The Quantum Conspiracy:

What Popularizers of QM
Don’t Want You to Know

Ron Garret
6 January 2011
 Disclaimers
The title of this talk is intended as ironic
humor. There is no conspiracy (as far
as I know :-)
IANAPhysicist
This talk is about a way to think about
QM that hasn’t gotten much attention…
“No one
understands
quantum
mechanics.”
– Richard Feynman
 What does it mean to
“measure” something?
Measurements are consistent
across space and time
T1:
T0: It’s Yep,
Green! it’s
?
Green!
“The most incomprehensible thing
about the universe is that it is
comprehensible”
— Albert Einstein
 A deep mystery
It could be that measurements are
consistent across space and time
because there is an underlying (meta-)
physical reality “out there” which is
being accurately reflected
But it turns out we can demonstrate
that this is not so…
 Road map
Step 1: Review the usual QM story
Step 2: Show how it leads to a
contradiction
Step 3: Do some math and show how
that resolves the contradiction
Step 4: Tell a new story based on the
math
Step 5: Profit!
 Quantum mystery #1
The two-slit experiment
Two-slit experiment results

Wave Particle
s s
This is not intractably weird
(yet)
Light (and electrons) might be particles
that are moved around by an
underlying wave
Randomness might be due to “hidden
variables”
But we can eliminate this possibility…
Adding detectors to the slits

No detectors ==>
interference

Detectors ==> no
interference
 Wave-particle duality
Any modification to the experiment that
allows us to determine — even in principle —
which slit the particle went through destroys
the interference
Conclusion: something must be “at both slits
at once” to produce interference
This holds for any particle and any
“measurement” (and any “two-slit” or
split/combine experiment)

(Aside: wave-particle duality is an inherent aspect (indeed part of

the definition) of waves and particles, not QM)
 This is still not intractably
weird
Maybe measurement “does something”
to the system to make it stop behaving
like a wave and start behaving like a
particle
Maybe the wave “collapses” and
“becomes” a particle (Copenhagen
interpretation)
But… how – and, more importantly,
when – does “collapse” happen?
 Quantum mystery #2
The “Quantum Eraser”
Reflec
t
0
Particl
e Com
Split Interferenc
Sourc bine
e
e
1
Reflec
t
 Quantum mystery #2
The “Quantum Eraser”

“Measure
” 0.
Particl 5
e Com Interferenc
Split e
Sourc bine
e “destroyed
” 0.
5

Measure=rotate
90˚
 Quantum mystery #2
The “Quantum Eraser”

“Measure “Erase 0
” ”
Particl
e Com Interferenc
Split
Sourc bine e
e “restored”
“Erase 1
”

Measure=rotate 90˚ Erase=filter at 45˚

 Shroedinger’s Cat
When (and where) does “collapse”
happen?
At the “measurement” site?
At the detector?
In the mind? (Whose mind?)
Quantum mystery #3:
Entanglement
 Quantum Entanglement
LU R
U
UV laser
Spl & Down- Spl
it Converte it
r

LD R
D
LU/RD and LD/RU are perfectly
correlated
(because of conservation laws)
“Spooky action at a distance”
Particle isn’t “really” at either detector until it
is actually “measured” (whatever that means)
“When an aspect of one photon’s
quantum state is measured, the other
photon changes in response, even when
the two photons are separated by large
distances.” (Wired, June 2010)
Now it’s intractably weird!
Instantaneous effects are supposed to
be impossible!
Randomness precludes transmitting
information using entanglement
Or does it?
 Road map
Step 1: Review the usual QM story
Step 2: Show how it leads to a
contradiction
 Taking stock
A split/combine experiment produces
interference
Any which-way measurement destroys
interference
Some which-way “proto measurements” can
be erased, restoring interference
Measurements on entangled particles are
perfectly (anti)correlated
 Taking stock
A split/combine experiment produces
interference
Any which-way measurement destroys
interference
Some which-way “proto measurements” can
be erased
Measurements on entangled particles are
perfectly (anti)correlated
What they don’t want you to know:
All of these things cannot possibly be
true!
The EPRG* Paradox

*Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-
Garret
 The EPRG* Paradox

If we “measure” on the left, do we

destroy interference on the right?
 The EPRG Paradox
If the answer is “yes” then we have FTL
communications
But if the answer is “no” then we know
the position of the particle but we have
interference nonetheless, which
violates QM
 One last possibility…
Maybe there was no interference to begin
with!
Maybe entanglement “counts” as a “proto-
measurement” that destroys interference
But then we can do FTL communications by
creating interference with a quantum eraser!
Conclusion: either FTL communications is
possible, or something in this story is wrong
 Road map
Step 1: Review the usual QM story
Step 2: Show how it leads to a
contradiction
Step 3: Do some math and show how
that resolves the contradiction
 Math (don’t panic)
(x,t) is the “quantum wave function”
Complex-valued function of space and time
Evolves according to the Schroedinger wave equation

| (x,t)|2 is the probability of measuring a particle at

position X at time T
Things to note about the math
Distinguishes between amplitudes (complex
numbers) and probabilities (real numbers)
Particles can interfere because complex numbers
with modulus greater than zero can add to zero.
Continuous, time-symmetric, fully
deterministic (and hence reversible)
dynamics
No randomness, no “collapse”. Going from
amplitudes to probabilities has no physical
justification. It’s purely a hack. (But it works!)
 Two-slit math
State of the photon without
“measurement”:
( U + L)/√2
(Note the √2. It will be important later.)

Resulting probability (| |2):

[| U |2 + | L|2 + ( U* L + L
*
U
)]/2
Interference
term
 Two slits with detectors
Probability amplitude:
( U |DU> + L |DL>)/√2
(|DU> is the amplitude of the detector indicating
a particle at the upper slit)
 Two slits with detectors
Probability amplitude:
( U |DU> + L |DL>)/√2
(|DU> is the amplitude of the detector indicating
a particle at the upper slit)
Resulting probability:
2 2
[| U
| +| L
| +
* *
( U L
<DU|DL> + L U
<DL|DU>)]/2
 Two slits with detectors
Probability amplitude:
( U |DU> + L |DL>)/√2
(|DU> is the amplitude of the detector indicating
a particle at the upper slit)
Resulting probability:
2 2
[| U
| +| L
| +
* *
( U L
<DU|DL> + L U
<DL|DU>)]/2

Interference term
(!)
 Measurement and
interference
<DU|DL> is the amplitude of the detector switching
spontaneously from the U state to the L state
If the detector is working properly, this amplitude is 0
Then the resulting wave function is:
2 2
(| U
| +| L
| )/2
Note: no interference term!

“Measurement” is a continuum!
 Entangled particles
Wave function:
(| > + | >)/√2
Equivalent to:
(| >| > + | >| >)/√2
(|LU>|RD> + |LD>|RU>)/√2
( LU |RD> + LD |RU>)/√2
…which should look familiar.
 Entanglement and
measurement are the same
phenomenon!
Wave function of entangled particles is
exactly the same as a “measured”
particle
They are in fact the same physical
phenomenon (more on this in a
moment)
There is no interference in the EPRG
experiment
But… can we create interference with a
 Quantum eraser revisited

“Measure “Erase 0
” ”
Particl
e Com Interferenc
Split
Sourc bine e
e “restored”
“Erase 1
”

Measure=rotate 90˚ Erase=filter at 45˚

 Quantum eraser math
Wave function after “measurement”
(but before “erasure”):
(|U>|H> + |L>|V>)/√2
Wave function after “erasure”:
(|U> + |L>)(|H> + |V>)/2√2

|V |H> + |V>
|H> + |V> means polarized at 45˚ >

|H
>
 Quantum eraser math
Before “erasure”: no interference
After “erasure”: interference… but
Remember that √2 term? It’s there to
make the total probability come out to
1.
But the total probability isn’t 1, it’s 1/2!
Either we’ve made a mistake, or half
our photons are missing
 Quantum eraser math
Half of our photons have gone missing!
They were filtered out
Filtered photons have a different wave
function:
(|U> + |L>)(|H> - |V>)/2√2
|V |H> + |V>
>

|H
>
|H> - |V>
So much for our Nobel prize
Photons that pass through the filter display
interference fringes
Photons that don’t pass through the filter
also display interference “anti-fringes”
Sum together to produce “non-interference”
So quantum erasers don’t “erase” anything,
and they don’t “produce” interference, they
just “filter out” interference that was already
there
 “Filtering out” interference in
an EPR experiment

UDUDD…

“Select
”
“U”
photons =
+
“D”
photons
 Road map
Step 1: Review the usual QM story
Step 2: Show how it leads to a
contradiction
Step 3: Do some math and show how
that resolves the contradiction
Step 4: Tell a new story based on the
math
 Interpretations of QM
Copenhagen (scientifically untenable)
Relative-state (“Multiple worlds”,
“Decoherence”)
Scientifically tenable but intuitively troublesome
Transactional (Cramer)
Physically real waves moving backwards in time
(predicted by Maxwell’s equations)
Quantum information theory (“Zero-worlds”)
Extension of classical information theory with
complex numbers
Classical Information Theory
Shannon entropy of system A:
H(A) = - P(a) log P(a)
P(a) is probability that A is in state a
H(A) is a measure of the “randomness” of system A
When system has equal probability of being in one of N
states, H(A) is log(N)
When N is 1 (system is definitely in a single state) H(A) = 0
Classical Information theory
Joint entropy of multiple systems:
H(AB) = - p(ab) log p(ab)
Conditional entropy:
H(A|B) = - p(a|b) log p(a|b)
Information entropy:
I(A:B) = I(B:A) = H(A) – H(A|B)
= H(A) + H(B) – H(AB)
= H(AB) – H(A|B) – H(B|A)
I(A:B) is the amount of information about A
contained in B (0 <= I(A:B) <= 1)
Entropies of classical systems
Quantum information theory
Von Neuman entropy:
S(A) = -TrA( A
log A
)

A
is the quantum density matrix
TrA is a “trace” operator
Details beyond the scope of this presentation
Main point: complex numbers =>
Information entropy is no longer
restricted to the range [0,1]
 Entropy diagram of an
entangled pair of particles

- 2 -
1 1

Information entropy > 1

Particles are better than perfectly
correlated
Total entropy is zero ==> No
randomness
 Measurement
To describe a measurement we need
at least three mutually entangled
particles
The one being measured
At least two more to describe the
measurement apparatus
 Entropy diagram of three
mutually entangled particles
 Entropy diagram of three
mutually entangled particles
 23
Entropy diagram of 10
particles
 Reversibility
Quantum measurements are reversible, but
only by “undoing” all of the associated
entanglements
This can only be done by returning the
entangled particles to close physical
proximity
To reverse a macroscopic measurement we
would have to “undo” 1023 entanglements
Possible in principle, not in practice
 Philosophical implications
The classical universe is not “real”
There is no (one) classical universe
There is only the quantum universe (which can
be viewed as an infinite collection of classical
universes)
This is not (quite) as strange as it seems
Even classical reality is not as we perceive it
“We” are not made of atoms, we are made of
(classical) bits (“Correlations without correlata” --
David Mermin)
 Some pithy quotes
... the particle-like behavior of quantum
systems is an illusion created by the
incomplete observation of a quantum
(entangled) system with a macroscopic
number of degrees of freedom.
... randomness is not an essential
cornerstone of quantum measurement but
rather an illusion created by it.

-- Nicholas Cerf and Chris Adami

 Take-home message

“The most incomprehensible thing

about the universe is that it is
comprehensible”
-- Albert Einstein
QIT explains why the universe is
comprehensible!
“Spooky action at a distance” is no more
(and no less) mysterious than “spooky
action across time.” Both are produced
by the same physical mechanism.
Two monks were arguing about a flag. One said,
"The flag is moving." The other said, "The wind is
moving." The sixth patriarch happened to be
passing by. He told them, "Not the wind, not the
flag. Mind is moving.”
-- Mumon, “The Gateless Gate”
Backup slides
Polarization and Picket
Fences
 Light is a wave
It can be polarized
It travels at the speed of
electromagnetic waves (because it is
an electromagnetic wave)
It can produce interference
 The photoelectric effect
Shining light on matter produces
electrons
 Two weird features of the
photoelectric effect
The number of electrons produced is
proportional to the intensity of the light
The energy of the electrons produced
is (inversely) proportional to the
wavelength of the light
This is not what one would expect if
light is a wave
 Diffraction

Definite Definite
Velocity Position

Indefinit Indefinit
e e
Position Velocity
Time/frequency duality