Abstract

Quantum weak measurement is presented as shedding new light on the retrocausality question. It is shown to leave a system almost unaffected while gathering information about it. Next, an EPR experiment is studied where each particle undergoes a few weak measurements along some pre-set spin orientations. These weak outcomes are individually recorded. Then the particle undergoes a strong measurement along a spin orientation freely chosen at the last moment. Bell-inequality violation is expected between the two final strong measurements within each EPR pair. At the same time, agreement is expected between these strong measurements and the earlier weak ones performed on that pair. A contradiction thereby ensues: i) Bell's theorem forbids spin values to exist prior to the choice of the spin-orientation to be measured; ii) A weak measurement cannot determine the outcome of a successive strong one; and iii) Indeed no disentanglement is inflicted by the weak measurements; yet iv) The weak measurements' outcomes agree with those of the strong ones, suggesting the existence of pre-determined values. The most reasonable resolution seems to be that of the Two- State-Vector Formalism, namely, that the experimenter's choice has been encrypted within the weak measurement's outcomes, even before the experimenter themselves knows what their choice will be. Causal loops are avoided by this anticipation remaining encrypted until the final outcomes enable to decipher it.

Highlights

  • Quantum weak measurement is presented as shedding new light on the retrocausality question

  • Bell-inequality violation is expected between the two final strong measurements within each EPR pair

  • Agreement is expected between these strong measurements and the earlier weak ones performed on that pair

Read more

Summary

A Classical Experiment with Causality

Before proceeding to weak quantum measurement, noting probability's role in classical measurement is instructive. He measures the coins’ individual mass distributions He finds out that each coin's center of mass deviates from its middle section: In precisely N/2 coins it is slightly biased towards “head” and in the other half towards “tail.” Bob's instrument, carries Chinese tags, so he cannot tell which outcome is “head”/“tail.” He labels each outcome as I or II and gives the list to Alice. She slices her own list into the two corresponding sub-ensembles and re-calculates their separate averages.

Weak measurements
Combining Strong and Weak Measurements
Predictions
Combining Strong and Weak Measurements In the EPR-Bell Experiment
Will One Vector Do?
What Kind Of Causality?
Summary
Full Text
Paper version not known

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

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.