“Welcome to this special issue of Physics World, marking the 200th anniversary of quantum mechanics. In this double-quantum edition, the letters in this text are stored using qubits. As you read, you project the letters into a fixed state, and that information gets copied into your mind as the article that you are reading. This text is actually in a superposition of many different articles, but only one of them gets copied into your memory. We hope you enjoy the one that you are reading.”
f you are lucky enough to experience reading such a magazine, you might be disappointed as you can read only one of the articles the text gets projected into. The problem is that by reading the superposition of articles, you made them decohere, because you copied the information about each letter into your memory.
A possible solution may be if you could restore the coherence of the text by just erasing your memory of the particular article you read. Once you no longer have information identifying which article your magazine was projected into, there is then no fundamental reason for it to remain decohered into a single state. You could then reread it to enjoy a different article.
Welcome to the quantum eraser.
In a standard double-slit experiment, photons are sent one by one through two slits to create an interference pattern on a screen, illustrating the wave-like behaviour of light. But if we add a detector that can spot which of the two slits the photon goes through, the interference disappears and we see only two distinct clumps on the screen, signifying particle-like behaviour. Crucially, gaining information about which path the photon took changes the photon’s quantum state, from the wave-like interference pattern to the particle-like clumps.
Instead of measuring the photon as it passes through the double-slit, the measurement could be delayed until just before the photon hits the screen. Interestingly, the delayed detection of which slit the photon goes through still determines whether or not it displays the wave-like or particle-like behaviour. In other words, even a detection done long after the photon has gone through the slit determines whether or not that photon is measured to have interfered with itself.
If that’s not strange enough, the delayed-choice quantum eraser is a further modification of this idea. First proposed by American physicists Marlan Scully and Kai Drühl in 1982 (Phys. Rev. A 25 2208), it was later experimentally implemented by Yoon-Ho Kim and collaborators using photons in 2000 (Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 1). This variation adds a second twist: if recording which slit the photon passes through causes it to decohere, then what happens if we were to erase that information? Imagine shrinking the detector to a single qubit that becomes entangled with the photon: “left” slit might correlate to the qubit being 0, “right” slit to 1. Instead of measuring whether the qubit is a 0 or 1 (revealing the path), we could measure it in a complementary way, randomising the 0s and 1s (erasing the path information).
Strikingly, while the screen still shows particle-like clumps overall, these complementary measurements of the single-qubit detector can actually be used to extract a wave-like interference pattern. This works through a sorting process: the two possible outcomes of the complementary measurements are used to separate out the photon detections on the screen. The separated patterns then each individually show bright and dark fringes.
The quantum eraser emphasizes that even a single entanglement between qubits will cause decoherence, whether or not it is measured afterwards – meaning that no mysterious macroscopic observer is required.
-----------
If you were paying attention during this discussion, you will conclude that an entanglement causes loss of information from the superimposed (coherent) quantum state.
A measurement is an entanglement between the superimposition and the measuring device. Information is being transferred from the quantum state to the detector.
The reconstruction of fringe patterns in the double slit experiment demonstrates that adding the information back in, restores the results of the superposition.
This can be understood intuitively as the amount of information needed to describe "all possible paths". (Or equivalently, all possible states). The instant one of the possible paths (or states) is removed, the entire structure collapses. Because the math no longer adds up - the sum of the probabilities isn't 1 anymore.
The superimposition of quantum states can therefore be considered as information geometry.
f you are lucky enough to experience reading such a magazine, you might be disappointed as you can read only one of the articles the text gets projected into. The problem is that by reading the superposition of articles, you made them decohere, because you copied the information about each letter into your memory.
A possible solution may be if you could restore the coherence of the text by just erasing your memory of the particular article you read. Once you no longer have information identifying which article your magazine was projected into, there is then no fundamental reason for it to remain decohered into a single state. You could then reread it to enjoy a different article.
Welcome to the quantum eraser.
The quantum eraser doesn’t rewrite the past – it rewrites observers – Physics World
Maria Violaris looks to the past and future of quantum observers and measurements
physicsworld.com
In a standard double-slit experiment, photons are sent one by one through two slits to create an interference pattern on a screen, illustrating the wave-like behaviour of light. But if we add a detector that can spot which of the two slits the photon goes through, the interference disappears and we see only two distinct clumps on the screen, signifying particle-like behaviour. Crucially, gaining information about which path the photon took changes the photon’s quantum state, from the wave-like interference pattern to the particle-like clumps.
Instead of measuring the photon as it passes through the double-slit, the measurement could be delayed until just before the photon hits the screen. Interestingly, the delayed detection of which slit the photon goes through still determines whether or not it displays the wave-like or particle-like behaviour. In other words, even a detection done long after the photon has gone through the slit determines whether or not that photon is measured to have interfered with itself.
If that’s not strange enough, the delayed-choice quantum eraser is a further modification of this idea. First proposed by American physicists Marlan Scully and Kai Drühl in 1982 (Phys. Rev. A 25 2208), it was later experimentally implemented by Yoon-Ho Kim and collaborators using photons in 2000 (Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 1). This variation adds a second twist: if recording which slit the photon passes through causes it to decohere, then what happens if we were to erase that information? Imagine shrinking the detector to a single qubit that becomes entangled with the photon: “left” slit might correlate to the qubit being 0, “right” slit to 1. Instead of measuring whether the qubit is a 0 or 1 (revealing the path), we could measure it in a complementary way, randomising the 0s and 1s (erasing the path information).
Strikingly, while the screen still shows particle-like clumps overall, these complementary measurements of the single-qubit detector can actually be used to extract a wave-like interference pattern. This works through a sorting process: the two possible outcomes of the complementary measurements are used to separate out the photon detections on the screen. The separated patterns then each individually show bright and dark fringes.
The quantum eraser emphasizes that even a single entanglement between qubits will cause decoherence, whether or not it is measured afterwards – meaning that no mysterious macroscopic observer is required.
-----------
If you were paying attention during this discussion, you will conclude that an entanglement causes loss of information from the superimposed (coherent) quantum state.
A measurement is an entanglement between the superimposition and the measuring device. Information is being transferred from the quantum state to the detector.
The reconstruction of fringe patterns in the double slit experiment demonstrates that adding the information back in, restores the results of the superposition.
This can be understood intuitively as the amount of information needed to describe "all possible paths". (Or equivalently, all possible states). The instant one of the possible paths (or states) is removed, the entire structure collapses. Because the math no longer adds up - the sum of the probabilities isn't 1 anymore.
The superimposition of quantum states can therefore be considered as information geometry.
