12/25/13

Quantum Mechanics: The Physicist turns Philosopher

Quantum Mechanics: The Physicist turns Philosopher Some History. All great scientific revolutions have philosophical consequences. Quantum mechanics is no exception. As Max Planck was the first to note, the introduction of the universal constant h posed a serious threat to a deterministic conception of the universe. It became conceivable that nature made leaps after all. Furthermore, these leaps seemed to be of a random character. The indeterministic nature of the quantum world made itself felt in four separate developments: a) in the Planckian explanation of blackbody radiation (1900) and b) in the radioactive decay law (1901). Both involve statistical considerations at a fundamental level. The emission and absorption of discrete quanta by atoms in black bodies is a probabilistic event. So is the escape of a -particles or b -particles from the nucleus, causing the chemical changes, which Rutherford and Soddy linked to the radioactive activity. Furthermore, c) Einstein (1917) expressed his concern about indeterminism by noting that quantum mechanics failed to predict the direction of outgoing radiation in spontaneous emission. Finally, d) Heisenberg and Bohr used the double-slit Gedankenexperiment in the late 1920s to enthusiastically embrace the new indeterministic view of nature. This was in stark contrast to Planck and Einstein, who adhered to a fundamentally deterministic view of the universe. The double-slit experiment, which was realized experimentally for the first time in 1961[1], has acquired a proud history in quantum mechanics and has been reproduced in many different versions. Its association with questions of causality in quantum mechanics has lasted to the present day. Three Responses from Physicists. In the face of the difficulties of interpreting these results in the sense of traditional notions of causality, physicists developed a number of responses , which can be conveniently divided into three groups. * Planck, Einstein and von Laue adopted the Conservative Response. According to this view, quantum mechanics was incomplete in the sense that it failed to specify the spatio-temporal trajectories of the quantum systems. The ability of physicists to predict the precise trajectories of particles from a set of initial conditions and of known laws was seen as the hallmark of (classical) physics. The trouble with this view is that it stands firmly in the shadow of the Laplacean demon. Laplace had identified causality and predictive determinism. Unwittingly, both Planck and Einstein argued for a retention of the Laplacean identification of determinism and causality. * Heisenberg, Bohr and Pauli adopted the Radical Response. This view leads to the rejection of the notion of causality in quantum mechanics. The argument proceeds from the experimental failure of predictive determinism to the adoption of acausality in quantum mechanics. Ironically, this view also operates under the shadow of the Laplacean demon. The reason given for adopting acausality, is the validity of the Heisenberg indeterminacy relations in quantum mechanics. The indeterminacy principle has served generations of physicists (and philosophers) to conclude that quantum mechanistic is acausal. There are two scenarios. The antecedent conditions of the state of a quantum mechanical system cannot be fully known experimentally (either momentum or position, energy levels or time in energy state can be measured accurately). The consequent conditions of the quantum system, after interference with the measurement apparatus, cannot be predicted with precision. Ergo: the law of causality fails to apply in quantum mechanics. * Sommerfeld, de Broglie and the later Born adopted the Philosophical Response. This view leads to a separation of the notions of causality and determinism. It holds that even though determinism fails, causal accounts may still be given in quantum mechanics. This required a notion of probabilistic causality.[2] A probabilistic notion of causality no longer satisfies the demand for precise spatio-temporal prediction of trajectories. Individual atoms in an atom beam, split in a Stern-Gerlach apparatus, have a 50% chance of travelling along the upper or the lower trajectory. But it is still possible to give a causal account of the splitting of the atom beam and the chances of individual atoms to travel along the split beams. Similarly many of the
www.staff.brad.ac.uk/fweinert/QMConference.htm 1/8

12/25/13

Quantum Mechanics: The Physicist turns Philosopher

famous experiments, which established quantum mechanics, give rise to causal accounts: the Frank-Hertz experiment (1914), the Stern-Gerlach experiments (1920), Compton Scattering (1923) and the DavisonGermer experiment (1927) can all be given a causal interpretation, based on the notion of probabilistic causality. A thought experiment due to de Broglie's perfectly illustrates this new notion of causality. Consider a phenomenon, A, such as the firing of an electron gun at a crystal, which is always succeeded by one of several phenomena, B1 , B2 , B3 , Bn . These may be scintillation effects at different points on the surface of a screen erected near the crystal. Furthermore, none of the phenomena, B1 , B2 , B3 , Bn will be recorded if A is absent (Figure I). Figure I: De Broglies causal thought experiment.[3]

~A

~B1,2,3

In this situation, we would consider that A must be the cause of B. It is a case of causality without determinism because quantum mechanics cannot predict which of the phenomena, B1 , B2 , B3 , Bn will actually occur at which place and time on the surface of the screen. While there are regions of the screen where the probability of impact is greater than in other regions, it is impossible to make any statements about the path and impact area of individual electrons. But there is a causal dependence of the scintillation effects on the firing of the electron gun. These examples of causal accounts in quantum mechanics may lead to a conditional view of causality, similarly to Mackie's INUS model. There is a tendency in the literature to associate Mackie's model of causality with a deterministic view of the universe. This association is mistaken for two reasons. Mackie himself excluded it.[4] And a notion of probabilistic causality can be formulated to express an antecedent set of necessary and sufficient conditions, commonly called the cause, which raises the probability of the appearance of the consequent set of conditions, commonly called the effect . The double-slit experiment continues its successful run in both physics and philosophy. In its latest incarnation, it provides surprising new insights both for physics and philosophy. Since the early nineties so-called welcher Weg or which- way experiments have produced results with rich philosophical implications. They throw new light onto the question of causality in quantum mechanics and, so I will argue, onto the mystery of the EPR correlations.

www.staff.brad.ac.uk/fweinert/QMConference.htm

2/8

12/25/13

Quantum Mechanics: The Physicist turns Philosopher

Causal accounts in recent welcher Weg experiments. Information about the passage of particles is obtained without involving the indeterminacy relations. In one of the recent versions of this experiment the slits are replaced by standing light waves. Microwaves are used to change the internal electronic states of the atom. These internal electronic states are then used as which-way detectors or particle-like information. (Alternatively, polarisation states of photons can be used as which-way detectors.) When the which-way information is stored in the internal atomic state, the interference patterns disappear (Figure II). When the which-way information is erased, the interference patterns reappear. The crucial point of the experiment is that the indeterminacy relations cannot be held responsible for the disappearance of the interference pattern. The momentum kick from the microwaves is far too small to account for the disappearance of the fringes. And the atom remains de-localised during its whole passage through the interaction.

Figure II: A schematic representation of a which-way experiment .[5] A

www.staff.brad.ac.uk/fweinert/QMConference.htm

3/8

12/25/13

Quantum Mechanics: The Physicist turns Philosopher

Two microwave fields - are used to store which-way information. This will change the internal state of the atoms and reveal the information whether the atoms travelled along path B or C. If the internal state is found to be |2>, the atom moved along beam B, otherwise it moved along beam C. But the interference pattern will disappear. The correlations between the which-way detector (the internal atomic states) and the atomic motion destroy the interference. The technical terms, which can be mathematically expressed, is entanglement . It is not the entanglement of the microwave fields with the atoms, which causes the loss of interference. The microwave fields do not transfer enough momentum to the atom to wash out the fringes. What causes the loss of interference is the entanglement between the which-way detectors and the atomic motion. [6] The physical interpretation of entanglement is the distinguishability of alternative particle paths. As soon as the possibility of distinguishability exists when which-way information is stored in the atoms or photons the interference effects are destroyed. However, when the pathways of the photons are indistinguishable the interference effects reappear. This is achieved through a quantum eraser. (Figure III) Figure III: A Simplified View of a Quantum Eraser.[7]

www.staff.brad.ac.uk/fweinert/QMConference.htm

4/8

12/25/13

Quantum Mechanics: The Physicist turns Philosopher

In the study of which-way experiments the notion of entanglement[8] replaces the indeterminacy relations. Yet the relationship between which-way information and the appearance and disappearance of interference patterns is clearly a causal relation. There is a conditional priority: the storing of which-way information is prior to the loss of interference and the erasing of which-way information is prior to the restoring of the interference effects. There is a conditional dependence : the loss of interference fringes is dependent on the correlations between the internal atomic states (which-way detectors) and the atomic motion (the paths). Furthermore, the appearance of the interference effects and the form of the interference pattern are dependent on the way and the degree to which the information is erased.[9] For instance, the erasure of the which-way information can be arranged in such a manner that the intensity minimum (a dip) is shifted to an intensity maximum (a peak). As Kwiat and his co-workers observe this is a case of quantum editing, a term which stresses the strong causal nature of these experiments. First, it is the physical process of storing the which-way information in the internal particle states and not the actual reading out of this information by the experimenters, which destroys the interference effects. Second, the interference patterns can be retrieved by erasing the which-way information in the particles on two spatially separated arms of the interferometer. Significantly, welcher Weg information must be erased in both spatially separated particles. If it is erased only on one arm of the interferometer, the interference effects will not re-appear because one of the photons still retains welcher Weg information. (Figure III) EPR Correlations. Can this notion of entanglement tell us anything about possible causes in the EPR correlations? For the sake of the argument, we will ignore most of the conceptual proposals concerning the EPR correlations by introducing some commonly accepted constraints:[10] * A direct causal link between the measurement outcomes is usually excluded on the grounds of the prohibition of superluminal signals in the Special Theory of Relativity. * A common cause explanation of the correlations is usually excluded by reference to the factorizability condition. As experiments clearly violate the Bell inequalities and demonstrate entanglement (nonseparability), the non-factorizability of the measurement outcomes is taken to exclude a common cause. This is further emphasized by the use of time-varying analyzers in the Aspect experiment. * An explanation of the EPR correlations in terms of partial causes (the system's state plus one measurement
www.staff.brad.ac.uk/fweinert/QMConference.htm 5/8

12/25/13

Quantum Mechanics: The Physicist turns Philosopher

result) has been excluded on the grounds of Redhead's robustness condition for causal relations.[11] * Here I wish to introduce the experimental findings in the welcher- weg experiments as a further empirical constraint, which may offer some guidance as to the investigation of possible causes of the EPR correlations. Let us first distinguish two senses of entanglement . The more familiar sense of entanglement is given to the correlations, which are the result of measurements on two photons in a singlet state. After preparation of the photon pair in a source, they fly in opposite direction. Since the Aspect experiments (1982) the photons are space-like separated when their polarisation states are measured. As is well known, when the measurements are made along the same direction, strictly anti-correlated outcomes are measured (spin ). As Schrdinger was the first person to call this correlation 'entanglement', it makes sense to dub this form of entanglement Schrdinger entanglement.[12] Schrdinger entanglement is an epistemological notion. It involves our knowledge of what correlations a photon pair in a singlet state will exhibit, if it is prepared in a common source and the polarisation states of the pair are measured in different directions. In the classic double-slit experiment, Schrdinger entanglement manifests itself as an interference pattern on a screen. Even if single photons are chosen, which are individually sent toward a plate with two slits, they will eventually build up an interference pattern, which is characteristic of wave phenomena. The mystery is to explain how the photons 'co-operate' to form the interference fringes. The entanglement involved in which- way experiments is quite different. Let us call it Scully entanglement, since Marlan O. Scully and his co-workers, Bertold-Georg Englert and Herbert Walther, designed the original gedanken experiment on which the above-mentioned welcher Weg experiment was based. Scully entanglement is an ontological notion. It is a correlation between the internal state of an atom with the environment (the which- way detector). Scully entanglement leads to the distinguishability of the photon paths and hence to the disappearance of the interference fringes. Hence Scully entanglement destroys Schrdinger entanglement! But this entanglement of the atomic motion with the environment can be erased. This removal is called the quantum eraser. If this happens, the interference fringes re-appear. The same entanglement, which is responsible for the disappearance of the interference fringes is also responsible for their re-appearance. It is the entanglement of the spatial wavefunction of the atomic motion with the detector. To see that Scully entanglement is indeed an ontological notion, recall that it is the mere possibility of identifying the photon path, which destroys the interference fringes.[13] There is no need to read out the measurement results. In Scully entanglement we have an identifiable cause - the physical distinguishability of the photon path - which leads to the disappearance of the interference pattern. More precisely, the cause is the storing of which-way information in the detector or the internal structure of atoms. When their paths are distinguishable, atoms or photons behave like particles. There is a physical correlation between the which- way detector and the atomic motion. The interference fringes can be restored, by erasing the which-way information. This has been demonstrated on photon systems. The interference fringes reappear even when the photons have traversed the optical system and can no longer interact with each other. This aspect of the quantum eraser has strong similarities with the EPR correlations. In the ERP correlations, we
www.staff.brad.ac.uk/fweinert/QMConference.htm 6/8

12/25/13

Quantum Mechanics: The Physicist turns Philosopher

ask how the space-like separated photons can correlate their spin states since there is no observable mechanism by which they could do so. In the which-way experiments it is the erasure of which-way information, which restores the interference fringes (Figure III). But once again it is a mystery how the space-like separated photons can co-ordinate their actions to produce the wave phenomenon of interference. At first sight, the welcher Weg experiments seem to support the idea of a nonlocal holism of quantum systems. The erasure of which-way information seems to require the same nonlocal holism as in the ERP correlations. But the assumption of holism can explain neither the spin correlations nor the reappearance of the interference pattern.[14] And the which- way experiments refute the assumption of holism to a certain extent. For the storing of which- way information, after the particles have left their common source, destroys the interference pattern. The atoms behave like particles, not like waves. And the which-way information needs to be erased in both arms of the interferometer for the interference effect and the wave-like behaviour to reappear. Are we back to where we started? Have the which- way experiments told us nothing of any use for the EPR correlations? This conclusion may be premature. The which- way experiments have given us a notion of entanglement, which specifies an ontological correlation between atomic motion and which- way detectors. It is a known and controllable mechanism by which interference can be destroyed and restored. The quantum eraser also works by seeking an entanglement of the particle motion with the detector. But this time, the trace of the particle's path is removed. Now in the EPR correlations no such mechanism has been detected. But the existence of Scully entanglement and its experimental implementation provides us with an empirical constraint , which may constrain conceptual models of the EPR correlations. For instance, the claim that the EPR correlations are brute facts , which can receive no further explanation, is discredited given the existence of the Scully entanglement . This clearly shows that the entanglement of the atoms and photons with the environment is a causal factor in the control of the interference effects. Physical mechanisms can be found, which give a clear causal account of the appearance and disappearance of interference fringes. This physical mechanism is Scully entanglement. Scully entanglement destroys Schrdinger entanglement , if used to store which-way information. Equally, Scully entanglement restores Schrdinger entanglement, if used to remove which-way information. Given the strong analogies between which- way experiments and EPR-type experiments, this finding points to the indistinguishability of the photon paths in, say, the Aspect experiments. Although Aspect and his collaborators used optical switches and polarizers in different positions, the Aspect experiment set out to test the Bell inequalities and not to determine the photon paths. The indistinguishability suggests that the photons display their wavelike nature in EPR-type experiments. The obvious Schrdinger entanglement suggests a lack of Scully entanglement . From the point of view of the constraints introduced above, the conclusion is this: Indistinguishability Causes EPR Correlations . From this point of view, the philosophical puzzle of the EPR correlations may be formulated as follows: path indistinguishability as a cause of the ERP correlations is either an INUS condition or a minimally complete causal account.

Author: Friedel Weinert

www.staff.brad.ac.uk/fweinert/QMConference.htm 7/8

12/25/13

Quantum Mechanics: The Physicist turns Philosopher

University of Bradford BD7 1DP Bradford (UK) Email: F.Weinert@bradford.ac.uk

[1] C. Jnsson, Electron Diffraction at Multiple Slits, American Journal of Physics 42/1 (January 1974), 4-11[first published in Zeitschrift fr Physik 161 (1961)]. [2] For the present purposes it suffices to say that according to a model of probabilistic causality, a cause raises the probability of its effect. If we ignore the doubts, expressed by some writers that a cause must always raise the probability of its effect, we arrive at another popular formulation, i.e. probabilistic causation is deterministic causation of probabilities. [3] L. de Broglie, Continu et Discontinu en Physique Moderne. Paris: Albin Michel (1941), 64-66 [4] J. L. Mackie, The Cement of the Universe. Oxford: Clarendon (1980), 191-2, 231 [5] S. Drr/T. Nonn/G. Rempe, Origin of quantum-mechanical complementarity probed by a which-way experiment in an atom interferometer, Nature 395 (1998), 34 [6] S. Drr/T. Nonn/G. Rempe, Origin' (1998), 33-7. A good description of this experiment, with useful illustrations, is given by M. Buchanan, An end to uncertainty, New Scientist (6 March 1999), 25-8. Note that mathematically the interference is represented by the terms y1 * y2 + y2 * y1 in the Schrdinger equation. It is the disappearance of this term, once which-way information has been stored, which explains the loss of interference. [7] See P.G. Kwiat/A.M. Steinberg/R.Y. Chiao, Observation of a quantum eraser: A revival of coherence in a two-photon interference experiment, Physical Review A 45/11 (1992), 7729-7739. My simplified version follows a similar scheme in P. Davies, About Time, Penguin Books (1995), 171 [8] X.Y. Zou/L.J. Wang/ L. Mandel, Induced Coherence and Indistinguishability in Optical Interference, Physical Review Letters 67/3 (1991), 321. The notion of entanglement is used frequently in experimental contexts to give a causal account of the observed phenomena. See P.G. Kwiat et al., Quantum eraser' (1992), 7729-7739. [9] Kwiat et al., Quantum eraser (1992) stress that interference can be lost and regained in degrees which is dependent on the state of the entanglement! [10] This is not to say that these constraints have not been questioned. N. Cartwright/ M. Jones, 'How to Hunt Quantum Causes', Erkenntnis 35 (1991), 205-31 and H. Chang/N. Cartwright, 'Causality and Realism in the EPR Experiment', Erkenntnis 38 (1993), 169-90 question both the exclusion of a common cause and the prohibition of superluminal causation. [11] A. Elby, 'Should we explain the EPR correlations causally?', Philosophy of Science 59 (1992), 16-25 but see R. A. Healey, 'Causation, Robustness and EPR', Philosophy of Science 59 (1992), 282-92 for criticism of Elby's proof. [12] See E. Schrdinger, Die gegenwrtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik, Die Naturwissenschaften 23 (1935), 827. Schrdinger actually speaks of a Verschrnkung der Voraussagen, an entanglement of our predictions or of our knowledge concerning the polarization states of the photon pair. [13] X.Y. Zou et al., Induced Coherence' (1991), 321 [14] In their paper, 'Causality and Realism' (1993), 182, H. Chang and N. Cartwright ask, rhetorically, '..what is this kind of wholism but an acknowledgement that different parts of a system do influence each other in some ways that cannot be reduced to well-understood methods by which independent systems interact with each other?' They propose superluminal propagation of causes in EPR.

www.staff.brad.ac.uk/fweinert/QMConference.htm

8/8