4 ms·

> if it interacted with a force and no observation was made Consider the classic two-slit interference experiment. Whether the electron goes through the left o

by a1369209993 6y ago

> if it interacted with a force and no observation was made Consider the classic two-slit interference experiment. Whether the electron goes through the left or right slit can be treated a single qubit. Use a controlled-NOT gate to copy that qubit onto a second storage location, without observing either. Optionally drop the second qubit into a black hole to head off any claims about supposed future observations. Allow the electron to continue. Do you still observe interference pattens as in the non-copying version of the experiment? Why or why not?

aeternum 6y ago
Interesting throught experiment. I believe you would still see the interference since there are still two possible paths. Using the word copy in conjunction with C-NOT is slightly misleading as the copies do not behave independently. Tongue-in-cheek explanation: Maybe whoever wrote our simulation used shallow copy when they should have done a deep copy.
- a1369209993 6y ago
  > Using the word copy in conjunction with C-NOT is slightly misleading as the copies do not behave independently. That's what the word "copy" means. If you flip a coin and copy that bit, you will observe that those copies do not behave independently either. If you want independent bits, flip two coins. Similarly, "erasing" a (qu)bit technically consists of performing a exchange operation between it and a known-zero bit. In typical electronic computers, this would generally involve diffusion-like exchanges between the voltage level in a memory capacitor (such as a FET gate) and that on the GND rail, which has a much greater effective number of bits and therefore will stay mostly zero, but eventually requires a thermodynamic expenditure of known-valued bits (aka negentropy) from some external source to maintain its voltage level / bit zeroness. (This is rather simplified; there's lots of other sources of known-zero and known-one bits getting depleted and replenished, and the exact accounting depends on how you interpret various physical states information-theoretically.)
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    > In typical electronic computers, That should have had a "for example" in front.
  - aeternum 6y ago
    Calling it a copy seems to me to violate QM's no cloning theorem, but maybe it's just that we have slightly different definitions of 'copy'.
    - a1369209993 6y ago
      The no cloning theorem is just the rigorous quantum mechanical version of the fact that if you flip a coin and write down the result, then copy what you just wrote down, you don't get two independent coin flips.

aeternum 6y ago

Interesting throught experiment. I believe you would still see the interference since there are still two possible paths. Using the word copy in conjunction with C-NOT is slightly misleading as the copies do not behave independently. Tongue-in-cheek explanation: Maybe whoever wrote our simulation used shallow copy when they should have done a deep copy.

a1369209993 6y ago
> Using the word copy in conjunction with C-NOT is slightly misleading as the copies do not behave independently. That's what the word "copy" means. If you flip a coin and copy that bit, you will observe that those copies do not behave independently either. If you want independent bits, flip two coins. Similarly, "erasing" a (qu)bit technically consists of performing a exchange operation between it and a known-zero bit. In typical electronic computers, this would generally involve diffusion-like exchanges between the voltage level in a memory capacitor (such as a FET gate) and that on the GND rail, which has a much greater effective number of bits and therefore will stay mostly zero, but eventually requires a thermodynamic expenditure of known-valued bits (aka negentropy) from some external source to maintain its voltage level / bit zeroness. (This is rather simplified; there's lots of other sources of known-zero and known-one bits getting depleted and replenished, and the exact accounting depends on how you interpret various physical states information-theoretically.)
- a1369209993 6y ago
  > In typical electronic computers, That should have had a "for example" in front.
- aeternum 6y ago
  Calling it a copy seems to me to violate QM's no cloning theorem, but maybe it's just that we have slightly different definitions of 'copy'.
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    The no cloning theorem is just the rigorous quantum mechanical version of the fact that if you flip a coin and write down the result, then copy what you just wrote down, you don't get two independent coin flips.