Thanks to the Great Course Plus for supporting PBS Digital Studios.
This episode of space time is brought to you from the information flowing through an impossibly complex network of quantum entanglement,
that just happens to mutually agree that you and I exist inside it.
Oh, and Schrodinger’s cat is in here too.
In the quantum world things are routinely in multiple states at once -
what we call a “superposition” of states."
But in the classical world of large scales, things are either this or that.
The famous thought experiment is Schrodinger’s cat -
in which a cat is in an opaque box with a vial of deadly poison that’s released on the radioactive decay of an atom.
Quantum mechanics tells us that the atom’s wavefunction can be in a superposition of states -
simultaneously decayed or not decayed.
So is the cat’s wavefunction also in a superposition of both dead and alive?
That seems absurd - but quantum mechanics appears to allow this.
In fact the idea of superposition is fundamental to quantum mechanics.
Pick any two valid quantum states - the sum of those states is also a valid state.
In fact, at the quantum level, there isn’t a clear way to define what states are the most basic.
Even very distinct-seeming properties can be expressed as superpositions -
for example a particle’s position can be expressed as a superposition of momentum states.
I’ll come back to another example of this in a second.
But this raises the question:
for Schroedinger’s cat, if alive AND dead are just as valid as alive OR dead,
why do we only see the later in the real world?
The idea of decoherence seems to provide a partial answer -
we talked about it last time - to observe a superposition there needs to be a knowable phase relation between two superposed states.
But that doesn’t tell us why certain states that exist in the quantum world can survive this decoherence and become manifest in the classical world.
To get the entire answer, we need to think about quantum entanglement.
In fact we’ll see that the properties we think of as fundamental -
for example the arrangement of atoms that define a living or dead cat - aren’t properties of the atoms.
Rather, the information that defines these classical properties exists in the fantastically complex network of entanglement between those individual quantum system and their environment.
The ideas I’m about to lay out are mostly due to Wojciech Zurek, who calls this framework quantum darwinism -
and you’ll see why.
To get there we need to start by talking about quantum superposition.
Some quantum particles have a property called quantum spin.
That spin has an axis that points in some direction, analogous to the axis of a rotating ball.
To measure that spin axis you have to choose what angle you want to measure it at - say, vertically or horizontally.
Measure vertically and you might see that the spin axis is pointing up or down,
measure horizontally and it’ll be pointing left or right.
Weirdly, if you measure vertically and see an up spin,
then measure horizontally you will NOT find that there’s zero spin in that direction, as you’d expect for a classical spinning object.
Instead the electron will randomly shift to having left or right spin.
So the value for quantum spin depends on how you choose to measure it -
it depends on your “measurement basis.”
And a well defined spin direction in one basis can be expressed as a superposition of two spin directions in another basis.
For example, spin-up is equivalently a particular combination of spin-left and spin-right. Same with spin-down.
Spin becomes defined in each new basis when you try to measure it in that way,
and in the process becomes undefined in any previous basis.
This is an example of how seemingly-fundamental quantum states can be expressed as superpositions of other states.
So again - why are only certain quantum states observable on large scales?
The answer lies in entanglement.
The most famous entanglement experiment is the one that Einstein came up with to demonstrate an apparent absurdity predicted by pure quantum mechanics.
This is the so-called Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen, or EPR paradox.
A high energy photon decays into an electron and a positron.
These particles both have spin values of 1/2, but the original photon had spin 0.
So the axes of the new spins have to be in opposite directions in order to cancel out and conserve angular momentum.
But besides being opposite to each other they can be aligned in any direction.
In fact each particle is in a superposition of states -
measured in the vertical basis, each particle starts in a state of both up AND down, while in the horizontal each is left AND right, etc.
The only thing we know is there’s this correlation -
whatever spin direction gets measured for one particle, the other particle has to be opposite in the same basis.
We say that two particles with these sort of correlated properties are entangled.
The crazy thing is if I measure the spin of one particle - say the electron -
my choice of measurement basis defines the spin of the positron.
If I measure the electron in the vertical basis and get, say, spin-up,
the positron will become defined in that basis and only that basis - in this case with spin-down.
There’s a sense that causal influence is transferred potentially faster than light.
This is what Einstein called spooky action at a distance,
and we now know that this is a very real effect, even though you can’t actually transfer useful information this way.
But we’re not here to talk about this crazy result directly - in fact we already did it a long time ago.
We’re here to talk about how entanglement is connected to measurement and the collapse of the wavefunction.
Let’s think about exactly what’s happening when I try to measure the spin of one of those entangled particles.
I’ll try to do that in the most subtle way possible.
Here’s our measuring device -
it’s a series of magnets designed to deflect the electron based on its up or down spin.
Spin-up electrons are deflected upwards, spin-down electrons are deflected down.
Then both types are deflected back to their original straight path.
By itself this device isn’t useful - electrons passing through will still be in a superposition of spin states - both up and down,
as though they traveled both paths through the device.
But we can try to measure the spin state by placing a detection apparatus on one path.
This “apparatus” is as subtle as possible: just a single atom with a very special property.
If the electron passes close to the atom, the atom flips between two states.
The nature of those two states doesn’t matter as long as it doesn’t change the spin or sap energy from the electron.
One possibility would be that the spin of one of the electrons inside the atom gets flipped.
But for simplicity, we’ll call these two states off and on.
OK, so, we put this atom along the up path of our device,
and we start it out in the off state.
If our electron takes the up path it flips the atom to the on state.
If it takes the down path the atom remains in the off state.
We should be able to just look at the atom to learn the electron’s path, and so learn its spin.
But what happens after the electron passes through our device.
Does its spin count as being measured? Does the positron’s spin immediately become defined?
Well, actually no!
After the electron passes through our device, we still have a superposition of states
- but now that superposition includes the atom.
We have to think of the electron PLUS the atom as being in a joint superposed state of: electron up, atom on AND electron down, atom off.
The atom’s state is now correlated with the electron’s state and the two are entangled.
Which means the atom’s state is also entangled with the positron’s state. We could prove that by measuring the spin of the positrion, which would instantaneously influence the combined state of the atom and the electron.
Or we could measure the atom’s state, which would influence the electron and positron.
The measurement hasn't actually happened yet. The wave function hasn't collapsed.
Here’s more evidence, even with the vertically-aligned magnetic fields, which only affect the vertical component of the electron’s spin,
we haven’t even defined the basis that the electron’s spin as up or down. It’s still undefined.
See, the entangled atom now holds information about the electron’s left-right spin.
Whereas that information used to be expressible as a superposition of the electron’s up-down status,
now it’s hidden in a superposition of the atom’s on-off status.
Essentially, phase information got transfered from the electron to the atom.
I won’t go into the details here - suffice to say that it's possible to recover the horizontal spin information,
even if it’s more straightforward to recover the vertical spin because of how we set up the device.
OK, so our atomic measurement device doesn’t “collapse the wavefunction.”
It doesn't settle measurement basis. So where does that happen?
In order for us to be aware of a measurement we look at a macroscopic indicator - say, the pointer on a dial of our instrument.
There's a chain of quantum systems between that original atom and the pointer.
Information spreads along this chain as these systems become entangled with each other.
In fact that growing web of entanglement always contains all of the information about the quantum system being tested.
The problem is, we never SEE all of that information.
We only see the crude, macroscopic characteristics of the device - like the position of a pointer on a dial.
So Zurek figured out why this might be the case.
It turns out that as more and more particles join our entanglement web, information about quantum states get spread amongst them.
It would be possible to extract this information if you could perfectly measure all particles in your measurement device.
But eventually this entanglement cascade reaches the surrounding environment -
it’s no longer bounded, and so the information about most quantum states can’t be recovered.
But there are certain very special quantum states whose information does NOT get hopelessly mixed through this entanglement web.
These are properties of the quantum system - measurement bases - whose information is relatively simply reflected throughout the surrounding environment.
Now we call these pointer states.
Pointer states are robustly copied and spread until the states of the surrounding macroscopic environment
- for example our dial’s pointer - are strongly correlated with these states of our quantum system.
So what determines whether a quantum state can be a pointer state?
Well, to some extent the way you set up the experiment -
whether you align your magnetic field vertically or horizontally.
But ultimately they are states that can survive contact with the environment.
We say that the environment selects certain sets of states to propogate -
Zurek uses the term einselection, for environmentally induced superselection.
And he coined the term quantum darwinism too, because we have these more “fit” states surviving and being replicated.
There’s no meaningful mutation and natural selection, so the link to evolution is dubious.
Still, makes for a great youtube video title.
OK, so how does any of this explain Schrodinger’s Cat?
Well an important example of a pointer state is the position of a particle.
Most quantum interactions depend heavily on the relative location of interacting particles.
Therefore information about relative particle locations is robustly shared and propagated through the entanglement network.
The individual particles do NOT have well-defined locations - they stay quantum-weird.
But the entanglement network has this sort of collective consensus about those locations.
The structure of macroscopic objects - including cats and dials - are strongly defined by the relative positions of their particles.
Therefore the states of cats and dials will always appear well defined at least to us.
I should say none of this fully solves the measurement problem,
it only tells us why certain quantum states are observable on macroscopic scales while Schroedinger Cat states - weird superpositions are not.
It still doesn't tell us why we observe one pointer state over another unless of course there are multiple of these entanglement networks aka worlds.
By the way - in case you missed it,
I just told you how reality works.
At least according to the framework of decoherence and these propagating pointer states.
The observable qualities of reality - object positions, feline mortality statuses, even the results of quantum measurements - do NOT exist in the underlying quantum objects.
Quantum objects remain in undefined and superposed states with no prefered basis for observation.
No, the macroscopic observables only exist as a sort of mutual agreement across the network of entanglements that connect those quantum systems.
In a sense, WE exist in such a network.
In this web of mutually consistent entanglement, even spooky-action-at-a-distance entangled particles maintain their correlations,
no matter how far separated in boring old space time.
Thank you to the Great Courses Plus for supporting PBS Digital Studios.
The Great Courses Plus is a subscription based video on demand learning service
with lectures and course by great professors from top universities and institutions.
Through your subscription you'll get access to a library of lectures about anything that interests you.
Science, Math, History, Literature, or even how to cook, play chess or become a better photographer.
One exciting new course is the Theory of Everything hosted by our friend, Dr. Don Lincoln.
In the course you'll confront the incompatibility between the standard model of physics and general relativity
And learn what cutting edge science is doing to reconcile these two great theories.
To learn more www.thegreatcoursesplus.com/spacetime
or click on the link in the description to start your trial today.
Last week we talked about a thought experiment to test the many worlds interpretation of
quantum mechanics - quantum immortality, aka quantum suicide, in which a physicist will
survive a long chain of deadly quantum events ONLY if all possible histories - or worlds
- eventuate.
Some of you would like clarification on how this experiment actually proves many worlds.
After all, isn't the chance of finding yourself in the rare "survival" timeline the same between
many worlds and copenhagen. Well, that depends on your definition of "yourself". If by that
you mean any given version of you chosen randomly from all possible future timelines - then
yes, chances are that version will die. The difference between many worlds and copenhagen
is that in the former there's a version of you that survives - and that version actually
eventuates. In Copenhagen, its most likely that all of the very rare survival timelines don't happen.
Anonymous had an excellent insight. If every possible combination of quantum events exists
and if the increase of entropy is probabilistic, then is it inevitable that there are exceptionally
rare timelines where the universe gets to a state of low entropy to produce another
Big Bang? In other words - if all possible futures occur in Many Worlds, do some of those
lead to new Big Bangs. Well, the key phrase here is "possible future". Do the laws of physics
allow an entropy fluctuation large enough to produce a new big bang? Could a random
perfect alignment of all particle trajectories produce a big bang density? Maybe - some physicsts
think this may be how our big bang happened. If so, then the never-ending global wavefunction
of the Many worlds interpretation could indeed be a big-bang machine. On the other hand,
if the evolution of that wavefunction can't conceivable produce big bang conditions,
then no - only *possible* futures happen, as Seraphina explained in that same comment.
Ultimate Hair Dryer asks how the many world interpretation handles the probabilistic interpretation
of the wave function. And then goes on to correctly answer their own question - to paraphrase:
whereas the Copenhagen interpretation states that only one branch of the wavefunction survives
measurement, corresponding to one possible result of that measurement. And the wavefunction
itself defines the probability of a given branch "collapsing". The Many Worlds interpretation
states that all branches survive, and the measurement result that we observe depends
on which branch we find ourselves in. However not all measurement results are equal. You
can imagine the wavefunction as consisting of very many fine trajectories - possible
histories by which the system can evolve. Some final results are more probable because
more histories lead to that result. Most of the time you will naturally find yourself
in one of the more common histories - corresponding to more probable measurement results. It's
analogous to statistical mechanics, in which many different arrangements of air in the
room lead to the same measurement of temperature and pressure - so we'll almost always observe
those macroscopic measureables.
thatisjustgreat declines our offer of quantum immortality, saying "I'll stick with classical
immortality, thank you". thanks for commenting Keith Richards, I hope you enjoy watching
the heat death of the universe.