Banner
    Rotating Schrödinger’s Cat To Death
    By Sascha Vongehr | May 10th 2011 07:28 AM | 4 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Sascha

    Dr. Sascha Vongehr [风洒沙] studied phil/math/chem/phys in Germany, obtained a BSc in theoretical physics (electro-mag) & MSc (stringtheory)...

    View Sascha's Profile

    You may suspect the beating of a dead horse by now, but the problem is actually that the animals in question are still alive. As was discussed, the alive cats expect to see something when the box opens.

    If we interact with the Schrödinger cat superposition state inside the otherwise isolated box so that we will only have dead cats result, what do the alive cats see? There must be a place into which those cats can jump. However, it cannot be the room where the experimenter observes them, since the experimenter only observes dead cats after having applied the ‘rotation’.

    Judging from the comments, this question is harder than anticipated, so before merely giving the solution, let us clarify the problem further. It is worth it, because the answer is quite simple and not at all philosophically nebulous, though certainly philosophically relevant.

    The Mechanism

    The dead/alive decision is simply made by a linearly polarized photon with a polarization of about 18.4 degrees to the vertical. Going through a beam splitter that separates vertical (V) and horizontal (H) components, the photon will come out vertically polarized with a probability of about 90%. That is because Cos2(18.4 degrees) = 0.900366. If so, the photon goes through a channel labeled “V=Alive”.


    In 10% of all cases, the photon instead emerges horizontally polarized, goes through the “H=Dead” channel, upon which it hits a detector that triggers the subsequent shooting of the cat, which thus also ends up in a horizontal position – no way I could resist this pun ;-).

    At 45degree input polarization, the probability to have the photon come out horizontally polarized is 50% [Cos2(45 degrees) = 0.5].

    The Rotation

    The rotating I invoked is an effective (see below) rotation of the polarization angle from 18.4 degrees to 90 degrees. It is not just a rotation of so called phases, which indeed would not change probabilities. The proper rotation will lead to the resulting photon reaching the “V=Alive”-channel with zero % probability [Cos2(90 degrees) = 0].


    With other input polarizations, the probability can be adjusted from zero to unity.

     

    In order to effectively rotate, I need to effectively resurrect the state of the photon as it was before it split into two different histories, |V> and |H>. To make the splitting effectively undone is relatively easy experimentally, as long as the |V> and |H> states are not entangled with something as complicated as a cat.

    “Effective” means the following: I may refuse to practically put the horizontal and vertical polarizations of the photon back together, to practically resurrect the previously 18.4 degrees polarized photon. After all, it split already some time ago! I may act on the (during time evolved and with the cat entangled) |V> and the |H> states both in such a way that the result is the same as if I first resurrected the previous polarization, then rotated that photon, and then split it again into the V and H components. There isn’t any difference, neither relative to the different states nor in the end result. This is reflected also in the fact that one can describe the procedure in the mathematical formalism using any basis, {|V>, |H>} or {|+45>, |-45>}, or any other complete basis. The |V> is always |V>, |Alive> is always |Alive>.

    This setup should help you to differentiate the easy part that has been experimentally accomplished already, from the hairy part, the cat. In fact, it may help to consider having the cat and the gun inside a further isolated box inside the box, while initially only the one photon, being in the V/H superposition state after the beam splitter, enters that smaller box. We can always bring everything down to well defined photons being allowed to enter otherwise completely isolated boxes containing in principle well known states. No “philosophizing” necessary.

    Now you may bark “‘In principle well known states’ my dear behind!” Well, by “cat” the experimental physicist means any molecular system complex enough to have some sort of memory upon interaction (the cat's observation), so actual experiments should be possible relatively soon (see for example [1] and references therein).

    Anyway, here it goes to the solution.

    -------------------------------------------

    [1] Jae-Seung Lee, A K Khitrin: “Resurrection of Schrödinger's cat.” New J. Phys. 8,144(2006)

    Comments

    Sorry, I have to ask this (you might've already answered this earlier, but I missed it): Does the "dead" state of the system "cat" imply that the mentioned system is incapable of observation anymore (disintegrated, fubar, rendered incapable of "memorizing", etc.)? Dead cat is still complex enough system to "observe", isn't it?

    vongehr

    The dead cat is a complex system. A pure state that entangles with it will thus decohere (for all practical purposes). If that is all there is to observation, then it indeed observes. However, the dead cat is not going to expect anything, while the alive cat, if it is a real cat, is going to expect to see something if the box opens. Some suspect that there is some sort of quantum interactual dualism which differentiates phenomenal consciousness from mere decoherence. To those, there could be a difference to do with the Diosi-Penrose criterion discussed in Still no Schrödinger Cat Jumps the Diosi-Penrose Criterion

    The article explicitly assumed no such complications, so the dead cat "observes" and the expectation of the alive cat is purely didactic.
    Somebody at Google newsgroups [sci.physics.foundations] has a thread going about Prof. Joy Christian of Oxford U, who apparently has demolished Bell's celebrated theorem.

    Could you give us a description of Christian's arguments and their implications for the cat experiments?

    Could he be right?

    Albert Z

    vongehr
    The answer to that question you can find here and here.

    Add a comment

    The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
    • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite><TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe><u><font>
    • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
    CAPTCHA
    If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.