22:
329:(spin-1). This is taken to mean that the decay is not truly sphere symmetric, but rather has some other distribution, such as a p-wave. However, on closer examination, one sees this has no bearing on the spherical symmetry of the wave-function. Even if the initial state could be polarized; for example, by placing it in a magnetic field, the non-spherical decay pattern is still properly described by quantum mechanics.
172:
thought experiment lies in the idea that the wave function interacted with the inner shell, causing a partial collapse of the wave function, without actually triggering any of the detectors on the inner shell. This illustrates that wave function collapse can occur even in the absence of particle detection.
312:
pattern to be observed on the outer hemisphere. This is not really an objection, but rather an affirmation that a partial collapse of the wave function has occurred. If a diffraction pattern were not observed, one would be forced to conclude that the particle had collapsed down to a ray, and stayed
171:
In the standard quantum-mechanical formulation, the statement is that the wave-function has partially collapsed, and has taken on a hemispherical shape. The full collapse of the wave function, down to a single point, does not occur until it interacts with the outer hemisphere. The conundrum of this
266:
If, after (for example) 0.3 microseconds, one has not seen the decay product on the inner, closer, hemisphere, one can conclude that the particle has decayed with almost absolute certainty, but is still in-flight to the outer hemisphere. The paradox then concerns the correct description of the wave
163:
By consideration of the normal process of quantum measurement, it is clear that if one detector registers the decay, then the other will not: a single particle cannot be detected by both detectors. The core observation is that the non-observation of a particle on one of the shells is just as good a
192:
invalidates the result. This objection can be dispelled by sizing the hemispheres appropriately with regards to the half-life of the nucleus. The radii are chosen so that the more distant hemisphere is much farther away than the half-life of the decaying nucleus, times the flight-time of the alpha
167:
The strength of the paradox can be heightened by considering the two hemispheres to be of different diameters; with the outer shell a good distance farther away. In this case, after the non-observation of the alpha ray on the inner shell, one is led to conclude that the (originally spherical) wave
147:
that showed that the correct quantum mechanical system must include the wave functions for the atoms in the cloud chamber as well as that for the alpha ray. The calculation showed that the resulting probability is non-zero only on straight lines raying out from the decayed atom; that is, once the
337:
The above formulation is inherently phrased in a non-relativistic language; and it is noted that elementary particles have relativistic decay products. This objection only serves to confuse the issue. The experiment can be reformulated so that the decay product is slow-moving. At any rate,
350:
This objection states that in real life, particle detectors are imperfect, and sometimes neither the detectors on the one hemisphere, nor the other, will go off. This argument only serves to confuse the issue, and has no bearing on the fundamental nature of the wave-function.
160:, completely surrounding a radioactive atom at the center that is about to decay by emitting an alpha ray. For the purposes of the thought experiment, the detectors are assumed to be 100% efficient, so that the emitted alpha ray is always detected.
106:
in quantum mechanics. The statement is that a particle need not be detected in order for a quantum measurement to occur, and that the lack of a particle detection can also constitute a measurement. The thought experiment was first posed in 1953 by
263:; that is, the probability will be very very close to one. The outer hemisphere is then placed at (speed of light) times (0.4 microseconds) away: that is, at about 120 meters away. The inner hemisphere is taken to be much closer, say at 1 meter.
275:
Another common objection states that the decay particle was always travelling in a straight line, and that only the probability of the distribution is spherical. This, however, is a mis-interpretation of the
204:
half-lives are much longer; some atomic electromagnetic excitations have a half-life about this long). If one were to wait 0.4 microseconds, then the probability that the particle will have decayed will be
168:
function has "collapsed" to a hemisphere shape, and (because the outer shell is distant) is still in the process of propagating to the outer shell, where it is guaranteed to eventually be detected.
111:. The non-detection of a particle in one arm of an interferometer implies that the particle must be in the other arm. It can be understood to be a refinement of the paradox presented in the
261:
180:
There are a number of common objections to the standard interpretation of the experiment. Some of these objections, and standard rebuttals, are listed below.
313:
that way, as it passed the inner hemisphere; this is clearly at odds with standard quantum mechanics. Diffraction from the inner hemisphere is expected.
586:
51:
530:
73:
148:
measurement is performed, the wave-function becomes non-vanishing only near the classical trajectory of a particle.
44:
365:
196:
To lend concreteness to the example, assume that the half-life of the decaying nucleus is 0.01 microsecond (most
208:
581:
360:
293:
188:
It is sometimes noted that the time of the decay of the nucleus cannot be controlled, and that the finite
489:
370:
432:(1960). "Messungen ohne Störung des Meßobjekts" [Observations without disturbing the object].
535:
34:
434:
388:
281:
38:
30:
99:
55:
127:
concerns the paradox of reconciling the spherical wave function describing the emission of an
560:
292:
is illustrated more clearly in a different context, in the debate comparing the ideas behind
285:
498:
156:
In
Renninger's 1960 formulation, the cloud chamber is replaced by a pair of hemispherical
8:
429:
383:
197:
144:
108:
103:
502:
321:
In this objection, it is noted that in real life, a decay product is either spin-1/2 (a
459:
413:
339:
95:
552:
514:
463:
451:
417:
405:
297:
157:
87:
544:
506:
470:
443:
397:
308:
A true quantum-mechanical wave would diffract from the inner hemisphere, leaving a
484:
136:
526:
548:
575:
556:
518:
455:
409:
201:
132:
277:
124:
112:
423:
309:
98:
that illustrates some of the difficulties of understanding the nature of
447:
401:
289:
288:) of a large number of plane waves. The distinction between mixed and
280:, and is false. The wave function was truly spherical, and is not the
189:
128:
510:
140:
322:
497:(10). American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT): 925–930.
326:
487:(1981). "Interaction-free quantum measurements: A paradox?".
131:
by a radioactive nucleus, with the linear tracks seen in a
151:
531:"The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics"
442:(4). Springer Science and Business Media LLC: 417–421.
396:(3). Springer Science and Business Media LLC: 251–261.
211:
479:(Provides discussion of the Renninger experiment.)
255:
573:
43:but its sources remain unclear because it lacks
543:(3). American Physical Society (APS): 647–687.
143:, it was resolved by a calculation done by Sir
183:
566:(Section 4.1 reviews Renninger's experiment)
475:The Current Interpretation of Wave Mechanics
332:
342:is not in conflict with quantum mechanics.
386:(1953). "Zum Wellen-Korpuskel-Dualismus".
256:{\displaystyle 1-2^{-40}\simeq 1-10^{-12}}
164:measurement as detecting it on the other.
428:
382:
316:
270:
74:Learn how and when to remove this message
587:Thought experiments in quantum mechanics
200:decay half-lives are much shorter; most
424:https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0504043v1
574:
525:
345:
152:Renninger's negative-result experiment
483:
296:and their refutation by means of the
175:
92:Renninger negative-result experiment
15:
118:
13:
14:
598:
20:
477:, (1964) Elsevier, Amsterdam.
303:
1:
376:
267:function in such a scenario.
361:Interaction-free measurement
7:
490:American Journal of Physics
371:Counterfactual definiteness
366:Elitzur–Vaidman bomb-tester
354:
184:Finite radioactive lifetime
10:
603:
549:10.1103/revmodphys.58.647
536:Reviews of Modern Physics
333:Non-relativistic language
135:. Formulated in 1927 by
282:incoherent superposition
29:This article includes a
422:English translation at
58:more precise citations.
435:Zeitschrift für Physik
389:Zeitschrift für Physik
317:Complex decay products
294:local-hidden variables
271:Classical trajectories
257:
100:wave function collapse
258:
209:
582:Quantum measurement
503:1981AmJPh..49..925D
346:Imperfect detectors
198:elementary particle
145:Nevill Francis Mott
109:Mauritius Renninger
448:10.1007/bf01327019
402:10.1007/bf01325679
340:special relativity
253:
158:particle detectors
96:thought experiment
31:list of references
298:Bell inequalities
176:Common objections
88:quantum mechanics
84:
83:
76:
594:
564:
559:. Archived from
522:
471:Louis de Broglie
467:
421:
262:
260:
259:
254:
252:
251:
230:
229:
119:The Mott problem
79:
72:
68:
65:
59:
54:this article by
45:inline citations
24:
23:
16:
602:
601:
597:
596:
595:
593:
592:
591:
572:
571:
527:Cramer, John G.
511:10.1119/1.12592
379:
357:
348:
335:
319:
306:
273:
244:
240:
222:
218:
210:
207:
206:
186:
178:
154:
137:Albert Einstein
121:
80:
69:
63:
60:
49:
35:related reading
25:
21:
12:
11:
5:
600:
590:
589:
584:
570:
569:
563:on 2005-12-20.
529:(1986-07-01).
523:
481:
468:
426:
378:
375:
374:
373:
368:
363:
356:
353:
347:
344:
334:
331:
318:
315:
305:
302:
272:
269:
250:
247:
243:
239:
236:
233:
228:
225:
221:
217:
214:
185:
182:
177:
174:
153:
150:
120:
117:
82:
81:
39:external links
28:
26:
19:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
599:
588:
585:
583:
580:
579:
577:
567:
562:
558:
554:
550:
546:
542:
538:
537:
532:
528:
524:
520:
516:
512:
508:
504:
500:
496:
492:
491:
486:
482:
480:
476:
472:
469:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
441:
438:(in German).
437:
436:
431:
430:Renninger, M.
427:
425:
419:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
395:
392:(in German).
391:
390:
385:
384:Renninger, M.
381:
380:
372:
369:
367:
364:
362:
359:
358:
352:
343:
341:
330:
328:
324:
314:
311:
301:
299:
295:
291:
287:
283:
279:
268:
264:
248:
245:
241:
237:
234:
231:
226:
223:
219:
215:
212:
203:
202:nuclear decay
199:
194:
191:
181:
173:
169:
165:
161:
159:
149:
146:
142:
138:
134:
133:cloud chamber
130:
126:
116:
114:
110:
105:
101:
97:
93:
89:
78:
75:
67:
57:
53:
47:
46:
40:
36:
32:
27:
18:
17:
565:
561:the original
540:
534:
494:
488:
485:Dicke, R. H.
478:
474:
439:
433:
393:
387:
349:
336:
320:
307:
278:Mott problem
274:
265:
195:
187:
179:
170:
166:
162:
155:
125:Mott problem
122:
113:Mott problem
91:
85:
70:
61:
50:Please help
42:
310:diffraction
304:Diffraction
290:pure states
286:mixed state
104:measurement
56:introducing
576:Categories
377:References
557:0034-6861
519:0002-9505
464:123027469
456:1434-6001
418:123122734
410:1434-6001
246:−
238:−
232:≃
224:−
216:−
190:half-life
129:alpha ray
355:See also
141:Max Born
64:May 2008
499:Bibcode
325:) or a
323:fermion
193:ray.
52:improve
555:
517:
462:
454:
416:
408:
327:photon
90:, the
460:S2CID
414:S2CID
94:is a
37:, or
553:ISSN
515:ISSN
452:ISSN
406:ISSN
139:and
123:The
102:and
545:doi
507:doi
444:doi
440:158
398:doi
394:136
115:.
86:In
578::
551:.
541:58
539:.
533:.
513:.
505:.
495:49
493:.
473:,
458:.
450:.
412:.
404:.
300:.
249:12
242:10
227:40
41:,
33:,
568:.
547::
521:.
509::
501::
466:.
446::
420:.
400::
284:(
235:1
220:2
213:1
77:)
71:(
66:)
62:(
48:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.