How Does the Presence of Gas Affect Decoherence in a Stern-Gerlach Experiment?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the effects of gas presence on decoherence in a Stern-Gerlach experiment. Participants explore theoretical models, interactions, and the implications of varying conditions, particularly focusing on the role of air molecules in the second region of the experiment.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes a model by Caldeira for the Stern-Gerlach device in a vacuum, detailing how entanglement occurs between spatial and spin degrees of freedom.
  • Another participant notes that path-dependent interactions can prevent interference and recoherence, referencing the Elitzur-Vaidman bomb tester as an example.
  • A request for a specific model rather than a principle is made, emphasizing the need for a detailed approach to the problem.
  • Concerns are raised about the complexity of the resultant wave function when multiple Gaussians interact, questioning the likelihood of recombination into a final Gaussian state.
  • Discussion on how the number of air molecules affects recoherence, with some suggesting that fewer molecules may allow for more recoherence.
  • Participants propose starting with a Hamiltonian to analyze the interaction between spin and spatial position, suggesting potential forms for the Hamiltonian.
  • One participant discusses qubit interactions and how controlled operations relate to coherence, suggesting similar features may apply to the Gaussian case.
  • Questions are raised about the impact of gas molecules on the spin state and whether a matrix model can describe the interaction effectively.
  • Another participant highlights that the density matrix remains diagonal when transitioning between regions, questioning how different conditions (gas vs. no gas) affect recoherence possibilities.
  • A later reply suggests that path information may be encoded differently in the wave shape, affecting the outcome in the presence of gas.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints on the impact of gas on decoherence, with no consensus reached on the specific effects or models. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the precise mechanisms at play.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on the number of air molecules and the unresolved nature of the mathematical steps involved in the proposed models.

naima
Gold Member
Messages
936
Reaction score
54
In this paper Caldeira gives a model for the Stern Gerlach device in the vacuum.
the incoming particle is described by the tensor product of a space term and a spin term a |u> + b |d>
the SG is in the vacuum (no air around). Under the effect of the spatial variation of the magnetic field, there is entanglement of these two degrees of freedom. the spatial part splits into two Gaussians that deviate and then hardly overlap.
By a partial trace on the external degree of freedom (the spatial position of the Gaussian), one gets a decohered reduced density matrix.
Calfeira writes at the end that if we recombine the paths of these two Gaussians we retrieve the starting state and thus the lost coherences.
Suppose that we have three regions:
In the first Gaussian separate. in the second a device blocks their remoteness and the paths are parallel.
In the third region a device recombines yhe two possible paths.
If in region 2 we have the vacuum we get what Caldeira described with a final recoherence .
Now suppose now that in the second region there are several air molecules (say 1 on the way up and 1 on the way down),I guess that in the Hamiltonian an interaction term must be added
The device in region 3 remaining unchanged, how does QM predict different behaviors for the particle out of region 3 (with or without gas in region 2)?
I recall that in both cases the output particle of region 1 has null non-diagonal terms in the density matrix.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Any path-dependent interactions will prevent the paths' contributions from interfering/re-cohering later on. For example, that's how the Elitzur-Vaidman bomb tester works.
 
Thanks but this is a principle. I am looking for a model in this case.
I am not asking why but how.
 
Last edited:
So you have a Gaussian interacting with a couple more Gaussians. The resultant wave function would be rather messed up. What would be the chances of it recombining with a similarly messed up wave function to produce a final Gaussian?
 
It depends on the number of air molecules. If it is macroscopic it will not be the same as with 2 molecules. I would like to study how it depends of this number. with few molecules the final state could have still much recoherence out of region 3.
 
Partially blurred then. A slightly broken down Gaussian?
 
I think that we should start with an hamiltonian and see later if gaussians are still solutions. here the interaction hamiltonian between spin and spatial position is very simple it is ##\sigma z##! (it is an operator)
Caldeira and Leggett wrote a model for the interaction between a particle and an infinite bath of harmonic oscillators. for each oscillator the hamiltonian is ##C_k X q_k##
Maybe the hamiltonian would be here ##\sigma z + C z q## or something like that?
 
With qubits this situation is relatively simple. The interaction is a controlled operation, and its strength is related to the amount of rotation that operation causes (with a maximum at 180 degrees).

Here's a circuit diagram showing what happens as the amount of controlled rotation is varied between two Hadamard gates:

OJ9sMhH.gif

When the rotation is small (yellow spinner on X^t is near the right), the top qubit is staying coherent and most of the amplitude ends up back in the 00 state due to destructive interference. When the rotation is large (yellow spinner on X^t is near the left), the two qubits end up entangled and evenly split between the 00, 01, 10, and 11 states (and their individual marginal states are maximally mixed).

The gaussian case will be more involved, and I don't have the physics knowledge to compute it, but it should display those same basic features. As the interaction strength increases, destructive interference goes away.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: naima
Thanks,
Here in region 2 i am not interested in the gaussian spatial shape. My problem is to know if i will get something different for the spin with or without an additional gas molecule.
What is the matrix model of your gate? Can it be used in this case to describe The interaction?
It is obvious that when we increase the number of air molecules ti becomes harder to get recoherence. As you propose to associate a logical gate to a molecule, is there a way (serial or, parallel) to associate them?
 
Last edited:
  • #10
I got no answer to my question in the first post:
When the particle quits region 1 (the SG) its density matrix is diagonal.
When it enters region 3 (the beams merger) it is diagonal.
If there was gas or no gas in region 2, how does QM explain that a same density matrix for the particle and a same setup give different recoherence possibilities?
 
  • #11
There is a possible solution to my problem. I only considered the density matrix of the internal degree of freedom. Is it possible that the path information is differently encoded in the shape of the wave? Gaussian (with no gas) or more complicated with particles in zone 2? So the beam merger could not erase some path information in the gas case...

Edit. I found the answer. Without gaz the up and down spins are entangled with displaced gaussians. When the merger recombines them there is factorisation with the same gaussian. With gas the situation is no more symmetric.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 94 ·
4
Replies
94
Views
16K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K