This question is a reaction to the fact that some authors hold that the interaction between a microscopic object with a macroscopic object, leads to an entanglement between the states of the microscopic object and states of the macroscopic object. My opinion is that such an entanglement is impossible.

I recommend as auxiliary material the discussion

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_quantum_structure_of_a_particle_detector_containing_a_gas_obeying_Maxwell-Boltzman_statistics

THE EXPERIMENT: From a pair of down-conversion photons, the signal photon illuminates the non-ballanced beam-splitter BS1 - see the attached figure. The idler photon is sent to a detector E (not shown) for heralding the presence of the signal photon in the apparatus. The signal photon exits BS1 as a superposition

(1) |1>s → t|1>a |0>b + ir|0>a |1>b , t2 + r2 = 1.

On each one of the paths is placed an absorbing detector, respectively A and B. The figure shows that the wave-packet |1>a reaches the detector A before |1>b reaches the detector B. Let |A0> ( |B0> ) be the non excited state of the detector A (B), and |Ae> ( |Be> ) the excited state after absorbing a photon.

Some physicists claim that the evolution of the signal photon through the detector A can be written as

(2) |A0> |1>s → (t|Ae> |0>b + ir|A0> |1>b) |0>a .

I claim that this expression is impossible, for a couple of reasons.

1) Are the states |A0> and |Ae> pure quantum states, or mixtures? I claim that a macroscopic object cannot have a pure quantum state, it can be in a mixture of pure states, all compatible with the macroscopic parameters. As supporting material see the discussion recommended above, and also the Feynman theory of path integral - the macroscopic limit.

2) In continuation, when the wave-packet |1>b meets the detector B, the state (2) should evolve into

(3) |A0> |B0> |1>s → (t |Ae> |B0> + ir |A0> |Be>) |0>a |0>b

= (t |Ae> |B0> + irt |Ae> |Be> - irt |Ae> |Be> + ir |A0> |Be>) |0>a |0>b

= [ t |Ae>( |B0> + ir |Be>) + ir|Be> ( |A0> - t |Ae>)].

That is similar with the following situation: if the cat A says "miaw" the cat B remains in the superposition ( |cat B dead> + ir |cat B alive>), and if the cat B says "miaw" the cat A remains in the superposition ( |cat A dead> - t |cat A alive>),

Did somebody see cats in such situations?

More Sofia D. Wechsler's questions See All
Similar questions and discussions