DOCSLIB.ORG

Quantum Erasure

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Quantum Erasure Quantum Erasure In quantum mechanics, there are two sides to every story, but only one can be seen at a time. Experiments show that “erasing” one allows the other to appear Stephen P. Walborn, Marcelo O. Terra Cunha, Sebastião Pádua and Carlos H. Monken n 1801, an English gentleman scholar With his “slip of card,” Young set off Recently, physicists have started to Inamed Thomas Young performed a revolution in physics whose ripples shed some light on this mystery through one of the most celebrated experiments are still being felt today. His experi- the demonstration of quantum erasers— in the history of physics. Here is how ment is now a staple of freshman in which one can actually choose to turn he described it two years later, in a lec- physics laboratories, though it is now the interference fringes on or off. Our ture for the Royal Society of London: typically performed with two slits group has constructed a quantum eraser etched into a piece of opaque micro- using a more elaborate version of I made a small hole in a window film. (Thus the name, “Young’s double- Young’s experiment and used it to shutter, and covered it with a slit experiment.”) The phenomenon he demonstrate, in principle, the idea of thick piece of paper, which I per- had observed, called interference, can be “delayed choice,” in which the experi- forated with a fine needle.… I demonstrated easily enough with menter can make the decision after the brought into the sunbeam a slip of waves in a tank of water. Thus, by particle has been detected. The delayed- card, about one thirtieth of an inch analogy, Young’s experiment seemed choice experiment almost sounds like al- in breadth, and observed its shad- to prove that light is made up of tering the past. Lest any readers get ideas ow, either on the wall, or on other waves, as Dutch physicist Christiaan of building a “wayback machine,” we cards held at different distances. Huygens had advocated. But that was will explain why quantum erasers don’t What Young saw on the opposite not the end of the story. really change history. But we do believe wall was not, as one might guess, a In the early 1900s, physicists discov- that they clarify how interference phe- single thin shadow, but instead a ered that light does behave in some nomena arise in quantum mechanics. whole row of equally spaced light and ways as if composed of particles. In dark stripes or fringes, with the central particular, there is a smallest “quan- The Quantum Coin Toss band always bright. When he blocked tum” of light, called a photon. In 1909, The appearance of interference fringes the light on one side of the card, the Cambridge physicist Geoffrey Taylor in the classical double-slit experiment fringes went away. He concluded that repeated an experiment similar to is well understood. According to the light from both sides of the card was Young’s, which showed that individ- wave theory of light, when two beams required to make the pattern. But how ual photons suffer another interference of coherent light with the same wave- could two rays of light combine to phenomenon, called diffraction. By length encounter each other, they com- make a dark fringe? And why was the dimming the light until only one pho- bine. The most extreme situations are center of the shadow always bright, ton at a time reached the screen, he constructive interference, in which the instead of dark? This was hard to fath- eliminated any possibility that the pho- waves reinforce each other, or destruc- om if light was made of particles that tons could interfere with one other. Yet tive interference, in which they cancel traveled always in straight rays, an after recording the results of many each other out completely. idea that was shared by many physi- photons, Taylor found the same pat- In Young’s experiment, the paths cists, including Isaac Newton. tern of diffraction fringes. Apparently, from each slit to a given observation then, an individual photon could “in- point are not necessarily equal in terfere with itself.” length. When they are equal—that is, The authors perform research in quantum optics at And it wasn’t just photons. Other when the observation point is centrally the Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG) objects that seemed indisputably “par- located between the slits—the waves in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. Stephen P. Walborn is ticle-like,” such as electrons, neutrons arrive in phase and interfere construc- nearing the end of his doctoral research in quantum and even molecules of carbon-60, the tively. That explains why Young al- optics. Marcelo O. Terra Cunha is a graduate student buckyball, have subsequently demon- ways saw a light band in the center of in physics and assistant professor of mathematics. Se- strated the same wavelike behavior. his card’s “shadow.” On either side of bastião Pádua and Carlos H. Monken are adjunct professors at UFMG and head researchers in the ex- The self-interference of individual par- this central band lies a region where perimental quantum optics group. Walborn’s ad- ticles is the greatest mystery in quan- one wave has to travel exactly half a dress: Departamento de Física, UFMG, Caixa Postal tum physics; in fact, Nobel Prize laure- wavelength farther than the other. 702, Belo Horizonte, MG 30123-970, Brazil. Inter- ate Richard Feynman pronounced it There the waves interfere destructively net: [email protected] “the only mystery” in quantum theory. and a dark band appears. Next comes © 2003 Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society. Reproduction 336 American Scientist, Volume 91 with permission only. Contact [email protected]. Figure 1. In a modern version of Thomas Young’s double-slit experiment, a helium-neon laser illuminates a piece of microfilm, into which two slits are etched 0.1 millimeter apart. Next, the laser beam passes through a divergent lens (center), which spreads it out so that the interference fringes produced by the double slits can be seen more readily on the screen at the back. Young’s 1801 experiment used much more humble equipment: sunlight, a pinhole to make the light coherent, a card to split the beam and no divergent lens. Even so, he was able to discern at least five bright bands on the far wall. (Photograph courtesy of the authors.) a region where one wave travels exact- 2, and we find, say, that 5 percent of the root of –1), not a positive real number. ly one wavelength farther than the oth- photons pass through slit 1 and trigger Thus two nonzero probability ampli- er. Here there is once again construc- the detector. So Prob (slit 1) = 5 percent. tudes (say, 0.1 + 0.2i and –0.1 – 0.2i) can tive interference and a band of light. Next we block slit 1 and find that 5 per- add to zero, which is never true of clas- To understand why quantum inter- cent of the photons pass through slit 2 sical probabilities. ference is unexpected, it may help to and trigger the detector: Prob (slit 2) = 5 Philosophically, the meaning of draw an analogy to a coin toss. If it is a percent. Now when we uncover both probability amplitudes is still a great fair coin, the probability of getting slits, creating two possible routes, we mystery. Clearly, though, a “quantum heads is 50 percent and the probability would expect to detect 10 percent of the coin” does not work the same way as a of getting tails is also 50 percent. The photons. But no! Because we placed the classical coin. Thanks to the superposi- probability of getting heads or tails is detector in a dark fringe, we can run tion principle, a photon, our “quantum the sum of the individual probabilities: the experiment for hours and not see a coin,” can give a combination of both single photon. That is, heads and tails. Prob (heads or tails) = Prob (heads) + Prob (tails) = 100 percent Prob (1 or 2) = 0 percent ≠ Matter Waves Matter Prob (1) + Prob (2) Now consider a quantum “coin toss” If all of this sounds pretty unbelievable based on Young’s experiment. We send The mind-bending explanation that to you, then you are in good company. a beam of light at the double-slit appa- quantum physicists have found for this Even the originators of quantum ratus, and put a photodetector a certain behavior is the principle of superposi- physics struggled with its concepts, distance away on the other side. To tion, which says that wavelike events and some of them never accepted the dramatize the paradox, we place it in combine according to a probability am- theories they were forced into. The the middle of a dark interference fringe. plitude rather than a probability. Math- German physicist Max Planck, who, in Now, we turn down the light so that ematically, a probability amplitude is a 1900, was the first to propose that light only one photon at a time passes complex number (that is, a number like behaved as if it were made up of quan- through the slits. First we cover up slit 0.1 + 0.2i, where i denotes the square ta, envisioned this only as some sort of © 2003 Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society. Reproduction www.americanscientist.org with permission only. Contact [email protected]. 2003 July–August 337 a constructive interference b constructive destructive + destructive interference + slits screen c 200 photons 6,000 photons Figure 2. Physicists normally explain Young’s interference fringes with the wave theory of light (a).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bouncing Oil Droplets, De Broglie's Quantum Thermostat And
    Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 28 August 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201808.0475.v1 Peer-reviewed version available at Entropy 2018, 20, 780; doi:10.3390/e20100780 Article Bouncing oil droplets, de Broglie’s quantum thermostat and convergence to equilibrium Mohamed Hatifi 1, Ralph Willox 2, Samuel Colin 3 and Thomas Durt 4 1 Aix Marseille Université, CNRS, Centrale Marseille, Institut Fresnel UMR 7249,13013 Marseille, France; hatifi[email protected] 2 Graduate School of Mathematical Sciences, the University of Tokyo, 3-8-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku, 153-8914 Tokyo, Japan; [email protected] 3 Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas, Rua Dr. Xavier Sigaud 150,22290-180, Rio de Janeiro – RJ, Brasil; [email protected] 4 Aix Marseille Université, CNRS, Centrale Marseille, Institut Fresnel UMR 7249,13013 Marseille, France; [email protected] Abstract: Recently, the properties of bouncing oil droplets, also known as ‘walkers’, have attracted much attention because they are thought to offer a gateway to a better understanding of quantum behaviour. They indeed constitute a macroscopic realization of wave-particle duality, in the sense that their trajectories are guided by a self-generated surrounding wave. The aim of this paper is to try to describe walker phenomenology in terms of de Broglie-Bohm dynamics and of a stochastic version thereof. In particular, we first study how a stochastic modification of the de Broglie pilot-wave theory, à la Nelson, affects the process of relaxation to quantum equilibrium, and we prove an H-theorem for the relaxation to quantum equilibrium under Nelson-type dynamics.
    [Show full text]
  • 5.1 Two-Particle Systems
    5.1 Two-Particle Systems We encountered a two-particle system in dealing with the addition of angular momentum. Let's treat such systems in a more formal way. The w.f. for a two-particle system must depend on the spatial coordinates of both particles as @Ψ well as t: Ψ(r1; r2; t), satisfying i~ @t = HΨ, ~2 2 ~2 2 where H = + V (r1; r2; t), −2m1r1 − 2m2r2 and d3r d3r Ψ(r ; r ; t) 2 = 1. 1 2 j 1 2 j R Iff V is independent of time, then we can separate the time and spatial variables, obtaining Ψ(r1; r2; t) = (r1; r2) exp( iEt=~), − where E is the total energy of the system. Let us now make a very fundamental assumption: that each particle occupies a one-particle e.s. [Note that this is often a poor approximation for the true many-body w.f.] The joint e.f. can then be written as the product of two one-particle e.f.'s: (r1; r2) = a(r1) b(r2). Suppose furthermore that the two particles are indistinguishable. Then, the above w.f. is not really adequate since you can't actually tell whether it's particle 1 in state a or particle 2. This indeterminacy is correctly reflected if we replace the above w.f. by (r ; r ) = a(r ) (r ) (r ) a(r ). 1 2 1 b 2 b 1 2 The `plus-or-minus' sign reflects that there are two distinct ways to accomplish this. Thus we are naturally led to consider two kinds of identical particles, which we have come to call `bosons' (+) and `fermions' ( ).
    [Show full text]
  • 8 the Variational Principle
    8 The Variational Principle 8.1 Approximate solution of the Schroedinger equation If we can’t find an analytic solution to the Schroedinger equation, a trick known as the varia- tional principle allows us to estimate the energy of the ground state of a system. We choose an unnormalized trial function Φ(an) which depends on some variational parameters, an and minimise hΦ|Hˆ |Φi E[a ] = n hΦ|Φi with respect to those parameters. This gives an approximation to the wavefunction whose accuracy depends on the number of parameters and the clever choice of Φ(an). For more rigorous treatments, a set of basis functions with expansion coefficients an may be used. The proof is as follows, if we expand the normalised wavefunction 1/2 |φ(an)i = Φ(an)/hΦ(an)|Φ(an)i in terms of the true (unknown) eigenbasis |ii of the Hamiltonian, then its energy is X X X ˆ 2 2 E[an] = hφ|iihi|H|jihj|φi = |hφ|ii| Ei = E0 + |hφ|ii| (Ei − E0) ≥ E0 ij i i ˆ where the true (unknown) ground state of the system is defined by H|i0i = E0|i0i. The inequality 2 arises because both |hφ|ii| and (Ei − E0) must be positive. Thus the lower we can make the energy E[ai], the closer it will be to the actual ground state energy, and the closer |φi will be to |i0i. If the trial wavefunction consists of a complete basis set of orthonormal functions |χ i, each P i multiplied by ai: |φi = i ai|χii then the solution is exact and we just have the usual trick of expanding a wavefunction in a basis set.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Principle of Wave–Particle Duality: an Overview
    3 1 The Principle of Wave–Particle Duality: An Overview 1.1 Introduction In the year 1900, physics entered a period of deep crisis as a number of peculiar phenomena, for which no classical explanation was possible, began to appear one after the other, starting with the famous problem of blackbody radiation. By 1923, when the “dust had settled,” it became apparent that these peculiarities had a common explanation. They revealed a novel fundamental principle of nature that wascompletelyatoddswiththeframeworkofclassicalphysics:thecelebrated principle of wave–particle duality, which can be phrased as follows. The principle of wave–particle duality: All physical entities have a dual character; they are waves and particles at the same time. Everything we used to regard as being exclusively a wave has, at the same time, a corpuscular character, while everything we thought of as strictly a particle behaves also as a wave. The relations between these two classically irreconcilable points of view—particle versus wave—are , h, E = hf p = (1.1) or, equivalently, E h f = ,= . (1.2) h p In expressions (1.1) we start off with what we traditionally considered to be solely a wave—an electromagnetic (EM) wave, for example—and we associate its wave characteristics f and (frequency and wavelength) with the corpuscular charac- teristics E and p (energy and momentum) of the corresponding particle. Conversely, in expressions (1.2), we begin with what we once regarded as purely a particle—say, an electron—and we associate its corpuscular characteristics E and p with the wave characteristics f and of the corresponding wave.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Aspects of Life / Editors, Derek Abbott, Paul C.W
    Quantum Aspectsof Life P581tp.indd 1 8/18/08 8:42:58 AM This page intentionally left blank foreword by SIR ROGER PENROSE editors Derek Abbott (University of Adelaide, Australia) Paul C. W. Davies (Arizona State University, USAU Arun K. Pati (Institute of Physics, Orissa, India) Imperial College Press ICP P581tp.indd 2 8/18/08 8:42:58 AM Published by Imperial College Press 57 Shelton Street Covent Garden London WC2H 9HE Distributed by World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. 5 Toh Tuck Link, Singapore 596224 USA office: 27 Warren Street, Suite 401-402, Hackensack, NJ 07601 UK office: 57 Shelton Street, Covent Garden, London WC2H 9HE Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Quantum aspects of life / editors, Derek Abbott, Paul C.W. Davies, Arun K. Pati ; foreword by Sir Roger Penrose. p. ; cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-1-84816-253-2 (hardcover : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 1-84816-253-7 (hardcover : alk. paper) ISBN-13: 978-1-84816-267-9 (pbk. : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 1-84816-267-7 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Quantum biochemistry. I. Abbott, Derek, 1960– II. Davies, P. C. W. III. Pati, Arun K. [DNLM: 1. Biogenesis. 2. Quantum Theory. 3. Evolution, Molecular. QH 325 Q15 2008] QP517.Q34.Q36 2008 576.8'3--dc22 2008029345 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Photo credit: Abigail P. Abbott for the photo on cover and title page. Copyright © 2008 by Imperial College Press All rights reserved. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage and retrieval system now known or to be invented, without written permission from the Publisher.
    [Show full text]
  • Qualification Exam: Quantum Mechanics
    Qualification Exam: Quantum Mechanics Name: , QEID#43228029: July, 2019 Qualification Exam QEID#43228029 2 1 Undergraduate level Problem 1. 1983-Fall-QM-U-1 ID:QM-U-2 Consider two spin 1=2 particles interacting with one another and with an external uniform magnetic field B~ directed along the z-axis. The Hamiltonian is given by ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H = −AS1 · S2 − µB(g1S1 + g2S2) · B where µB is the Bohr magneton, g1 and g2 are the g-factors, and A is a constant. 1. In the large field limit, what are the eigenvectors and eigenvalues of H in the "spin-space" { i.e. in the basis of eigenstates of S1z and S2z? 2. In the limit when jB~ j ! 0, what are the eigenvectors and eigenvalues of H in the same basis? 3. In the Intermediate regime, what are the eigenvectors and eigenvalues of H in the spin space? Show that you obtain the results of the previous two parts in the appropriate limits. Problem 2. 1983-Fall-QM-U-2 ID:QM-U-20 1. Show that, for an arbitrary normalized function j i, h jHj i > E0, where E0 is the lowest eigenvalue of H. 2. A particle of mass m moves in a potential 1 kx2; x ≤ 0 V (x) = 2 (1) +1; x < 0 Find the trial state of the lowest energy among those parameterized by σ 2 − x (x) = Axe 2σ2 : What does the first part tell you about E0? (Give your answers in terms of k, m, and ! = pk=m). Problem 3. 1983-Fall-QM-U-3 ID:QM-U-44 Consider two identical particles of spin zero, each having a mass m, that are con- strained to rotate in a plane with separation r.
    [Show full text]
  • Molecular Energy Levels
    MOLECULAR ENERGY LEVELS DR IMRANA ASHRAF OUTLINE q MOLECULE q MOLECULAR ORBITAL THEORY q MOLECULAR TRANSITIONS q INTERACTION OF RADIATION WITH MATTER q TYPES OF MOLECULAR ENERGY LEVELS q MOLECULE q In nature there exist 92 different elements that correspond to stable atoms. q These atoms can form larger entities- called molecules. q The number of atoms in a molecule vary from two - as in N2 - to many thousand as in DNA, protiens etc. q Molecules form when the total energy of the electrons is lower in the molecule than in individual atoms. q The reason comes from the Aufbau principle - to put electrons into the lowest energy configuration in atoms. q The same principle goes for molecules. q MOLECULE q Properties of molecules depend on: § The specific kind of atoms they are composed of. § The spatial structure of the molecules - the way in which the atoms are arranged within the molecule. § The binding energy of atoms or atomic groups in the molecule. TYPES OF MOLECULES q MONOATOMIC MOLECULES § The elements that do not have tendency to form molecules. § Elements which are stable single atom molecules are the noble gases : helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon and radon. q DIATOMIC MOLECULES § Diatomic molecules are composed of only two atoms - of the same or different elements. § Examples: hydrogen (H2), oxygen (O2), carbon monoxide (CO), nitric oxide (NO) q POLYATOMIC MOLECULES § Polyatomic molecules consist of a stable system comprising three or more atoms. TYPES OF MOLECULES q Empirical, Molecular And Structural Formulas q Empirical formula: Indicates the simplest whole number ratio of all the atoms in a molecule.
    [Show full text]
  • Atomic Excitation Potentials
    ATOMIC EXCITATION POTENTIALS PURPOSE In this lab you will study the excitation of mercury atoms by colliding electrons with the atoms, and confirm that this excitation requires a specific quantity of energy. THEORY In general, atoms of an element can exist in a number of either excited or ionized states, or the ground state. This lab will focus on electron collisions in which a free electron gives up just the amount of kinetic energy required to excite a ground state mercury atom into its first excited state. However, it is important to consider all other processes which constantly change the energy states of the atoms. An atom in the ground state may absorb a photon of energy exactly equal to the energy difference between the ground state and some excited state, whereas another atom may collide with an electron and absorb some fraction of the electron's kinetic energy which is the amount needed to put that atom in some excited state (collisional excitation). Each atom in an excited state then spontaneously emits a photon and drops from a higher excited state to a lower one (or to the ground state). Another possibility is that an atom may collide with an electron which carries away kinetic energy equal to the atomic excitation energy so that the atom ends up in, say, the ground state (collisional deexcitation). Lastly, an atom can be placed into an ionized state (one or more of its electrons stripped away) if the collision transfers energy greater than the ionization potential of the atom. Likewise an ionized atom can capture a free electron.
    [Show full text]
  • Theory and Experiment in the Quantum-Relativity Revolution
    Theory and Experiment in the Quantum-Relativity Revolution expanded version of lecture presented at American Physical Society meeting, 2/14/10 (Abraham Pais History of Physics Prize for 2009) by Stephen G. Brush* Abstract Does new scientific knowledge come from theory (whose predictions are confirmed by experiment) or from experiment (whose results are explained by theory)? Either can happen, depending on whether theory is ahead of experiment or experiment is ahead of theory at a particular time. In the first case, new theoretical hypotheses are made and their predictions are tested by experiments. But even when the predictions are successful, we can’t be sure that some other hypothesis might not have produced the same prediction. In the second case, as in a detective story, there are already enough facts, but several theories have failed to explain them. When a new hypothesis plausibly explains all of the facts, it may be quickly accepted before any further experiments are done. In the quantum-relativity revolution there are examples of both situations. Because of the two-stage development of both relativity (“special,” then “general”) and quantum theory (“old,” then “quantum mechanics”) in the period 1905-1930, we can make a double comparison of acceptance by prediction and by explanation. A curious anti- symmetry is revealed and discussed. _____________ *Distinguished University Professor (Emeritus) of the History of Science, University of Maryland. Home address: 108 Meadowlark Terrace, Glen Mills, PA 19342. Comments welcome. 1 “Science walks forward on two feet, namely theory and experiment. ... Sometimes it is only one foot which is put forward first, sometimes the other, but continuous progress is only made by the use of both – by theorizing and then testing, or by finding new relations in the process of experimenting and then bringing the theoretical foot up and pushing it on beyond, and so on in unending alterations.” Robert A.
    [Show full text]
  • 15.1 Excited State Processes
    15.1 Excited State Processes • both optical and dark processes are described in order to develop a kinetic picture of the excited state • the singlet-triplet split and Stoke's shift determine the wavelengths of emission • the fluorescence quantum yield and lifetime depend upon the relative rates of optical and dark processes • excited states can be quenched by other molecules in the solution 15.1 : 1/8 Excited State Processes Involving Light • absorption occurs over one cycle of light, i.e. 10-14 to 10-15 s • fluorescence is spin allowed and occurs over a time scale of 10-9 to 10-7 s • in fluid solution, fluorescence comes from the lowest energy singlet state S2 •the shortest wavelength in the T2 fluorescence spectrum is the longest S1 wavelength in the absorption spectrum T1 • triplet states lie at lower energy than their corresponding singlet states • phosphorescence is spin forbidden and occurs over a time scale of 10-3 to 1 s • you can estimate where spectral features will be located by assuming that S0 absorption, fluorescence and phosphorescence occur one color apart - thus a yellow solution absorbs in the violet, fluoresces in the blue and phosphoresces in the green 15.1 : 2/8 Excited State Dark Processes • excess vibrational energy can be internal conversion transferred to the solvent with very few S2 -13 -11 vibrations (10 to 10 s) - this T2 process is called vibrational relaxation S1 • a molecule in v = 0 of S2 can convert T1 iso-energetically to a higher vibrational vibrational relaxation intersystem level of S1 - this is called
    [Show full text]
  • Frontiers of Quantum and Mesoscopic Thermodynamics 14 - 20 July 2019, Prague, Czech Republic
    Frontiers of Quantum and Mesoscopic Thermodynamics 14 - 20 July 2019, Prague, Czech Republic Under the auspicies of Ing. Miloš Zeman President of the Czech Republic Jaroslav Kubera President of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic Milan Štˇech Vice-President of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic Prof. RNDr. Eva Zažímalová, CSc. President of the Czech Academy of Sciences Dominik Cardinal Duka OP Archbishop of Prague Supported by • Committee on Education, Science, Culture, Human Rights and Petitions of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic • Institute of Physics, the Czech Academy of Sciences • Department of Physics, Texas A&M University, USA • Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands • College of Engineering and Science, University of Detroit Mercy, USA • Quantum Optics Lab at the BRIC, Baylor University, USA • Institut de Physique Théorique, CEA/CNRS Saclay, France Topics • Non-equilibrium quantum phenomena • Foundations of quantum physics • Quantum measurement, entanglement and coherence • Dissipation, dephasing, noise and decoherence • Many body physics, quantum field theory • Quantum statistical physics and thermodynamics • Quantum optics • Quantum simulations • Physics of quantum information and computing • Topological states of quantum matter, quantum phase transitions • Macroscopic quantum behavior • Cold atoms and molecules, Bose-Einstein condensates • Mesoscopic, nano-electromechanical and nano-optical systems • Biological systems, molecular motors and
    [Show full text]
  • On the Logic Resolution of the Wave Particle Duality Paradox in Quantum Mechanics (Extended Abstract) M.A
    On the logic resolution of the wave particle duality paradox in quantum mechanics (Extended abstract) M.A. Nait Abdallah To cite this version: M.A. Nait Abdallah. On the logic resolution of the wave particle duality paradox in quantum me- chanics (Extended abstract). 2016. hal-01303223 HAL Id: hal-01303223 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01303223 Preprint submitted on 18 Apr 2016 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. On the logic resolution of the wave particle duality paradox in quantum mechanics (Extended abstract) M.A. Nait Abdallah UWO, London, Canada and INRIA, Paris, France Abstract. In this paper, we consider three landmark experiments of quantum physics and discuss the related wave particle duality paradox. We present a formalization, in terms of formal logic, of single photon self- interference. We show that the wave particle duality paradox appears, from the logic point of view, in the form of two distinct fallacies: the hard information fallacy and the exhaustive disjunction fallacy. We show that each fallacy points out some fundamental aspect of quantum physical systems and we present a logic solution to the paradox.
    [Show full text]