Abstract

The act of measurement on a quantum state is supposed to “dephase” (dephasing refers to the phenomenon that the states lose phase coherence; then the phases get randomized in interaction with a bath of other oscillators, which is referred to as “decoherence”), then “decohere” and “collapse” (or more precisely “register” and “reduce”) the state into one of several eigenstates of the operator corresponding to the observable being measured. This measurement process is sometimes described as outside standard quantum-mechanical evolution and not calculable from Schrödinger’s equation. Progress has, however, been made in studying this problem with two main calculation tools—one uses a time-independent Hamiltonian, while a rather more general approach proving that decoherence occurs under some generic conditions. The two general approaches to the study of wave-function collapse are as follows. The first approach, called the “consistent” or “decoherent”’ histories approach, studies microscopic histories that diverge probabilistically and explains collapse as an event in our particular history. The other, referred to as the “environmental decoherence” approach studies the effect of the environment upon the quantum system, to explain wave-function decoherence which is produced by irreversible effects of various sorts. However, as we know, wave-function collapse is not related to thermal connection with the environment, rather, it is inherent to how measurements are performed by macroscopic apparata. In the “environmental decoherence” approach, one studies decoherence using a Markovian-approximated Master equation to study the time-evolution of the reduced density matrix (post dephasing) and obtains the long-time dependence of the off-diagonal elements of this matrix. The calculation in this paper studies the evolution of a quantum system starting with “dephasing” followed by the effects of the environment with some differences from prior analyses. We start from the Schrödinger equation for the state of the system, with a time-dependent Hamiltonian that reflects the actual microscopic interactions that are occurring. Then we systematically solve (exactly) for the time-evolved state, without invoking a Markovian approximation when writing out the effective time-evolution equation, i.e., keeping the evolution unitary until the end. This approach is useful, and it shows that the system wave-function will explicitly “un-collapse” if the measurement apparatus is sufficiently small. However, in the limit of a macroscopic system, this “dephasing” quickly leads to “decoherence”—collapse is a temporary state that will simply take extremely long (of the order of multiple universe lifetimes) to reverse. This has been attempted previously and our calculation is particularly simple and calculable. We make some connections to the work by Linden et al. while doing so. The calculation in this paper has interesting implications for the interpretation of the Wigner’s friend experiment, as well as the Mott experiment, which is explored in “Connection to some general theoretical results” and “Recurrence times” (especially the enumerated points in “Recurrence times”). The upshot is that as long as Wigner’s friend is macroscopically large (or uses a macroscopically large measuring instrument), no one needs to worry that Wigner would see something different from his friend. Indeed, Wigner’s friend does not even need to be conscious during the measurement that she conducts. It also allows one to reasonably interpret some of the more recent thought experiments proposed. In particular, as a result of the mathematical analysis, the short-time behavior of a collapsing system, at least the one considered in this paper, is not exponential. Instead, it is the usual Fermi-golden rule result. The long-term behavior is, of course, still exponential. This is a second novel feature of the paper—we connect the short-term Fermi-golden rule (quadratic-in-time behavior) transition probability to the exponential long-time behavior of a collapsing wave-function in one continuous mathematical formulation.

Highlights

  • The act of measurement on a quantum state is supposed to “dephase”, “decohere” and “collapse” the state into one of several eigenstates of the operator corresponding to the observable being measured

  • There have been two broad approaches to describe this process of wave-function collapse from standard quantum mechanics

  • At every instant of time, the underlying system is interacting with the measurement apparatus to produce every possible outcome as a result of the interaction Hamiltonian

Read more

Summary

Method

To summarize the approach in a few sentences, which connects this analysis to the Wigner’s friend puzzle (see section at the end), 1. We are modeling the process where the electron interacts with one photon at the slit, which, at the photomultiplier tube, cascades, producing N other photons in each state i with each subsequent interaction. One may consider the interaction parameter as a background field, with a time dependence, which allows the photon to be produced in the presence of the electron at slit 1 and emerge with energy ωp. As we will see in what follows, if we set up the measuring apparatus with enough different niches (i.e., states) for a macroscopic number of photons to occupy, α → 0 very rapidly and the other terms ( β etc.) gain in value.

R2 Na4 and also C
Conclusions
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call