Delayed-Choice Gedanken Experiments and Their Realizations
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Configuration Interaction Study of the Ground State of the Carbon Atom
Configuration Interaction Study of the Ground State of the Carbon Atom María Belén Ruiz* and Robert Tröger Department of Theoretical Chemistry Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg Egerlandstraße 3, 91054 Erlangen, Germany In print in Advances Quantum Chemistry Vol. 76: Novel Electronic Structure Theory: General Innovations and Strongly Correlated Systems 30th July 2017 Abstract Configuration Interaction (CI) calculations on the ground state of the C atom are carried out using a small basis set of Slater orbitals [7s6p5d4f3g]. The configurations are selected according to their contribution to the total energy. One set of exponents is optimized for the whole expansion. Using some computational techniques to increase efficiency, our computer program is able to perform partially-parallelized runs of 1000 configuration term functions within a few minutes. With the optimized computer programme we were able to test a large number of configuration types and chose the most important ones. The energy of the 3P ground state of carbon atom with a wave function of angular momentum L=1 and ML=0 and spin eigenfunction with S=1 and MS=0 leads to -37.83526523 h, which is millihartree accurate. We discuss the state of the art in the determination of the ground state of the carbon atom and give an outlook about the complex spectra of this atom and its low-lying states. Keywords: Carbon atom; Configuration Interaction; Slater orbitals; Ground state *Corresponding author: e-mail address: [email protected] 1 1. Introduction The spectrum of the isolated carbon atom is the most complex one among the light atoms. The ground state of carbon atom is a triplet 3P state and its low-lying excited states are singlet 1D, 1S and 1P states, more stable than the corresponding triplet excited ones 3D and 3S, against the Hund’s rule of maximal multiplicity. -
Quantum Field Theory*
Quantum Field Theory y Frank Wilczek Institute for Advanced Study, School of Natural Science, Olden Lane, Princeton, NJ 08540 I discuss the general principles underlying quantum eld theory, and attempt to identify its most profound consequences. The deep est of these consequences result from the in nite number of degrees of freedom invoked to implement lo cality.Imention a few of its most striking successes, b oth achieved and prosp ective. Possible limitation s of quantum eld theory are viewed in the light of its history. I. SURVEY Quantum eld theory is the framework in which the regnant theories of the electroweak and strong interactions, which together form the Standard Mo del, are formulated. Quantum electro dynamics (QED), b esides providing a com- plete foundation for atomic physics and chemistry, has supp orted calculations of physical quantities with unparalleled precision. The exp erimentally measured value of the magnetic dip ole moment of the muon, 11 (g 2) = 233 184 600 (1680) 10 ; (1) exp: for example, should b e compared with the theoretical prediction 11 (g 2) = 233 183 478 (308) 10 : (2) theor: In quantum chromo dynamics (QCD) we cannot, for the forseeable future, aspire to to comparable accuracy.Yet QCD provides di erent, and at least equally impressive, evidence for the validity of the basic principles of quantum eld theory. Indeed, b ecause in QCD the interactions are stronger, QCD manifests a wider variety of phenomena characteristic of quantum eld theory. These include esp ecially running of the e ective coupling with distance or energy scale and the phenomenon of con nement. -
Introduction ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Li
This guide is designed to show someone with a basic undergraduate background in physics how to perform a presentation on the topic Introduction ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Page 1 of holography and how to demonstrate the making of a hologram. Although holography can be a very complex area of study, the material has been explained mostly qualitatively, so as to match the target audience’s background in mathematics and physics. The List of Equipment ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Page 2 target audience high school students in grades 9‐ 11 and so limited to no previous knowledge on optics, lasers or holograms is assumed. The presentation and demonstrations will teach the students about basic optics such as reflection, refraction, and interference. The Preparation for presentation ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Page 2‐3 students will learn the basic physics of lasers, with a focus on the apparatus set up of a laser and the necessity of a coherent light source for the creation of interference patterns. The last part of the presentation covers the two most popular types of holographic Presentation guideline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Page 3‐7 production apparatuses which are reflection and transmission holograms respectively. Some historical background and fun facts are also included throughout the presentation. The module ends Demonstration guideline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Page 7 with a live demonstration on how to make a hologram to give the students some exposure to the care that must be taken in experiments and to give them a taste of what higher level physics laboratories can include. The following flow chart summarizes the References ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Page 8 basics of how the presentation will flow. 1 First and foremost, you should find out the location you’ll Laptop be presenting at and when the presentation will take place. -
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. -
A Paradox Regarding Monogamy of Entanglement
A paradox regarding monogamy of entanglement Anna Karlsson1;2 1Institute for Advanced Study, School of Natural Sciences 1 Einstein Drive, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA 2Division of Theoretical Physics, Department of Physics, Chalmers University of Technology, 412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden Abstract In density matrix theory, entanglement is monogamous. However, we show that qubits can be arbitrarily entangled in a different, recently constructed model of qubit entanglement [1]. We illustrate the differences between these two models, analyse how the density matrix property of monogamy of entanglement originates in assumptions of classical correlations in the construc- tion of that model, and explain the counterexample to monogamy in the alternative model. We conclude that monogamy of entanglement is a theoretical assumption, not necessarily a phys- ical property, and discuss how contemporary theory relies on that assumption. The properties of entanglement entropy are very different in the two models — a priori, the entropy in the alternative model is classical. arXiv:1911.09226v2 [hep-th] 7 Feb 2020 Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Indications of a presence of general entanglement . .2 1.2 Non-signalling and detection of general entanglement . .3 1.3 Summary and overview . .4 2 Analysis of the partial trace 5 3 A counterexample to monogamy of entanglement 5 4 Implications for entangled systems 7 A More details on the different correlation models 9 B Entropy in the orthogonal information model 11 C Correlations vs entanglement: a tolerance for deviations 14 1 Introduction The topic of this article is how to accurately model quantum correlations. In quantum theory, quan- tum systems are currently modelled by density matrices (ρ) and entanglement is recognized to be monogamous [2]. -
1 the LOCALIZED QUANTUM VACUUM FIELD D. Dragoman
1 THE LOCALIZED QUANTUM VACUUM FIELD D. Dragoman – Univ. Bucharest, Physics Dept., P.O. Box MG-11, 077125 Bucharest, Romania, e-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT A model for the localized quantum vacuum is proposed in which the zero-point energy of the quantum electromagnetic field originates in energy- and momentum-conserving transitions of material systems from their ground state to an unstable state with negative energy. These transitions are accompanied by emissions and re-absorptions of real photons, which generate a localized quantum vacuum in the neighborhood of material systems. The model could help resolve the cosmological paradox associated to the zero-point energy of electromagnetic fields, while reclaiming quantum effects associated with quantum vacuum such as the Casimir effect and the Lamb shift; it also offers a new insight into the Zitterbewegung of material particles. 2 INTRODUCTION The zero-point energy (ZPE) of the quantum electromagnetic field is at the same time an indispensable concept of quantum field theory and a controversial issue (see [1] for an excellent review of the subject). The need of the ZPE has been recognized from the beginning of quantum theory of radiation, since only the inclusion of this term assures no first-order temperature-independent correction to the average energy of an oscillator in thermal equilibrium with blackbody radiation in the classical limit of high temperatures. A more rigorous introduction of the ZPE stems from the treatment of the electromagnetic radiation as an ensemble of harmonic quantum oscillators. Then, the total energy of the quantum electromagnetic field is given by E = åk,s hwk (nks +1/ 2) , where nks is the number of quantum oscillators (photons) in the (k,s) mode that propagate with wavevector k and frequency wk =| k | c = kc , and are characterized by the polarization index s. -
Do Black Holes Create Polyamory?
Do black holes create polyamory? Andrzej Grudka1;4, Michael J. W. Hall2, Michał Horodecki3;4, Ryszard Horodecki3;4, Jonathan Oppenheim5, John A. Smolin6 1Faculty of Physics, Adam Mickiewicz University, 61-614 Pozna´n,Poland 2Centre for Quantum Computation and Communication Technology (Australian Research Council), Centre for Quantum Dynamics, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD 4111, Australia 3Institute of Theoretical Physics and Astrophysics, University of Gda´nsk,Gda´nsk,Poland 4National Quantum Information Center of Gda´nsk,81–824 Sopot, Poland 5University College of London, Department of Physics & Astronomy, London, WC1E 6BT and London Interdisciplinary Network for Quantum Science and 6IBM T. J. Watson Research Center, 1101 Kitchawan Road, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 Of course not, but if one believes that information cannot be destroyed in a theory of quantum gravity, then we run into apparent contradictions with quantum theory when we consider evaporating black holes. Namely that the no-cloning theorem or the principle of entanglement monogamy is violated. Here, we show that neither violation need hold, since, in arguing that black holes lead to cloning or non-monogamy, one needs to assume a tensor product structure between two points in space-time that could instead be viewed as causally connected. In the latter case, one is violating the semi-classical causal structure of space, which is a strictly weaker implication than cloning or non-monogamy. This is because both cloning and non-monogamy also lead to a breakdown of the semi-classical causal structure. We show that the lack of monogamy that can emerge in evaporating space times is one that is allowed in quantum mechanics, and is very naturally related to a lack of monogamy of correlations of outputs of measurements performed at subsequent instances of time of a single system. -
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle*
OpenStax-CNX module: m58578 1 The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle* OpenStax This work is produced by OpenStax-CNX and licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 Abstract By the end of this section, you will be able to: • Describe the physical meaning of the position-momentum uncertainty relation • Explain the origins of the uncertainty principle in quantum theory • Describe the physical meaning of the energy-time uncertainty relation Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is a key principle in quantum mechanics. Very roughly, it states that if we know everything about where a particle is located (the uncertainty of position is small), we know nothing about its momentum (the uncertainty of momentum is large), and vice versa. Versions of the uncertainty principle also exist for other quantities as well, such as energy and time. We discuss the momentum-position and energy-time uncertainty principles separately. 1 Momentum and Position To illustrate the momentum-position uncertainty principle, consider a free particle that moves along the x- direction. The particle moves with a constant velocity u and momentum p = mu. According to de Broglie's relations, p = }k and E = }!. As discussed in the previous section, the wave function for this particle is given by −i(! t−k x) −i ! t i k x k (x; t) = A [cos (! t − k x) − i sin (! t − k x)] = Ae = Ae e (1) 2 2 and the probability density j k (x; t) j = A is uniform and independent of time. The particle is equally likely to be found anywhere along the x-axis but has denite values of wavelength and wave number, and therefore momentum. -
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' ( ). -
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. -
The Paradox of Recombined Beams Frank Rioux Emeritus Professor of Chemistry CSB|SJU
The Paradox of Recombined Beams Frank Rioux Emeritus Professor of Chemistry CSB|SJU French and Taylor illustrate the paradox of the recombined beams with a series of experiments using polarized photons in section 7-3 in An Introduction to Quantum Physics. It is my opinion that it is easier to demonstrate this so-called paradox using photons, beam splitters and mirrors. Of course, the paradox is only apparent, being created by thinking classically about a quantum phenomenon. Single photons illuminate a 50-50 beam splitter and mirrors direct the photons to detectors D1 and D2. For a statistically meaningful number of observations, it is found that 50% of the photons are detected at D1 and 50% at D2. One might, therefore, conclude that each photon is either transmitted or reflected at the beam splitter. Recombining the paths with a second beam splitter creates a Mach-Zehnder interferometer (MZI). On the basis of the previous reasoning one might expect again that each detector would fire 50% of the time. Half of the photons are in the T branch of the interferometer and they have a 50% chance of being transmitted to D2 and a 50% chance of being reflected to D1 at the second beam splitter. The same reasoning applies to the photons in the R branch. However what is observed in an equal arm MZI is that all the photons arrive at D1. The reasoning used to explain the first result is plausible, but we see that the attempt to extend it to the MZI shown below leads to a contradiction with actual experimental results. -
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.