Superposition of particle identities

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the superposition of identities in particle physics, particularly regarding the entanglement of particles resulting from the decay of a neutral meson into an electron and a positron. Participants explore the implications of superposition, wavefunction collapse, and decoherence in various contexts, including interactions with electromagnetic fields.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the electron and positron are entangled and exist in a mixed superposition of identities until a measurement occurs.
  • Others argue that practical interactions, such as electromagnetic interactions, will destroy this superposition, rendering the particles effectively independent.
  • A participant notes that the destruction of superposition is akin to wavefunction collapse, which can be interpreted in various ways, and that a weak interaction may not fully collapse the wavefunction.
  • There is a discussion about the strength of interactions required to lead to decoherence, with questions raised about the energy thresholds involved.
  • One participant introduces the concept of an electric dipole in a magnetic field, suggesting that the identities of the particles can influence radiation patterns, implying immediate wavefunction collapse.
  • Another participant references the Stern-Gerlach apparatus and questions whether decoherence occurs in the Earth's non-uniform magnetic field, seeking clarification on the conditions for decoherence.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of superposition and the conditions under which it is destroyed. There is no consensus on the specifics of wavefunction collapse or the thresholds for decoherence, indicating ongoing debate and exploration of these concepts.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding the nuances of wavefunction collapse and decoherence, particularly regarding the strength of interactions and the implications of feeble interactions on entanglement.

bsaucer
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Suppose a neutral meson decays into an electron and a positron. Are the two particles entangled as they fly apart? Before any measurement takes place, are the particles in a mixed superposition as to which one is the electron, and which one is the positron? Is there a way to test for such superposition?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Technically yes, but there is no way to use this superposition in any way. For all practical purposes you just have particles flying in random but fixed directions. The first electromagnetic interaction will destroy the superposition.
 
mfb said:
The first electromagnetic interaction will destroy the superposition.

And that will happen as soon as the x = t/c wavefront hits a charged particle or piece of material.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
And that will happen as soon as the x = t/c wavefront hits a charged particle or piece of material.
Wouldn't the Earth's magnetic field be sufficient to do the job before even that happens?
 
kuruman said:
Wouldn't the Earth's magnetic field be sufficient to do the job before even that happens?

Yup.
 
kuruman said:
Wouldn't the Earth's magnetic field be sufficient to do the job before even that happens?
Not exactly. The destruction of the superposition is a kind of wavefunction collapse. Collapse causes endless arguments and can be interpreted in many ways. However collapse models that have been updated in the last 30 years all agree with non-collapse models - that collapse, or the appearence of collapse, begins with an interaction that leaves a record of the value followed by decoherence. A very feeble interaction may not leave a record that's big enough to be recovered under the quantum uncertainty. So the entanglement may not be broken, just reduced a little.

The connection between a measurement-interaction and the entanglement is quite simple to understand. Interaction always creates an entanglement, that is, after all, what an observation means (to set up a correlation between the observing system and the observed system). Since this second entanglement appears to collapse to a definite eigenstate, it destroys the original superposition of the correlated states. A feeble interaction doesn't create a strong enough second entanglement to create a record, there is no full collapse and the superposition is not broken.
 
Derek P said:
A feeble interaction doesn't create a strong enough second entanglement to create a record, there is no full collapse and the superposition is not broken.
OK, then at what point does the interaction become "strong enough" to lead to decoherence? When the interaction energy is greater than ... what energy?
 
You have an electric dipole with a time rate of change, rotating in a magnetic field. That will radiate, and the pattern of radiation depends on the sign of the rotation: i.e. the identities of the particles. As far as I can tell, the wavefunction collapses immediately because the charge distribution imprints itself on the radiation field. This is mfb's point "The first electromagnetic interaction will destroy the superposition" Because this experiment is in an applied magnetic field, this interaction happens effectively instantaneously.

Rather than quibble about how instantaneous is instantaneous, wouldn't it be better to pick a better example? Neutral B and anti-B mesons produced in e+e- collisions do not have an identity - more specifically, are not in a flavor eigenstate - until one decays, which determines its eigenstate as well as its partners.
 
The model is the Stern-Gerlach apparatus. I am thinking of the spin singlet state of the electron-positron pair in the Earth's non-uniform field. My question is simple and straightforward. In that field and assuming no shielding, would there be decoherence? I assume "yes", but if the answer is "no", I would like to know why because I don't know why.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 124 ·
5
Replies
124
Views
9K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 99 ·
4
Replies
99
Views
7K