Now We Can See If That Cat Is Alive Or Dead: Peeking Inside Schrodinger's Box
    By News Staff | January 20th 2014 10:04 AM | 3 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments

    Measuring a 27-dimensional quantum state is a time-consuming, multistage process using a technique called quantum tomography, which is similar to creating a 3D image from many 2D ones.

    Researchers have instead been able to apply direct measurement to do this in a single experiment with no post-processing. In a new paper they demonstrate direct measurements of the quantum state associated with the orbital-angular momentum.

    The direct measurement technique offers a way to directly determine the state of a quantum system. It was first developed in 2011 by scientists at the National Research Council Canada, who used it to determine the position and momentum of photons. Last year, a group of Rochester/Ottawa researchers led by Boyd showed that direct measurement could be applied to measure the polarization states of light. The new paper is the first time this method has been applied to a discrete, high dimensional system.

    Such direct measurements of the wavefunction might have appeared to be ruled out by the uncertainty principle – the idea that certain properties of a quantum system could be known with precision only if other properties were known poorly. However, direct measurement involves a "trick" that makes it possible.

    A schematic of the experimental setup using a HeNe laser, lenses, beam-splitters, wave-plates, a fan-out hologram and other tools. Light can be thought of as a spiral and the orbital-angular-momentum quantum number describes how “twisted” this spiral is. The weak measurement setup shows how this spiral is "untwisted" before it is measured. Credit: M. Malik/Nature Communications

     This is important, because if we're ever going to develop high security quantum communications systems, accurate and efficient methods for characterizing high-dimensional states like this are needed.

    Direct measurements consists of two types of measurements performed one after the other, first a "weak" measurement followed by a "strong" measurement. In quantum mechanics the act of measuring a quantum state disturbs it irreversibly, a phenomenon referred to as collapse of the wavefunction. The trick lies with the first measurement being so gentle that it only slightly disturbs the system and does not cause the wavefunction to collapse.

    "It is sort of like peeking into the box to see if Schrödinger's cat is alive, without fully opening the box," said lead author Dr. Mehul Malik, currently a post-doctoral research fellow at the University of Vienna and who was a Ph.D. in Boyd's group when the work was performed. "The weak measurement is essentially a bad measurement, which leaves you mostly uncertain about whether the cat is alive or dead. It does, however, give partial information on the health of the cat, which when repeated many times can lead to near certain information as to whether the cat is alive or dead." 

    "Our work shows that direct measurement offers an exciting alternative to quantum tomography," said Robert Boyd, Professor of Optics and Physics at the University of Rochester. "As the field of quantum information continues to advance, we expect direct measurement to play an increasingly important role in this."

    Boyd added that although it is unclear exactly how much more efficient direct measurement is compared to quantum tomography, the lack of post-processing is a major factor in speeding-up direct measurements.

    Malik adds that the beauty of the weak measurement is that it does not destroy the system, unlike most standard measurements of a quantum system, allowing a subsequent measurement—the "strong" measurement of the other variable. 

    This sequence of weak and strong measurements is then repeated for multiple identically prepared quantum systems, until the wave function is known with the required precision.

     Published in Nature Communications.. Source: University of Rochester


    You should re-examine the science, that make s no sense. To examine the wave function to determine if the cat is alive or dead with out disturbing the wave function? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? IF you do not collapse the wave function then the wave function still exists. In the Schrodinger Cat thought experiment the wave function created was exactly 50/50 on outcome. Therefore if the wave function (i.e.probability wave) has not collapsed, the percentage must be 50/50 by definition, You need to re-read the scientific publication till you understand it, or wait for peer review.

    John Duffield
    Leland, take a look at "weak measurement" work by Aephraim Steinberg et al and by Jeff Lundeen et al. Here's a few links:

    See this excerpt from the latter:

    "With weak measurements, it’s possible to learn something about the wavefunction without completely destroying it. As the measurement becomes very weak, you learn very little about the wavefunction, but leave it largely unchanged. This is the technique that we’ve used in our experiment. We have developed a methodology for measuring the wavefunction directly, by repeating many weak measurements on a group of systems that have been prepared with identical wavefunctions. By repeating the measurements, the knowledge of the wavefunction accumulates to the point where high precision can be restored. So what does this mean? We hope that the scientific community can now improve upon the Copenhagen Interpretation, and redefine the wavefunction so that it is no longer just a mathematical tool, but rather something that can be directly measured in the laboratory".
    Leland's point was that even if you could know the wavefunction exactly, you still cannot say whether the cat is alive or dead, until the wavefunction collapses to one of those states.

    On a first skim, it also sounded like the article was suggesting that weak-measurement gets around the uncertainty principle.  On closer read, the article doesn't actually claim that, which is good.

    These articles are based on press releases, and so usually stretch a bit with the claims.  Press releases from universities have even been known to frustrate the group that did the work.  Think of them as nothing more than "ads" to try to get other researchers curious enough to read the actual paper.  It's probably the most accurate way to consider how people in academia treat these.  If you have the time to actually follow up on all these and write better summaries than the "new staff" here, I'm sure Science2.0 would love to have your help.  Just sign up and start writing.