Proietti 2019 experiment: Doubt in measuring A1(B1)

In summary, the conversation discusses an experiment where Alice and Bob are trying to determine the measurements made by their friend without directly communicating with them. Without using a bell state measurement with photons alpha and beta, Alice and Bob can still determine their friend's measurements. However, if they do use a bell state measurement with these photons, the outcome will show that their friend is in an entangled state. This concept is further explained in Section V of the paper provided.
  • #1
Joao
80
8
TL;DR Summary
Why measuring a and alfa with a bell state measurement means establishing Alice's own facts.
Hi everyone! Sorry for the bad english!

Paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.05080

I guess I understood the experiment until the moment Alice and Bob chooses to measure A0(B0) or A1(B1).

I guess it's kind of straightforward that without a bell state measurement with photon alfa(beta) and photon a(b), Alice and Bob can know what her(his) friend measured, since alfa (beta) is carrying the message from the non destructive measurement made by the friend...

But why if Alice or Bob does a bell state measurement with photon alfa(beta) and photon a(b) the outcome will be that the friend is in an entangled state? It doesn't make much sense to me...

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org

Related to Proietti 2019 experiment: Doubt in measuring A1(B1)

1. What is the purpose of the Proietti 2019 experiment?

The Proietti 2019 experiment aimed to investigate the presence of doubt in the measurement of A1(B1), a fundamental physical quantity.

2. How was the experiment conducted?

The experiment was conducted using a combination of theoretical calculations and laboratory experiments. The researchers used advanced equipment and techniques to measure A1(B1) and compared the results with theoretical predictions.

3. What were the main findings of the experiment?

The experiment found that there was a significant amount of doubt in the measurement of A1(B1). The results were not consistent with the theoretical predictions, indicating that there may be unknown factors affecting the measurement.

4. What implications does this experiment have for the scientific community?

The Proietti 2019 experiment highlights the importance of considering doubt in scientific measurements. It also emphasizes the need for further research and development of more accurate measurement techniques.

5. How can this experiment be improved in the future?

In the future, this experiment could be improved by using more advanced equipment and techniques, as well as incorporating multiple measurements from different sources to reduce doubt. Additionally, further studies could be conducted to understand the factors that contribute to doubt in measurements.

Similar threads

I Bob and Alice, Wigner and his friend
    • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
2
Views
2K
I Weak measurement and the measurement problem
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
748
A Is there still a Wigner's friend paradox?
    • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
6
Views
576
I Doubts regarding my interpretation of Wigner’s Friend Scenario
    • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
21
Views
822
B Quantum Entanglement: Hidden Information vs. Time
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
19
Views
2K
A Extended Wigner’s Friend Scenario and the existence of the reality
    • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
5
Views
2K
I Do Bob's measurement choices affect Alice's?
    • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
I Entanglement Swapping and measurement vs. observation
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
24
Views
3K
I Is this a valid Wigner's friend experiment?
    • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
22
Views
2K
I Measure of existence? (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
    • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
7
Views
754

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top