This actually may be a good place to use the machinery of the Copenhagen interpretation—amount of entanglement between the electron and the photon is exactly what you’re trying to describe, and should (notably) give you the interference pattern regardless of amount of entanglement as long as you’re entangling things but not measuring them yourself. Measuring the partially-entangled photon will then give you a mixed state on the electron that changes the interference pattern in exactly the right way.
I think this is wrong. If you entangle the photons with the electron, even if you don’t measure them, you won’t see an interference pattern.
You can create as many photons as you want, each entangled with the original one. The no-cloning theorem says that you can’t create 1000 unentangled but identical photons. Actually, you can even create 1000 unentangled copies of a starting photon if you know that it is initially in one of two orthogonal states.
Any reversible (by which I mean not leaking heat to outside) process should entangle the photon and the electron, leading to the consequences I described. This condition is a fairly reasonable way to read your post, but apparently not what you intended—you intended a non-reversible process, which has the consequences you describe, and explains how an apparently uninformed observer would see the interference pattern go away: the information leaked out.
I think this is wrong. If you entangle the photons with the electron, even if you don’t measure them, you won’t see an interference pattern.
It’s possible I’m wrong. Sadly, I’d have to actually do the math to demonstrate it with entanglement, and I am feeling astoundingly lazy right now. Probably less lazy tomorrow.
You can create as many photons as you want, each entangled with the original one. The no-cloning theorem says that you can’t create 1000 unentangled but identical photons.
Hmm, you’re right that if it’s only along 1 of 2 axes the theorem wouldn’t apply, since you could just measure it. I guess this would only apply to an actual electron-photon entanglement process that could output a mixture of horizontal and vertical. Since just having it be discrete requires realio trulio measuring the electron, that would seem to support it destroying the interference pattern, too.
Because things are reversible, electron->photon means that photon->electron is also possible. So you could take a photon, have it talk to an electron, and then create 1000 photons. That sounds bad.
This actually may be a good place to use the machinery of the Copenhagen interpretation—amount of entanglement between the electron and the photon is exactly what you’re trying to describe, and should (notably) give you the interference pattern regardless of amount of entanglement as long as you’re entangling things but not measuring them yourself. Measuring the partially-entangled photon will then give you a mixed state on the electron that changes the interference pattern in exactly the right way.
Also, you can’t create 1000 photons because of the no-cloning theorem.
I think this is wrong. If you entangle the photons with the electron, even if you don’t measure them, you won’t see an interference pattern.
You can create as many photons as you want, each entangled with the original one. The no-cloning theorem says that you can’t create 1000 unentangled but identical photons. Actually, you can even create 1000 unentangled copies of a starting photon if you know that it is initially in one of two orthogonal states.
Okay, after some consideration:
Any reversible (by which I mean not leaking heat to outside) process should entangle the photon and the electron, leading to the consequences I described. This condition is a fairly reasonable way to read your post, but apparently not what you intended—you intended a non-reversible process, which has the consequences you describe, and explains how an apparently uninformed observer would see the interference pattern go away: the information leaked out.
It’s possible I’m wrong. Sadly, I’d have to actually do the math to demonstrate it with entanglement, and I am feeling astoundingly lazy right now. Probably less lazy tomorrow.
Hmm, you’re right that if it’s only along 1 of 2 axes the theorem wouldn’t apply, since you could just measure it. I guess this would only apply to an actual electron-photon entanglement process that could output a mixture of horizontal and vertical. Since just having it be discrete requires realio trulio measuring the electron, that would seem to support it destroying the interference pattern, too.
Huh? Doesn’t no-cloning say I can’t create 1000 photons each identical to a given starting photon? This is not the same claim.
Because things are reversible, electron->photon means that photon->electron is also possible. So you could take a photon, have it talk to an electron, and then create 1000 photons. That sounds bad.
Though maybe I’m wrong.