Quantum Cheshire cat

Last updated May 16, 2024

In quantum mechanics, the quantum Cheshire cat is a quantum phenomena that suggests that a particle's physical properties can take a different trajectory from that of the particle itself. The name makes reference to the Cheshire Cat from Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, a feline character which could disappear leaving only its grin behind. The effect was originally proposed by Yakir Aharonov, Daniel Rohrlich, Sandu Popescu and Paul Skrzypczyk in 2012.^[1]

In classical physics, physical properties cannot be detached from the object associated to it. If a magnet follows a given trajectory in space and time, its magnetic moment follows it through the same trajectory. However in quantum mechanics, particles can be in a quantum superposition of more than one trajectory previous to measurement. The quantum Cheshire experiments suggests that previous to a measurement, a particle may take two paths, but the property of the particle, like the spin of a massive particle or the polarization of a light beam, travels only through one of the paths, while the particle takes the opposite path. The conclusion is only obtained from an analysis of weak measurements, which consist in interpreting the particle history previous to measurement by studying quantum systems in the presence of small disturbances.

Experimental demonstration of the quantum Cheshire cat have already been claimed in different systems, including photons ^[2] and neutrons.^[3] The effect has been suggested as a probe to study properties of massive particles by detaching it from its magnetic moment in order to shield them from electromagnetic disturbances.^[4]^[5] A dynamical quantum Cheshire cat has also been proposed as a counterfactual quantum communication protocol.^[6]

Example of the experiment

Mach-Zehder interferometer. In this example, the beam is replaced by neutrons with a magnetic moment pointing to the right. Detector 1 only detects neutrons with the original magnetic moment orientation. Detector 2 is dark and is not relevant. SB is a filter. Mach-zender-interferometer.png — Mach-Zehder interferometer. In this example, the beam is replaced by neutrons with a magnetic moment pointing to the right. Detector 1 only detects neutrons with the original magnetic moment orientation. Detector 2 is dark and is not relevant. SB is a filter.

Neutrons are uncharged subatomic particles that have a magnetic moment, with two possible projections on any given axis.

A beam of neutrons, with all with their magnetic moments aligned to the right, enters a Mach–Zehnder interferometer coming from the left-to-right. The neutrons can exit the interferometer into a right port, where a detector of neutrons with right magnetic moment is located, or upwards into a dark port with no detector (see picture).^[7]

The neutrons enter the interferometer and reach a beam splitter. Each neutron that passes through, enters into a quantum superposition state of two different paths, namely A and B. This initial state is referred to as the preselected state. As the neutrons travel the different paths, their wave functions reunites at a second beam splitter, causing interference. If there is nothing in the path of the neutrons, every neutron exits to the interferometer moving to the right and activates the detector.^[7] No neutron escapes upwards into the dark port due to destructive interference.

One can add different components and filters in one of the paths. By adding a filter that flips the magnetic moment of the neutron in path B (lower branch), it leads to a new superposition state: neutron taking path A with a magnetic moment pointing right, plus the neutron taking path B with the magnetic moment flipped pointing to the left. This state is called a postselected state.^[7] As the states cannot longer interfere coherently due to this modification, the neutrons can exit through the two ports, either to the right reaching the detector or exiting towards the dark port.

In this configuration, if the detector clicks, it is only because the neutrons had a magnetic moment oriented in to the right. By means of this postselection, it can be confidently stated that the neutron that reached the detector passed through path A, which is the only path to contains neutron magnetic moments oriented to the right. This effect can be easily demonstrated by putting a thin absorber of neutrons in the path.^[7] By placing the absorber in path B, the rate of neutrons that are detected remains constant. However, when the absorber is positioned in path A, the detection rate decreases, providing evidence that detected neutrons in the postselected state travel only through path A.^[7]

If a magnetic field is applied perpendicular to the plane of the interferometer and localized in either path A or path B, the number of neutrons that are detected changes, as the magnetic fields makes the neutrons precess and alters the probabilities of being measured. Additionally, measuring the magnetism and the trajectory (with an absorber) at the same time is not possible without also disrupting the quantum state.

The quantum Cheshire cat appears in the weak limit of the interaction. When a sufficiently small magnetic field is applied to path A, there is no impact on the measurement. In contrast, if the magnetic field is applied to path B, the detection rate diminishes, demonstrating that the neutrons magnetism, perpendicular to the plane of the interferometer, predominantly resided in path B.^[7] We can do the same with an thin absorber, showing that only the neutrons that are detected are all from path A. This experiment effectively separated the "cat", representing the neutron, from its "grin", symbolizing its magnetic moment out of the plane.^[7]

General description

Consider a particle with a two-level property that can be either $|0\rangle$ or $|1\rangle$ , this can be for example the horizontal and vertical polarization of a photon or the spin projection of a spin-1/2 particle as in the previous example with the neutrons. One of these two polarization states (let's say $|0\rangle$ ) is chosen and the particle is then prepared to be in the following superposition:^[1]

|\Psi \rangle ={\frac {(|A\rangle +|B\rangle )}{\sqrt {2}}}|0\rangle ,

where $|A\rangle$ and $|B\rangle$ are two possible orthogonal trajectories of the particle. The state $|\Psi \rangle$ is called the preselected state.

A filter is added in path $|B\rangle$ of the particle in order to flip its polarization from $|0\rangle$ to $|1\rangle$ , such that it ends up in the state^[1]

|\Phi \rangle ={\frac {|A\rangle |0\rangle +|B\rangle |1\rangle }{\sqrt {2}}},

such state indicates that if the particle is measured to be in state $|0\rangle$ , the particle took path $|A\rangle$ ; analogously, if the particle is measured to be in state $|1\rangle$ , the particle took path $|B\rangle$ . The state $|\Phi \rangle$ is called the postselected state.

Using postselection techniques, the particle is measured in order to detect the overlap between the preselected state and postselected state. If there are no disturbances, the preselected and postselected states produce the same results 1/4 of time.

Weak measurements

We define the weak value of an operator $O$ given by^[8]

\langle O\rangle _{\rm {w}}={\frac {\langle \phi |O|\psi \rangle }{\langle \phi |\psi \rangle }},

where $|\psi \rangle$ is the preselected state and $|\phi \rangle$ the postselected state. This calculation can be thought as the contribution of a given interaction up to linear order.

For the system, one considers two projectors operators given by

\Pi _{A}=|A\rangle \langle A|,

and

\Pi _{B}=|B\rangle \langle B|,

which measure if the particle is on either path $|A\rangle$ or $|B\rangle$ , respectively.

Additionally, an out-of the-plane polarization operator is defined as

\sigma _{\perp }=|0\rangle \langle 1|+|1\rangle \langle 0|,

this operator can be thought as a measure of angular momentum in the system.^[1] Outside the weak limit, the interaction related to this operator tends to make the polarization precess between $|0\rangle$ and $|1\rangle$ .

Performing the following weak measurements on the positions with $|\phi \rangle =|\Phi \rangle$ and $|\psi \rangle =|\Psi \rangle$ , one obtains the following

\langle \Pi _{A}\rangle _{\rm {w}}=1

,

\langle \Pi _{B}\rangle _{\rm {w}}=0.

These weak values indicate that if the path $|A\rangle$ is slightly perturbed, then the measurement is perturbed. While if instead path $|B\rangle$ is perturbed this does not affect the measurement.

We also consider weak measurements on the out-of the-plane polarization in each of the paths, such that

\langle \Pi _{A}\sigma _{\perp }\rangle _{\rm {w}}=0,

\langle \Pi _{B}\sigma _{\perp }\rangle _{\rm {w}}=1.

These values indicate that if the polarization is slightly modified in path $|B\rangle$ , then the results are slightly modified too. However if the polarization is perturbed in path $|A\rangle$ there is no correction to the intensity measured (in the weak limit).

These 4 weak values lead to the quantum Cheshire cat conclusion.

Interpretations and criticism

The proposal of quantum Cheshire cat has received some criticism.^[9] Popescu, one of the authors of the original paper, acknowledged it was not well received by all of the referees who first reviewed the original work.^[9]

As the quantum Cheshire cat effect is subjected to analysis of the trajectory before measurement, its conclusion depends on the interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is still an open problem in physics. Some authors reach different conclusions for this effect or disregard the effect completely.^[10] It has been suggested that the quantum Cheshire cat is just an apparent paradox raising from misinterpreting wave interference.^[11] Other authors consider that it can be reproduced classically.^[12]^[10]

The experimental results depend on the postselection and analysis of the data. It has been suggested that the weak value cannot be interpreted as a real property of the system, but as an optimal estimate of the corresponding observable, given that the postselection is successful.^[3] Aephraim M. Steinberg, notes that the experiment with neutrons does not prove that any single neutron took a different path than its magnetic moments; but shows only that the measured neutrons behaved this way on average.^[13] It has also been argued that even if the weak values were measured in the neutron Cheshire cat experiment, they do not imply that a particle and one of its properties have been disembodied due to unavoidable quadratic interactions in the experiment.^[14]^[15]^[10] This last point was acknowledged by A. Matzkin, one of the coauthors of the neutron experiment paper.^[15]

Related Research Articles

The mathematical formulations of quantum mechanics are those mathematical formalisms that permit a rigorous description of quantum mechanics. This mathematical formalism uses mainly a part of functional analysis, especially Hilbert spaces, which are a kind of linear space. Such are distinguished from mathematical formalisms for physics theories developed prior to the early 1900s by the use of abstract mathematical structures, such as infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces, and operators on these spaces. In brief, values of physical observables such as energy and momentum were no longer considered as values of functions on phase space, but as eigenvalues; more precisely as spectral values of linear operators in Hilbert space.

Quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory in physics that describes the behavior of nature at and below the scale of atoms. It is the foundation of all quantum physics, which includes quantum chemistry, quantum field theory, quantum technology, and quantum information science.

Quantum teleportation is a technique for transferring quantum information from a sender at one location to a receiver some distance away. While teleportation is commonly portrayed in science fiction as a means to transfer physical objects from one location to the next, quantum teleportation only transfers quantum information. The sender does not have to know the particular quantum state being transferred. Moreover, the location of the recipient can be unknown, but to complete the quantum teleportation, classical information needs to be sent from sender to receiver. Because classical information needs to be sent, quantum teleportation cannot occur faster than the speed of light.

The uncertainty principle, also known as Heisenberg's indeterminacy principle, is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics. It states that there is a limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, can be simultaneously known. In other words, the more accurately one property is measured, the less accurately the other property can be known.

In quantum mechanics, a density matrix is a matrix that describes the quantum state of a physical system. It allows for the calculation of the probabilities of the outcomes of any measurement performed upon this system, using the Born rule. It is a generalization of the more usual state vectors or wavefunctions: while those can only represent pure states, density matrices can also represent mixed states. Mixed states arise in quantum mechanics in two different situations:

when the preparation of the system is not fully known, and thus one must deal with a statistical ensemble of possible preparations, and
when one wants to describe a physical system that is entangled with another, without describing their combined state; this case is typical for a system interacting with some environment.

Quantum superposition is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics that states that linear combinations of solutions to the Schrödinger equation are also solutions of the Schrödinger equation. This follows from the fact that the Schrödinger equation is a linear differential equation in time and position. More precisely, the state of a system is given by a linear combination of all the eigenfunctions of the Schrödinger equation governing that system.

Quantum decoherence is the loss of quantum coherence. Quantum decoherence has been studied to understand how quantum systems convert to systems which can be explained by classical mechanics. Beginning out of attempts to extend the understanding of quantum mechanics, the theory has developed in several directions and experimental studies have confirmed some of the key issues. Quantum computing relies on quantum coherence and is the primary practical applications of the concept.

In physics, an operator is a function over a space of physical states onto another space of physical states. The simplest example of the utility of operators is the study of symmetry. Because of this, they are useful tools in classical mechanics. Operators are even more important in quantum mechanics, where they form an intrinsic part of the formulation of the theory.

In quantum mechanics, a probability amplitude is a complex number used for describing the behaviour of systems. The square of the modulus of this quantity represents a probability density.

The Mach–Zehnder interferometer is a device used to determine the relative phase shift variations between two collimated beams derived by splitting light from a single source. The interferometer has been used, among other things, to measure phase shifts between the two beams caused by a sample or a change in length of one of the paths. The apparatus is named after the physicists Ludwig Mach and Ludwig Zehnder; Zehnder's proposal in an 1891 article was refined by Mach in an 1892 article. Mach–Zehnder interferometry with electrons as well as with light has been demonstrated. The versatility of the Mach–Zehnder configuration has led to its being used in a range of research topics efforts especially in fundamental quantum mechanics.

In physics, a parity transformation is the flip in the sign of one spatial coordinate. In three dimensions, it can also refer to the simultaneous flip in the sign of all three spatial coordinates :

The Lippmann–Schwinger equation is one of the most used equations to describe particle collisions – or, more precisely, scattering – in quantum mechanics. It may be used in scattering of molecules, atoms, neutrons, photons or any other particles and is important mainly in atomic, molecular, and optical physics, nuclear physics and particle physics, but also for seismic scattering problems in geophysics. It relates the scattered wave function with the interaction that produces the scattering and therefore allows calculation of the relevant experimental parameters.

The theoretical and experimental justification for the Schrödinger equation motivates the discovery of the Schrödinger equation, the equation that describes the dynamics of nonrelativistic particles. The motivation uses photons, which are relativistic particles with dynamics described by Maxwell's equations, as an analogue for all types of particles.

In quantum physics, unitarity is the condition that the time evolution of a quantum state according to the Schrödinger equation is mathematically represented by a unitary operator. This is typically taken as an axiom or basic postulate of quantum mechanics, while generalizations of or departures from unitarity are part of speculations about theories that may go beyond quantum mechanics. A unitarity bound is any inequality that follows from the unitarity of the evolution operator, i.e. from the statement that time evolution preserves inner products in Hilbert space.

In quantum mechanics, the expectation value is the probabilistic expected value of the result (measurement) of an experiment. It can be thought of as an average of all the possible outcomes of a measurement as weighted by their likelihood, and as such it is not the most probable value of a measurement; indeed the expectation value may have zero probability of occurring. It is a fundamental concept in all areas of quantum physics.

In quantum mechanics, a weak value is a quantity related to a shift of a measuring device's pointer when usually there is pre- and postselection. It should not be confused with a weak measurement, which is often defined in conjunction. The weak value was first defined by Yakir Aharonov, David Albert, and Lev Vaidman, published in Physical Review Letters 1988, and is related to the two-state vector formalism. There is also a way to obtain weak values without postselection.

Spin is an intrinsic form of angular momentum carried by elementary particles, and thus by composite particles such as hadrons, atomic nuclei, and atoms. Spin is quantized, and accurate models for the interaction with spin require relativistic quantum mechanics or quantum field theory.

In quantum physics, a quantum state is a mathematical entity that embodies the knowledge of a quantum system. Quantum mechanics specifies the construction, evolution, and measurement of a quantum state. The result is a quantum-mechanical prediction for the system represented by the state. Knowledge of the quantum state, and the quantum mechanical rules for the system's evolution in time, exhausts all that can be known about a quantum system.

In quantum mechanics, weak measurements are a type of quantum measurement that results in an observer obtaining very little information about the system on average, but also disturbs the state very little. From Busch's theorem the system is necessarily disturbed by the measurement. In the literature weak measurements are also known as unsharp, fuzzy, dull, noisy, approximate, and gentle measurements. Additionally weak measurements are often confused with the distinct but related concept of the weak value.

Optical cluster states are a proposed tool to achieve quantum computational universality in linear optical quantum computing (LOQC). As direct entangling operations with photons often require nonlinear effects, probabilistic generation of entangled resource states has been proposed as an alternative path to the direct approach.

References

1 2 3 4 Aharonov, Yakir; Popescu, Sandu; Rohrlich, Daniel; Skrzypczyk, Paul (2013-11-07). "Quantum Cheshire Cats". New Journal of Physics. 15 (11): 113015. arXiv: 1202.0631 . Bibcode:2013NJPh...15k3015A. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/15/11/113015. ISSN 1367-2630.
↑ Anonymous (2016-07-01). "A Single-Photon Cheshire Cat". Physics. 9: s71. arXiv: 1607.00302 . doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.94.012102. S2CID 62799064.
1 2 Denkmayr, Tobias; Geppert, Hermann; Sponar, Stephan; Lemmel, Hartmut; Matzkin, Alexandre; Tollaksen, Jeff; Hasegawa, Yuji (2014-07-29). "Observation of a quantum Cheshire Cat in a matter-wave interferometer experiment". Nature Communications. 5 (1): 4492. arXiv: 1312.3775 . Bibcode:2014NatCo...5.4492D. doi:10.1038/ncomms5492. ISSN 2041-1723. PMC 4124860 . PMID 25072171.
↑ "'Quantum Cheshire Cat' becomes reality". BBC News. 2014-07-29. Retrieved 2024-01-24.
↑ "The Quantum Cheshire Cat In The Wonderland of Quantum Physics | Pop | Learn Science at Scitable". www.nature.com. Retrieved 2024-01-24.
↑ Čepaitė, Ieva (2021-10-27). "Quantum Cheshire cats could have a travelling grin". Physics World. Retrieved 2024-01-23.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Moskvitch, Katia (22 January 2014). "Physicists Produce Quantum Version of the Cheshire Cat". Science News.
↑ Aharonov, Yakir; Rohrlich, Daniel (2008-09-26). Quantum Paradoxes: Quantum Theory for the Perplexed. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-3-527-61912-2.
1 2 Cartlidge, Edwin (2013-11-18). "Physicists reveal a quantum Cheshire cat". Physics World. Retrieved 2024-01-24.
1 2 3 Duprey, Q.; Kanjilal, S.; Sinha, U.; Home, D.; Matzkin, A. (2018-04-01). "The Quantum Cheshire Cat effect: Theoretical basis and observational implications". Annals of Physics. 391: 1–15. arXiv: 1703.02959 . Bibcode:2018AnPhy.391....1D. doi:10.1016/j.aop.2018.01.011. ISSN 0003-4916. S2CID 53756797.
↑ Corrêa, Raul; Santos, Marcelo França; Monken, C H; Saldanha, Pablo L (2015-05-27). "'Quantum Cheshire Cat' as simple quantum interference". New Journal of Physics. 17 (5): 053042. arXiv: 1409.0808 . Bibcode:2015NJPh...17e3042C. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/17/5/053042. ISSN 1367-2630.
↑ Atherton, David P.; Ranjit, Gambhir; Geraci, Andrew A.; Weinstein, Jonathan D. (2015-03-15). "Observation of a classical Cheshire cat in an optical interferometer". Optics Letters. 40 (6): 879–881. arXiv: 1410.2267 . Bibcode:2015OptL...40..879A. doi:10.1364/OL.40.000879. ISSN 1539-4794. PMID 25768136. S2CID 5934865.
↑ "Quantum Cheshire Cat experiment splits particles from their properties". 2014-07-30. Retrieved 2024-01-24.
↑ Stuckey, W. M.; Silberstein, Michael; McDevitt, Timothy (2015-11-03), Concerning Quadratic Interaction in the Quantum Cheshire Cat Experiment, arXiv: 1410.1522
1 2 Stuckey, Mark (2015-05-30). "Weak Values Part 2: The Quantum Cheshire Cat Experiment". Physics Forums Insights. Retrieved 2024-01-25.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[:4-1] 1 2 3 4 Aharonov, Yakir; Popescu, Sandu; Rohrlich, Daniel; Skrzypczyk, Paul (2013-11-07). "Quantum Cheshire Cats". New Journal of Physics. 15 (11): 113015. arXiv: 1202.0631 . Bibcode:2013NJPh...15k3015A. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/15/11/113015. ISSN 1367-2630.

[2] Anonymous (2016-07-01). "A Single-Photon Cheshire Cat". Physics. 9: s71. arXiv: 1607.00302 . doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.94.012102. S2CID 62799064.

[:2-3] 1 2 Denkmayr, Tobias; Geppert, Hermann; Sponar, Stephan; Lemmel, Hartmut; Matzkin, Alexandre; Tollaksen, Jeff; Hasegawa, Yuji (2014-07-29). "Observation of a quantum Cheshire Cat in a matter-wave interferometer experiment". Nature Communications. 5 (1): 4492. arXiv: 1312.3775 . Bibcode:2014NatCo...5.4492D. doi:10.1038/ncomms5492. ISSN 2041-1723. PMC 4124860 . PMID 25072171.

[4] "'Quantum Cheshire Cat' becomes reality". BBC News. 2014-07-29. Retrieved 2024-01-24.

[5] "The Quantum Cheshire Cat In The Wonderland of Quantum Physics | Pop | Learn Science at Scitable". www.nature.com. Retrieved 2024-01-24.

[6] Čepaitė, Ieva (2021-10-27). "Quantum Cheshire cats could have a travelling grin". Physics World. Retrieved 2024-01-23.

[:0-7] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Moskvitch, Katia (22 January 2014). "Physicists Produce Quantum Version of the Cheshire Cat". Science News.

[8] Aharonov, Yakir; Rohrlich, Daniel (2008-09-26). Quantum Paradoxes: Quantum Theory for the Perplexed. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-3-527-61912-2.

[:1-9] 1 2 Cartlidge, Edwin (2013-11-18). "Physicists reveal a quantum Cheshire cat". Physics World. Retrieved 2024-01-24.

[:3-10] 1 2 3 Duprey, Q.; Kanjilal, S.; Sinha, U.; Home, D.; Matzkin, A. (2018-04-01). "The Quantum Cheshire Cat effect: Theoretical basis and observational implications". Annals of Physics. 391: 1–15. arXiv: 1703.02959 . Bibcode:2018AnPhy.391....1D. doi:10.1016/j.aop.2018.01.011. ISSN 0003-4916. S2CID 53756797.

[11] Corrêa, Raul; Santos, Marcelo França; Monken, C H; Saldanha, Pablo L (2015-05-27). "'Quantum Cheshire Cat' as simple quantum interference". New Journal of Physics. 17 (5): 053042. arXiv: 1409.0808 . Bibcode:2015NJPh...17e3042C. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/17/5/053042. ISSN 1367-2630.

[12] Atherton, David P.; Ranjit, Gambhir; Geraci, Andrew A.; Weinstein, Jonathan D. (2015-03-15). "Observation of a classical Cheshire cat in an optical interferometer". Optics Letters. 40 (6): 879–881. arXiv: 1410.2267 . Bibcode:2015OptL...40..879A. doi:10.1364/OL.40.000879. ISSN 1539-4794. PMID 25768136. S2CID 5934865.

[13] "Quantum Cheshire Cat experiment splits particles from their properties". 2014-07-30. Retrieved 2024-01-24.

[14] Stuckey, W. M.; Silberstein, Michael; McDevitt, Timothy (2015-11-03), Concerning Quadratic Interaction in the Quantum Cheshire Cat Experiment, arXiv: 1410.1522

[StuckeyPF-15] 1 2 Stuckey, Mark (2015-05-30). "Weak Values Part 2: The Quantum Cheshire Cat Experiment". Physics Forums Insights. Retrieved 2024-01-25.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]