Is Quantum Mechanics the Whole Truth?*

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Emergence of Quantum Mechanics from Classical Statistics.
Advertisements

Macroscopic Realism Emerging from Quantum Physics Johannes Kofler and Časlav Brukner 15th UK and European Meeting on the Foundations of Physics University.
Niels Bohr Institute Copenhagen University Eugene PolzikLECTURE 3.
Josephson Junctions, What are they?
UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME Xiangning Luo EE 698A Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Notre Dame Superconducting Devices for Quantum Computation.
Decoherence or why the world behaves classically Daniel Braun, Walter Strunz, Fritz Haake PRL 86, 2913 (2001), PRA 67, & (2003)
2. Quantum Mechanics and Vector Spaces 2.1 Physics of Quantum mechanics  Principle of superposition  Measurements 2.2 Redundant mathematical structure.
Deterministic teleportation of electrons in a quantum dot nanostructure Deics III, 28 February 2006 Richard de Visser David DiVincenzo (IBM, Yorktown Heights)
Coherence and decoherence in Josephson junction qubits Yasunobu Nakamura, Fumiki Yoshihara, Khalil Harrabi Antti Niskanen, JawShen Tsai NEC Fundamental.
Quantum Mechanics from Classical Statistics. what is an atom ? quantum mechanics : isolated object quantum mechanics : isolated object quantum field theory.
Quantum Information Processing
Necessary and sufficient conditions for macroscopic realism from quantum mechanics Johannes Kofler Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics (MPQ) Garching/Munich,
Time out—states and transitions Spectroscopy—transitions between energy states of a molecule excited by absorption or emission of a photon h =  E = E.
Superconducting Qubits Kyle Garton Physics C191 Fall 2009.
1 Waves, Light & Quanta Tim Freegarde Web Gallery of Art; National Gallery, London.
FP 0 TESTING QUANTUM MECHANICS TOWARDS THE LEVEL OF EVERYDAY LIFE: RECENT PROGRESS AND CURRENT PROSPECTS Anthony J. Leggett Department of Physics University.
Quantum, classical & coarse-grained measurements Johannes Kofler and Časlav Brukner Faculty of Physics University of Vienna, Austria Institute for Quantum.
University of Gdańsk, Poland
School of something FACULTY OF OTHER School of Physics and Astronomy FACULTY OF MATHEMATICAL AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES “Classical entanglement” and cat states.
A comparison between Bell's local realism and Leggett-Garg's macrorealism Group Workshop Friedrichshafen, Germany, Sept 13 th 2012 Johannes Kofler.
Ch ; Lecture 26 – Quantum description of absorption.
Interference in BEC Interference of 2 BEC’s - experiments Do Bose-Einstein condensates have a macroscopic phase? How can it be measured? Castin & Dalibard.
(=“P B ”) (=“P C ”) (=“P B or C ”). NEITHER B NOR C “SELECTED”…. BY EACH INDIVIDUAL ATOM !
Waves, Light & Quanta Tim Freegarde Web Gallery of Art; National Gallery, London.
A condition for macroscopic realism beyond the Leggett-Garg inequalities APS March Meeting Boston, USA, March 1 st 2012 Johannes Kofler 1 and Časlav Brukner.
“Experimental quantum computers” or, the secret life of experimental physicists 1 – Qubits in context Hideo Mabuchi, Caltech Physics and Control & Dynamical.
Mesoscopic Physics Introduction Prof. I.V.Krive lecture presentation Address: Svobody Sq. 4, 61022, Kharkiv, Ukraine, Rooms. 5-46, 7-36, Phone: +38(057)707.
A6S1 Is Quantum Mechanics the Whole Truth?* A.J. Leggett University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 1.Why bother? 2.What are we looking for? 3.What have.
M ACROSCOPIC Q UANTUM T UNNELLING AND C OHERENCE : T HE E ARLY D AYS A. J. Leggett Department of Physics University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign Quantum.
ON THE STRUCTURE OF A WORLD (WHICH MAY BE) DESCRIBED BY QUANTUM MECHANICS. A.WHAT DO WE KNOW ON THE BASIS OF ALREADY PERFORMED EXPERIMENTS? A A’ ~ S B.
A1 “BASIC QUANTUM MECHANICS, AND SOME SURPRISING CONSEQUENCES” Anthony J. Leggett Department of Physics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Topic I: Quantum theory Chapter 7 Introduction to Quantum Theory.
SCHLC- 1 S CHRÖDINGER ’ S C AT AND H ER L ABORATORY C OUSINS A.J. Leggett Dept. of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 1 st Erwin Schrödinger.
DPG 1 What is Realism in Physics? What is the Price for Maintaining It? A. J. Leggett Dept. of Physics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 75 th.
Quantum mechanics in electronics
Solutions of Schrodinger Equation
No Fine theorem for macroscopic realism
Superconducting Qubits
MD by Quantum Mechanics
Quantum Computing from theory to experiments
Open quantum systems.
Scheme for Entangling Micromeccanical Resonators
Quantum Information Promises new insights Anthony J
Why Can’t Time Run Backwards?
Shanghai Jiao Tong University
The Structure of a World Described by Quantum Mechanics
The Structure of a World Described by Quantum Mechanics A. J
Quantum mechanics from classical statistics
Why Can’t Time Run Backwards?
Elements of Quantum Mechanics
Realism Versus Quantum Mechanics: Implications of Some Recent Experiments A. J. Leggett Department of Physics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Quantum One. Quantum One So what is quantum mechanics, anyway?
Shanghai Jiao Tong University
Classical World because of Quantum Physics
The Road to Success in AP Physics
all Cooper pairs must behave in the same way
Account given by quantum mechanics: Each possible process is represented by a probability amplitude A which can be positive or negative Total amplitude.
“BASIC QUANTUM MECHANICS, AND SOME SURPRISING CONSEQUENCES”
Department of Physics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign USA
What are we talking about? Naïve picture:
MESO/MACROSCOPIC TESTS OF QM: MOTIVATION
Quantum computation with classical bits
Massive non-classical states and the observation of quantum gravity
Does the Everyday World Really Obey Quantum Mechanics?
Does the Everyday World Really Obey Quantum Mechanics?
Biological Science Applications in Agriculture
Introductory Quantum Mechanics/Chemistry
T A. WHAT DO WE KNOW ON THE BASIS OF ALREADY PERFORMED EXPERIMENTS?
A. J. Leggett University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Quantum One.
Presentation transcript:

Is Quantum Mechanics the Whole Truth?* J. Leggett University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Why bother? What are we looking for? What have we seen so far? Where do we go from here? *J. Phys. Cond. Mat. 14, R415 (2002) Reps. Prog. Phys. 71, 022001 (2008)

INTERFERENCE OF AMPLITUDES IN QM MEASURE: PA→B→E (shut off channel C) PA→C→E (shut off channel B) (both channels open) EXPTL. FACT: QM ACCOUNT: vanishes unless     both A’s nonzero      amplitude must be nonzero for each of two paths, not just for ensemble but for each member of it And yet…. A E B C

A E B C At microlevel: Directly observed phenomenon of interference    simultaneous “existence” of amplitudes for two alternative paths for each individual member of ensemble    neither outcome “definitely realized” Now, extrapolate formalism to macrolevel (Schrödinger): MACROSCOPICALLY DISTINCT STATES L D Is each cat of ensemble either in state L or in state D?

} } POSSIBLE HYPOTHESES: A. QM is the complete truth about the world, at both the microscopic (µ) and macroscopic (M) levels. Then: Do QM amplitudes correspond to anything “out there”? DOES THE VANISHING OF THE EVIDENCE PERMIT RE-INTERPRETATION OF THE MEANING OF THE QM FORMALISM? QM is not the complete truth about the world: at M level other (non-QM) principles enter.    superpositions of macroscopically distinct states do not (necessarily) exist (Ex: GRWP) (“MACROREALISM”) Interpretation µ Level M level Statistical no Relative-state (“many-worlds”) yes Orthodox (“decoherence”) } }

Do “EPR-Bell” Expts. Already Exclude Macrorealism? source ~ ~ B switch switch ~10 km Experimental results (consistent with predictions of QM and) inconsistent with any theory embodying conjunction of Induction Locality Microscopic realism or macroscopic counterfactual definiteness (MCFD)  MCFD ≠ macrorealism! nevertheless:  no “local” instruction set . . . _____________________________ When does “realization” take place? recording device photomultiplier to coincidence counter polarizer

~ ?! EPR-Bell Expts: The “Third-Party” Problem Prima facie, for eg 0+ transition, QM description after both detectors have had chance to fire is (|Y = “fired”, |N = “not fired”) But in fact: ~  to coincidence counter ?!

(circulating current) Q: Is it possible to discriminate experimentally between hypotheses (A) and (B) (at a given level of “macroscopicness”)? A: Yes, if and only if we can observe Quantum Interference of Macroscopically Distinct States (QIMDS). What is appropriate measure of “macroscopicness” (“Schrödinger’s cattiness”) of a quantum superposition?     : Definition should not make nonexistence of QIMDS a tautology! (My) proposed measures: (1) Difference in expectation value of one or more extensive physical quantities in 2 branches, in “atomic” units. (“”) (2) Degree of “disconnectivity” ( entanglement): how many “elementary” objects behave (appreciably) differently in 2 branches? (“D”)     :quantum-optical systems, tunnelling Cooper pairs…are NOT strongly entangled with their environments! (1) + (2)  concept of macroscopic variable. I SQUID ring E energy I (circulating current)

PROGRAM: Stage 1: Circumstantial tests of applicability of QM to macrovariables. Stage 2: Observation (or not!) of QIMDS given QM’l interpretation of raw data. Stage 3: EITHER (a) exclude hypothesis B (macro-realism) independently of interpretation of raw data, OR (b) exclude hypothesis A (universal validity of QM). Objections: (1) Macrovariable  S >> ħ  predictions of QM indistinguishable from those of CM. Solution: Find macrovariable whose motion is controlled by microenergy. (2) Decoherence  stage 2 impossible in practice. Solution: Find system with very small dissipation. (3) Hamiltonian of macrosystem unknown in detail  can never make QM’l predictions with sufficient confidence to draw conclusion (3b).

MICROSCOPIC HAMILTONIAN CLASSICAL BEHAVIOR MICROSCOPIC HAMILTONIAN QUANTUM Stage 1. Circumstantial tests of applicability of QM to macroscopic variables. (mostly Josephson junctions and SQUIDS) e.g.   energy trapped flux (etc.)     “level quantization/     resonant tunnelling” Tests conjunction of (a) applicability of QM to macrovariables (b) treatment of dissipation Not direct evidence of QIMDS. “MQT”

A. Molecular Diffraction (Vienna, 2000) The Search for QIMDS A.     Molecular Diffraction (Vienna, 2000) C60 ~ 100 nm Note: (a) beam does not have to be monochromated (b) Toven ~ 900 K  many vibrational modes excited B.     Magnetic Biomolecules (1BM, 1989)  5000 Fe3+ ions (in matrix) … or … Evidence for QIMDS: resonance absorption of rf field, noise If correct, D ~ N (total no. of spins per molecule) Note: ensemble of systems, only total magnetization measured C.     Quantum-Optical Systems (Aarhus, 2001) <dJxl dJy1> |Jz1| ( 0) <dJx2 dJy2 >  |Jz2| ( 0) but, <dJxtot dJytot> >  |Jztot| = 0 ! “macroscopic” EPR-type correlations Note: D ~ N1/2 not ~N.             (probably generic for this type of expt.) 1 2 ~ 1012 87Cs atoms Jz1 = - Jz2

} The Search for QIMDS Molecular diffraction* z z ~100 nm C60 (a.) Beam does not have to be monochromated (b.) “Which-way” effects? Oven is at 900–1000 K  many vibrational modes excited 4 modes infrared active  absorb/emit several radiation quanta on passage through apparatus! Why doesn’t this destroy interference? ~100 nm } C60 z I(z) ↑ z Note: __________________________________ *Arndt et al., Nature 401, 680 (1999)

 no. of spins, exptly. adjustable The Search for QIMDS (cont.) Magnetic biomolecules* Raw data: χ(ω) and noise spectrum above ~200 mK, featureless below ~300 mK, sharp peak at ~ 1 MHz (ωres) Apoferritin sheath (magnetically inert) ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ = ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ~ . . . . (~5000 Fe3+ spins, mostly AF but slight ferrimagnetic tendency) (M~200B) |  + |  ? (isotropic) exchange en. no. of spins uniaxial anisotropy  no. of spins, exptly. adjustable Nb: data is on physical ensemble, i.e., only total magnetization measured. *S. Gider et al., Science 268, 77 (1995) (a.e.w.e.t.)

The Search for QIMDS (cont.) 3. Quantum-optical systems* for each sample separately, and also for total ~1012 Cs atoms 1 2  so, if set up a situation s.t. must have but may have (anal. of EPR) __________________________________ *B. Julsgaard et al., Nature 41, 400 (2001)

state is either superposition or mixture of |n,–n> Interpretation of idealized expt. of this type: (QM theory ) But, exactly anticorrelated with state is either superposition or mixture of |n,–n> but mixture will not give (#)  State must be of form value of value of Jx1 Jx2 with appreciable weight for n  N1/2.  high disconnectivity Note: QM used essentially in argument ( stage 2 not stage 3) D ~ N1/2 not ~N. (prob. generic to this kind of expt.)

“Macroscopic variable” is trapped flux  [or circulating current I] The Search for QIMDS (cont.) 4. Superconducting devices ( : not all devices which are of interest for quantum computing are of interest for QIMDS) Advantages: — classical dynamics of macrovariable v. well understood — intrinsic dissipation (can be made) v. low — well developed technology — (non-) scaling of S (action) with D. — possibility of stage-III expts. bulk superconductor RF SQUID Josephson junction London penetration depth trapped flux “Macroscopic variable” is trapped flux  [or circulating current I]

Fext  The Search for QIMDS (cont.) D. Josephson circuits Trapped flux Fext Bulk superconducting ring Josephson junction Y = 2-1/2 (|> + |>) , ~ 1mA DE  Evidence: (a) spectroscopic: (SUNY, Delft 2000) Fext  (b) real-time oscillations (like NH3) between  and  (Saclay 2002, Delft 2003) (Qj ~ 50-350)

From I. Chiorescu, Y. Nakamura, C. J. P. Harmans, and J. E From I. Chiorescu, Y. Nakamura, C.J.P. Harmans, and J.E. Mooij, Science, 299, 1869 (2003)

Neutron in interferometer ~ 109 SYSTEM “EXTENSIVE DIFFERENCE” DISCONNECTIVITY/ ENTANGLEMENT Single e– 1 Neutron in interferometer ~ 109 QED cavity ~ 10 ≾10 Cooper-pair box ~ 105 2 C60 ~ 1100 Ferritin ~ 5000 (?) ~ 5000 Aarhus quantum- optics expt. ~ 106 ( N1/2) ~ 106 SUNY SQUID expt. ~ 109 - 1010 ( N) (104 – 1010) Smallest visible dust particle ~ 1014 (103 – 1014) Cat ~ 1034 ~ 1025

1. Larger values of  and/or D? (Diffraction of virus?) Where do we go from here? 1. Larger values of  and/or D? (Diffraction of virus?) 2. Alternative Dfs. of “Measures” of Interest  More sophisticated forms of entanglement?  Biological functionality (e.g. superpose states of rhodopsin?)  Other (e.g. GR) *3. Exclude Macrorealism Suppose: Whenever observed, Q = ± 1.                  Q = + 1 Q = - 1 Df. of “MACROREALISTIC” Theory: I. Q(t) = ± 1 at (almost) all t, whether or not observed. II. Noninvasive measurability III. Induction Can test with existing SQUID Qubits! “COMMON SENSE”?

Df: Then, Any macrorealistic theory: K2 Quantum mechanics, ideal: K=2.8 Quantum mechanics, with all K>2 (but <2.8) the real-life complications: Thus: to extent analysis of (c) within quantum mechanics is reliable, can force nature to choose between macrorealism and quantum mechanics! Possible outcomes: Too much noise  KQM < 2 K >2  macrorealism refuted K< 2: ? !