Two Nature Articles - Quick Questions

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter StevieTNZ
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Articles Nature
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the application of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to single particle systems versus multiple particle systems, as highlighted in the article by Napolitano. It is established that weak measurements yield limited information about quantum systems, allowing for partial rather than complete collapse of superposition states. Katz's assertion that measurements do not create reality is supported by the possibility of reversing measurement effects, as discussed in Eberly's theories on reconstructing superpositions. The conversation also references delayed-choice quantum eraser experiments, emphasizing the nuanced understanding of measurement impacts in quantum mechanics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
  • Familiarity with weak measurements in quantum mechanics
  • Knowledge of superposition and collapse in quantum systems
  • Concepts of delayed-choice quantum eraser experiments
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of the Heisenberg limit on single versus multiple particle systems
  • Explore the principles of weak measurements and their effects on quantum states
  • Investigate Eberly's theories on reconstructing quantum superpositions
  • Study delayed-choice quantum eraser experiments and their significance in quantum mechanics
USEFUL FOR

Quantum physicists, researchers in quantum mechanics, and students seeking to deepen their understanding of measurement theory and its implications in quantum systems.

StevieTNZ
Messages
1,944
Reaction score
837
First, in regard to this article:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/45535 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v471/n7339/full/nature09778.html)
Does the Heisenberg limit apply to single particle systems, rather than N amount of particles? I draw that conclusion from
Napolitano is keen to point out that this result does not imply that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is wrong, but rather it shows that we do not properly understand how to scale that principle up to multiple-particle systems.

The second, and last:
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~jordan/nature_steinberg.pdf
A weak measurement causes us to only gain little information of a quantum system?
Which would explain this? http://www.physorg.com/news137245970.html
A weak measurement doesn't cause a full collapse of the quantum system, only partial like in the PhysOrg article? So its not so much that a complete collapse has occurred, then been undone?
Katz, however, says being able to reverse the collapse "tells us that we really can't assume that measurements create reality because it is possible to erase the effects of a measurement and start again."
But only a weak measurement was done? Any other measurement than a weak measurement would cause the superposition to collapse to yield a definite state?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
StevieTNZ said:
But only a weak measurement was done? Any other measurement than a weak measurement would cause the superposition to collapse to yield a definite state?

I don't believe that is the case. According to Eberly, it should be possible to reconstruct a superposition by reassembling the outputs of a polarizing beamsplitter in precisely such a fashion that which path information is erased.

http://www.optics.rochester.edu/~stroud/cqi/rochester/UR19.pdf

I don't know that this experiment has actually been performed, but I believe it follows theory in all respects.
 
Ah, ok. So the experiment can be thought of in terms of delayed-choice quantum eraser experiments where performing a measurement, then erasing the result (ie. undoing the measurement) causes a return of the superposition? Thanks! I wouldn't have thought of that. I guess what I'm going off is the article saying a 'partial collapse'.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K