arXiv blog

Introducing the Quantum Hamlet Effect

To decay or not to decay: that is the question.

kfc 08/12/2009

  • 5 Comments


It seems we have another entertaining quantum effect to contend with.

This one is related to the well-known quantum Zeno effect, which occurs when a quantum system is frequently measured. Each measurement essentially resets the quantum system so, in principle, measuring the state of a quantum object often enough can maintain it in a particular state forever.

In essence, it is a quantum version of "the watched pot never boils" phenomenon and was first measured in the lab some 10 years ago.

Its cousin, the quantum anti-Zeno effect, is less well known. In this case, a series of measurements on a quantum system can increase its likelihood of decay so that it changes state more quickly. In this scenario, a watched pot boils more quickly.

Now Vladan Pankovic, a physicist at the University of Novi Sad in Serbia, has come up with a third way in which measurements can influence a quantum system. Pankovic has calculated that a particular sequence of measurements can leave a quantum system in a state in which the probability of decay does not converge.

In other words, there is no way of determining the probability of decay and the system is left with the dilemma of whether to decay or not to decay.

Hence Pankovic's name for this phenomenon: the quantum Hamlet effect (which may turn out to be more useful and famous than either of its cousins).

Exit Pankovic stage left, chased by bear.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0908.1301: Quantum Hamlet Effect

TRSF: Read the Best New Science Fiction inspired by today’s emerging technologies.

Print

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

camdaddy09

38 Comments

  • 917 Days Ago
  • 08/12/2009

Just curious.

How is this useful?

Reply

flared0ne

395 Comments

  • 916 Days Ago
  • 08/13/2009

How might this be USEFUL??

Well, if it's not something on the order of an April Fool's joke (which the whole "Hamlet" conversation would seem to asymptotically approach) you have to evaluate the current "state of the art" in quantum computing and notice one of the primary issues preventing successful implementation and evolution -- states decay; collapse; lose coherence; stop being qbits. However you'd like to describe it.

"This" claims to open up a methodology of "refreshing" a quantum "thing" such that the quantum-ness of the "thing" is stabilized, kept in its like-new condition. Keeping it available, preserving it for ongoing use.

Sounds very similar to dynamic refresh of RAM, where if the clocking stops all the data evaporates, leaks away. Emininently do-able once the technique is realized as possible and sufficient.

Reply

  • 916 Days Ago
  • 08/13/2009

Re: How might this be USEFUL??

So does this mean a qubit has the potential to be both entangled and confused?

And, it sound like once it becomes that way, it takes no more energy to stay that way permanently.

I think I know some people who have achieved a similar quantum state...

Reply

rrtucci

3 Comments

  • 902 Days Ago
  • 08/27/2009

read the paper

The Pankovic paper is wrong. More here

Reply

m-b

1 Comment

  • 898 Days Ago
  • 08/31/2009

Re: read the paper

True ... There is something rotten in the state of Approximations.

Products of positive factors less than 1 are seldom
less than 0.

Why not write P^n_1(\tau,n)\simeq 42, instead of what is written in (10)?

Reply

Bio

The Physics arXiv Blog produces daily coverage of the best new ideas from an online forum called the Physics arXiv on which scientists post early versions of their latest ideas. Contact me at KentuckyFC @ arxivblog.com

Follow The Physics arXiv Blog on Twitter

Subscribe to the arXiv blog RSS Feed

Advertisement
Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement