the original proposal violates the no-cloning theorem, reinforcing the contention around the feasibility of the thought experiment.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the original proposal violates the no-cloning theorem, but there is disagreement regarding the implications of measurements and the nature of decoherence in the described scenario.

Contextual Notes

The discussion does not resolve the implications of the proposed measurements on decoherence or the validity of the thought experiment, leaving several assumptions and conditions unaddressed.

jartsa
Messages
1,582
Reaction score
141
Let's say a memory qubit inside a quantum computer is in state

## α \left|1\right>+β\left|0\right> ##

This computer is equipped with a device that emits photons that carry the same qubit as the aforementioned memory location.

Alice and Bob, that are very far from each other, receive and measure those photons.

Let's say Bob measures this sequence of bits:
01010111011011111011111111111111111111

And Alice measures this sequence of bits:
010100100010000001000000000000000000000

I tried to make those sequences realistic looking in such case when probability of measuring either 1 or 0 is the same at the beginning.

Now Bob contains a classical bit 1, and Alice contains a classical bit 0.

Who has decohered here? The computer can still send out qubits to Joe and Jill, who can go to opposite classical states, so I guess the computer is not decohered. So it's more like Bob and Alice became decohered by their own measurements. Right?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
If I understand you right, what you are proposing is not possible.
jartsa said:
This computer is equipped with a device that emits photons that carry the same qubit as the aforementioned memory location.
This violates the no-cloning theorem. You could have a device that would spew out a pair of qubits in a predefined state, but not copy an arbitrary state.

Also, I see no entanglement in what you propose, so why do you need two qubits and two observers?
 
DrClaude said:
If I understand you right, what you are proposing is not possible.
This violates the no-cloning theorem. You could have a device that would spew out a pair of qubits in a predefined state, but not copy an arbitrary state.
I want Bob and Alice to measure the state of the memory location. I don't care if the state is predefined. I would also like there to be no collapse to 1 or 0 when Bob and Alice make the first measurement.

So how about if we entangle lot of photons with the memory location, send the photons to Bob and Alice, who are equipped with measuring devices that produce results with lot of uncertainty.

Now I hope that as Bob makes more and more measurements, Bob's state becomes gradually the state "I know the memory location is in state 1". And as Bob is using the not so good measuring device, a good measuring device located nearby changes so that it only measures photons to be in the state that correspond state 1 of the memory location.
 
I really think this violates the no-cloning theorem.
 
DrClaude said:
I really think this violates the no-cloning theorem.

So do I. Thread closed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
6K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
6K