0
$\begingroup$

This is a question about indirect quantum measurement, involving an observable of an object of interest and a probe that is used to measure that observable. In this experiment, an observable of the probe (for example the y component of probe's momentum) becomes entangled with the observable (for example charge) of the object of interest, at time t0. Between t0 and t1, the probe is in transit to the detector. At t1, the probe's momentum is measured, which results in a "state reduction" of the wave function, or density matrix, of the charge of the object of interest. By state reduction, I mean a reduction in size of the continuous range of charge states that have non-zero probabilities.

My question is: At t1, when the probe is measured, does the wave function, or density matrix, of the charge get "reduced" at that time? Or, at t1, when the probe is measured, does the wave function, or density matrix, of the charge get reduced retroactively back in time, at t0, when the entanglement occurred and the probe picked up the info it was carrying about the charge of the object of interest? (I imagine the former, but just checking).

In any case, maybe there have been some experiments to indicate when state reduction occurs for an indirect, probe-based, measurement. If not, I am curious about what you think that your favorite interpretation would say about, once the probe is measured, whether or not the state reduction of the observable of interest that the probe is entangled with takes place 1) retroactively, back in time, at the time of entanglement of the observable of interest with the probe 2) at the time of the measurement of the probe, or 3) at some other time.

Thanks,

Dave

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Since collapse is not a feature of all interpretations of quantum mechanics, you'll have to stipulate the interpretation you are considering for this to be answerable. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 17, 2015 at 2:55
  • $\begingroup$ Please see rewording. I replaced "collapse" with "reduced", in order to avoid issues of quantum theory interpretation. All interpretations (Copenhagen, Multiverse, etc.) recognize "state reduction". $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 17, 2015 at 6:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't understand what the reduced density matrix has to do with it - it just describes the state of a subsystem (i.e. what I see when I ignore all other parts of the system). $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 17, 2015 at 14:10
  • $\begingroup$ This sounds like an abstract version of the delayed choice quantum eraser. Interpretations are usually not telling us what physical process they mean when they talk about "reduction" or "collapse". From an experimental point of view all "measurement" requires an irreversible energy transfer process. Time-energy uncertainty in addition forces us to make this process extended in time if we don't want to lose the energy (phase) information. In a spacetime diagram all such processes are necessarily extended areas. Can such a process influence another area before its time? I don't believe so. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 10, 2022 at 1:58

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2
$\begingroup$

The state is "measured" in the sense you are imagining - that is, it becomes definite - at whatever time it becomes possible in principle to infer its having a particular measurement outcome. In your case, if the probe provides unambiguous information about the measurement result, the time of measurement will be found to have been delta-t back in time. This is somewhat interpretation-dependent.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ AGML, thank you for your response! I guess it is hard to avoid interpretations, but if the state reduction of the object of interest occurs at the time of entanglement of the probe with the object of interest, rather than at the time of the measurement of the probe, then any interactions that occurred with the object of interest, between the time of entanglement with the probe and the time of measurement of the probe, must be "revised" after the probe is measured... That implication I find kind of confusing. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 17, 2015 at 6:48
  • $\begingroup$ @David en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 17, 2015 at 6:53
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the pointer. I will read carefully to see how closely it relates. In any case, it looks interesting. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 17, 2015 at 7:09

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.