pines-demon
Gold Member
2024 Award
- 939
- 779
According to recent podcast between Jacob Barandes and Sean Carroll, Barandes claims that putting a sensitive qubit near one of the slits of a double slit interference experiment is sufficient to break the interference pattern. Here are his words from the official transcript:
Caveats I see:
Disclaimer: at least in principle, this question has nothing to do with Barandes interpretation of quantum mechanics. Note also this is part of an unreleased paper that Barandes promised a while ago but I don't think it is out yet.
Is that true?the simplest quantum mechanical system you could imagine, a single quantum bit or qubit right near the holes, and the qubit can either be on or off. It's a binary switch, a quantum binary switch, if you think of it classically. Quantum mechanically, it can sort of be blends of those, but classically it's like on or off. And you program it so that it's definitely off and it stays off if the particle goes down through the lower slit, but it switches to on if it goes to the upper slit. So you might think this is the most rudimentary way you could possibly... 'Cause then what you do is after the particle lands, you go and you look at the qubit, and if it was off, you know that the particle must have gone through the lower hole, and if it's on, it must have gone to the upper hole in each one of the experiment. But this is enough to ruin the interference pattern, this is enough to actually ruin the interference pattern. So decoherence has happened and it's happened through an interaction of the particle with the simplest possible kind of qubit system.
Caveats I see:
- The qubit is a quantum object, so if the particle was in a superposition of up and down, the qubit can be in a superposition too. Measuring the qubit in an orthogonal direction might preserve the particle "coherence".
- Wherever the particle falls in the screen tells you nothing, because you cannot see an interference pattern with a single particle. So is there anything to conclude from this?
Disclaimer: at least in principle, this question has nothing to do with Barandes interpretation of quantum mechanics. Note also this is part of an unreleased paper that Barandes promised a while ago but I don't think it is out yet.