The Quantum Conspiracy:

What Popularizers of QM
Dont Want You to Know
Ron Garret
6 January 2011

Disclaimers
The title of this talk is intended as ironic
humor. There is no conspiracy (as far
as I know :-)
IANAPhysicist
This talk is about a way to think about
QM that hasnt gotten much attention

No one
understands
quantum
mechanics.
Richard Feynman

What does it mean to

measure something?

Measurements are consistent

across space and time
T0: Its
Green!

T1:
Yep,
its
Green!

The most incomprehensible thing

about the universe is that it is
comprehensible
Albert Einstein

A deep mystery
It could be that measurements are
consistent across space and time
because there is an underlying (meta-)
physical reality out there which is
being accurately reflected
But it turns out we can demonstrate that
this is not so

Road map
Step 1: Review the usual QM story
Step 2: Show how it leads to a
contradiction
Step 3: Do some math and show how
that resolves the contradiction
Step 4: Tell a new story based on the
math
Step 5: Profit!

Quantum mystery #1
The two-slit experiment

Two-slit experiment results

Wave
s

Particle

This is not intractably weird

(yet)
Light (and electrons) might be particles
that are moved around by an underlying
wave
Randomness might be due to hidden
variables
But we can eliminate this possibility

Adding detectors to the slits

No detectors ==>
interference

Detectors ==> no
interference

Wave-particle duality
Any modification to the experiment that allows
us to determine even in principle which
slit the particle went through destroys the
interference
Conclusion: something must be at both slits
at once to produce interference
This holds for any particle and any
measurement (and any two-slit or
split/combine experiment)

This is still not intractably

weird
Maybe measurement does something
to the system to make it stop behaving
like a wave and start behaving like a
particle
Maybe the wave collapses and
becomes a particle (Copenhagen
interpretation)
But how and, more importantly,

Quantum mystery #2
The Quantum Eraser
Reflec
t
Particl
e
Sourc
e

0
Com
bine

Split

Interferenc
e
1

Reflec
t

Quantum mystery #2
The Quantum Eraser
Measure

Particl
e
Sourc
e

Split

Measure=rotate
90

Com
bine

0.
5
Interferenc
e
destroyed
0.
5

Quantum mystery #2
The Quantum Eraser

Particl
e
Sourc
e

Measure

Erase

Split

Com
bine
Erase

0
Interferenc
e
restored
1

Measure=rotate 90 Erase=filter at 45

Shroedingers Cat
When (and where) does collapse
happen?
At the measurement site?
At the detector?
In the mind? (Whose mind?)

Quantum mystery #3:

Entanglement

Quantum Entanglement
LU

R
U
Spl
it

UV laser
& DownConverte
r

LD

Spl
it
R
D

LU/RD and LD/RU are perfectly

correlated
(because of conservation laws)

Spooky action at a distance

Particle isnt really at either detector until it
is actually measured (whatever that means)
When an aspect of one photons
quantum state is measured, the other
photon changes in response, even when
the two photons are separated by large
distances. (Wired, June 2010)

Now its intractably weird!

Instantaneous effects are supposed to
be impossible!
Randomness precludes transmitting
information using entanglement
Or does it?

Road map
Step 1: Review the usual QM story
Step 2: Show how it leads to a
contradiction

Taking stock
A split/combine experiment produces
interference
Any which-way measurement destroys
interference
Some which-way proto measurements can
be erased, restoring interference
Measurements on entangled particles are
perfectly (anti)correlated

Taking stock
A split/combine experiment produces
interference
Any which-way measurement destroys
interference
Some which-way proto measurements can
be erased
Measurements on entangled particles are
perfectly (anti)correlated
What they dont want you to know:

All of these things cannot possibly be

true!

The EPRG* Paradox

*Einstein-Podolsky-RosenGarret

The EPRG* Paradox

If we measure on the left, do we

destroy interference on the right?

The EPRG Paradox

If the answer is yes then we have FTL
communications
But if the answer is no then we know
the position of the particle but we have
interference nonetheless, which violates
QM

One last possibility

Maybe there was no interference to begin
with!
Maybe entanglement counts as a protomeasurement that destroys interference
But then we can do FTL communications by
creating interference with a quantum eraser!
Conclusion: either FTL communications is
possible, or something in this story is wrong

Road map
Step 1: Review the usual QM story
Step 2: Show how it leads to a
contradiction
Step 3: Do some math and show how
that resolves the contradiction

Math (dont panic)

(x,t) is the quantum wave function
Complex-valued function of space and time
Evolves according to the Schroedinger wave equation

| (x,t)|2 is the probability of measuring a particle at

position X at time T

Things to note about the math

Distinguishes between amplitudes (complex
numbers) and probabilities (real numbers)
Particles can interfere because complex numbers
with modulus greater than zero can add to zero.

Continuous, time-symmetric, fully

deterministic (and hence reversible) dynamics
No randomness, no collapse. Going from
amplitudes to probabilities has no physical
justification. Its purely a hack. (But it works!)

Two-slit math
State of the photon without
measurement:
(

+
U

)/2
L

(Note the 2. It will be important later.)

2

Resulting probability (| | ):
2
2
*
*
[| U | + | L| + ( UInterference
+ L
L
term

)]/2

Two slits with detectors

Probability amplitude:
(

|D
>
+
U
U

|D
>)/2
L
L

(|DU> is the amplitude of the detector indicating

a particle at the upper slit)

Two slits with detectors

Probability amplitude:
(

|D
>
+
U
U

|D
>)/2
L
L

(|DU> is the amplitude of the detector indicating

a particle at the upper slit)

Resulting probability:
[|
(

*
U

2
|
+|
U

<DU|DL> +
L

2
|
+
L
*
L

<DL|DU>)]/2

Two slits with detectors

Probability amplitude:
(

|D
>
+
U
U

|D
>)/2
L
L

(|DU> is the amplitude of the detector indicating

a particle at the upper slit)

Resulting probability:
[|
(

*
U

2
|
+|
U

<DU|DL> +
L

2
|
+
L
*
L

<DL|DU>)]/2

Interference term
(!)

Measurement and
interference
<DU|DL> is the amplitude of the detector switching
spontaneously from the U state to the L state
If the detector is working properly, this amplitude is 0
Then the resulting wave function is:

(|

2
|
+|
U

2
|
)/2
L

Note: no interference term!

Measurement is a continuum!

Entangled particles
Wave function:
(| > + | >)/2
Equivalent to:
(| >| > + | >| >)/2
(|LU>|RD> + |LD>|RU>)/2
( LU |RD> + LD |RU>)/2
which should look familiar.

Entanglement and
measurement are the same
Wave function of entangled particles is
phenomenon!
exactly the same as a measured
particle
They are in fact the same physical
phenomenon (more on this in a
moment)
There is no interference in the EPRG
experiment
But can we create interference with a

Quantum eraser revisited

Particl
e
Sourc
e

Measure

Erase

Split

Com
bine
Erase

0
Interferenc
e
restored
1

Measure=rotate 90 Erase=filter at 45

Quantum eraser math

Wave function after measurement (but
before erasure):
(|U>|H> + |L>|V>)/2
Wave function after erasure:
(|U> + |L>)(|H> + |V>)/22
|H> + |V> means polarized at 45

|V
>

|H> + |V>

|H
>

Quantum eraser math

Before erasure: no interference
After erasure: interference but
Remember that 2 term? Its there to
make the total probability come out to 1.
But the total probability isnt 1, its 1/2!
Either weve made a mistake, or half
our photons are missing

Quantum eraser math

Half of our photons have gone missing!
They were filtered out
Filtered photons have a different wave
function:
(|U> + |L>)(|H> - |V>)/22
|V
>

|H> + |V>

|H
>
|H> - |V>

So much for our Nobel prize

Photons that pass through the filter display
interference fringes
Photons that dont pass through the filter also
display interference anti-fringes
Sum together to produce non-interference
So quantum erasers dont erase anything,
and they dont produce interference, they
just filter out interference that was already
there

Filtering out interference in

an EPR experiment
UDUDD

Select

U
photons
+
D

Road map
Step 1: Review the usual QM story
Step 2: Show how it leads to a
contradiction
Step 3: Do some math and show how
that resolves the contradiction
Step 4: Tell a new story based on the
math

Interpretations of QM
Copenhagen (scientifically untenable)
Relative-state (Multiple worlds,
Decoherence)
Scientifically tenable but intuitively troublesome

Transactional (Cramer)
Physically real waves moving backwards in time
(predicted by Maxwells equations)

Quantum information theory (Zero-worlds)

Extension of classical information theory with
complex numbers

Classical Information Theory

Shannon entropy of system A:
H(A) = -

P(a) log P(a)

P(a) is probability that A is in state a

H(A) is a measure of the randomness of system A
When system has equal probability of being in one of N
states, H(A) is log(N)
When N is 1 (system is definitely in a single state) H(A) = 0

Classical Information theory

Joint entropy of multiple systems:
H(AB) = - p(ab) log p(ab)
Conditional entropy:
H(A|B) = - p(a|b) log p(a|b)
Information entropy:
I(A:B) = I(B:A) = H(A) H(A|B)
= H(A) + H(B) H(AB)
= H(AB) H(A|B) H(B|A)

I(A:B) is the amount of information about A

contained in B (0 <= I(A:B) <= 1)

Entropies of classical systems

Quantum information theory

Von Neuman entropy:
S(A) = -TrA(

TrA

log

is the quantum density matrix

is a trace operator

Details beyond the scope of this presentation

Main point: complex numbers =>

Information entropy is no longer
restricted to the range [0,1]

Entropy diagram of an
entangled pair of particles

Information entropy > 1

Particles are better than perfectly
correlated
Total entropy is zero ==> No

Measurement
To describe a measurement we need at
least three mutually entangled particles
The one being measured
At least two more to describe the
measurement apparatus

Entropy diagram of three

mutually entangled particles

Entropy diagram of three

mutually entangled particles

Entropy diagram of 10
particles

23

Reversibility
Quantum measurements are reversible, but
only by undoing all of the associated
entanglements
This can only be done by returning the
entangled particles to close physical proximity
To reverse a macroscopic measurement we
would have to undo 1023 entanglements
Possible in principle, not in practice

Philosophical implications
The classical universe is not real
There is no (one) classical universe
There is only the quantum universe (which can be
viewed as an infinite collection of classical
universes)

This is not (quite) as strange as it seems

Even classical reality is not as we perceive it
We are not made of atoms, we are made of
(classical) bits (Correlations without correlata -David Mermin)

Some pithy quotes

... the particle-like behavior of quantum
systems is an illusion created by the
incomplete observation of a quantum
(entangled) system with a macroscopic
number of degrees of freedom.
... randomness is not an essential
cornerstone of quantum measurement but
rather an illusion created by it.
-- Nicholas Cerf and Chris Adami

Take-home message
The most incomprehensible thing
about the universe is that it is
comprehensible
-- Albert Einstein

QIT explains why the universe is

comprehensible!
Spooky action at a distance is no more
(and no less) mysterious than spooky
action across time. Both are produced by

Two monks were arguing about a flag. One said,

"The flag is moving." The other said, "The wind is
moving." The sixth patriarch happened to be
passing by. He told them, "Not the wind, not the
flag. Mind is moving.
-- Mumon, The Gateless Gate

Backup slides

Polarization and Picket

Fences

Light is a wave
It can be polarized
It travels at the speed of
electromagnetic waves (because it is an
electromagnetic wave)
It can produce interference

The photoelectric effect

Shining light on matter produces
electrons

Two weird features of the

photoelectric effect
The number of electrons produced is
proportional to the intensity of the light
The energy of the electrons produced is
(inversely) proportional to the
wavelength of the light
This is not what one would expect if
light is a wave

Diffraction
Definite
Velocity

Definite
Position

Indefinit
e
Position

Indefinit
e
Velocity

Time/frequency duality