Observe an unstable quantum system frequently enough and its decay slows, and in the limit of continuous observation stops altogether. This is measurement-induced state freezing — the quantum Zeno effect, the physicist's "a watched pot never boils." It was named by Misra and Sudarshan (1977) and measured by Itano, Heinzen, Bollinger and Wineland in a ion trap (1990). It is standard, established quantum mechanics and is not in dispute. This paper does three things. (i) It restates, from first principles and with a numerical runner, why the effect exists at all: it is a statement about the exponent of the short-time survival law, and about nothing else. Frequent projective measurement can suppress a loss that grows quadratically in time (a coherent two-state amplitude, survival ), and cannot suppress a loss that grows linearly in time (a memoryless classical rate, survival ). (ii) It reports the two cases side by side, matched to agree when unwatched and then watched, together with a fitted short-time exponent — 1.9999 for the coherent case, 0.9967 for the classical case — and a "look but do not reset" control. (iii) In a clearly labelled interpretive section it examines the Temporal Dynamics Framework's account of the effect and shows that this account is a fork: the framework's fundamental object [the flip — in standard vocabulary a two-state transition of the underlying oscillation, which may be read either as a coherent amplitude or as a classical rate] must be committed to one reading, and the two readings give opposite answers. Only the coherent reading reproduces Zeno. This record holds one paper on its own and is refreshed every couple of months. The complete deposit, 10.5281/zenodo.21788037, holds every paper with its code and data and is updated first; for the newest version of this paper, go there.
Observe an unstable quantum system frequently enough and its decay slows, and in the limit of continuous observation stops altogether. This is measurement-induced state freezing — the quantum Zeno effect, the physicist's "a watched pot never boils." It was named by Misra and Sudarshan (1977) and measured by Itano, Heinzen, Bollinger and Wineland in a ion trap (1990). It is standard, established quantum mechanics and is not in dispute. This paper does three things. (i) It restates, from first principles and with a numerical runner, why the effect exists at all: it is a statement about the exponent of the short-time survival law, and about nothing else. Frequent projective measurement can suppress a loss that grows quadratically in time (a coherent two-state amplitude, survival ), and cannot suppress a loss that grows linearly in time (a memoryless classical rate, survival ). (ii) It reports the two cases side by side, matched to agree when unwatched and then watched, together with a fitted short-time exponent — 1.9999 for the coherent case, 0.9967 for the classical case — and a "look but do not reset" control. (iii) In a clearly labelled interpretive section it examines the Temporal Dynamics Framework's account of the effect and shows that this account is a fork: the framework's fundamental object [the flip — in standard vocabulary a two-state transition of the underlying oscillation, which may be read either as a coherent amplitude or as a classical rate] must be committed to one reading, and the two readings give opposite answers. Only the coherent reading reproduces Zeno. This record holds one paper on its own and is refreshed every couple of months. The complete deposit, 10.5281/zenodo.21788037, holds every paper with its code and data and is updated first; for the newest version of this paper, go there.
Introduction Quantum theory predicts the striking and paradoxical result that when a system is continuously watched, it does not evolve! Although this effect was noticed much earlier by a number of people [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], it was first formally stated by Misra and Sudarshan [151] and given the appellation ‘Zeno's paradox’ because it evokes the famous paradox of Zeno denying the possibility of motion to a flying arrow. It is as startling as a pot of water on a heater that refuses to boil when continuously watched. This is why it is also called the ‘watched pot effect’. The effect is the result of repeated, frequent measurements on the system, each measurement projecting the system back to its initial state. In other words, the wave function of the system must repeatedly collapse. It is also necessary that the time interval between successive measurements must be much shorter than the critical time of coherent evolution of the system, called the Zeno time [152]. For decays this Zeno time is the time of coherent evolution before the irreversible exponential decay sets in, and is governed by the reciprocal of the range of energies accessible to the decay products. For most decays this is extremely short and hard to detect [153]. In the case of non-exponential time evolution, the relevant Zeno time can be much longer.
As of October 2006, there were approximately 535 citations to the seminal 1977 paper of Misra and Sudarshan that pointed out the quantum Zeno paradox (more often called the quantum Zeno effect). In simple terms, the quantum Zeno effect refers to a slowing down of the evolution of a quantum state in the limit that the state is observed continuously. There has been much disagreement as to how the quantum Zeno effect should be defined and as to whether it is really a paradox, requiring new physics, or merely a consequence of "ordinary" quantum mechanics. The experiment of Itano, Heinzen, Bollinger, and Wineland, published in 1990, has been cited around 347 times and seems to be the one most often called a demonstration of the quantum Zeno effect. Given that there is disagreement as to what the quantum Zeno effect is , there naturally is disagreement as to whether that experiment demonstrated the quantum Zeno effect. Some differing perspectives regarding the quantum Zeno effect and what would constitute an experimental demonstration are discussed.
The term 'quantum Zeno paradox' or 'quantum Zeno effect' refers to the slowing down of the evolution of a quantum system as it is observed more and more frequently.In 1977, Misra and Sudarshan gave a theoretical demonstration of its existence.There has been disagreement regarding the definition of the effect and whether it is really a paradox, requiring new physics, or a consequence of ordinary quantum mechanics.The experiment of Itano, Heinzen, Bollinger and Wineland, published in 1990, is the one most often called a demonstration of the quantum Zeno effect.Some different interpretations are discussed.
Itano and co-workers [Wayne M. Itano, D. J. Heinzen, J. J. Bollinger, and D. J. Wineland, Phys. Rev. A 41, 2295 (1990)] have recently reported the experimental verification of the quantum Zeno effect, which is the inhibition of a quantum transition by frequent measurements. In this article, we offer an alternative interpretation of the quantum Zeno effect. We show that an analysis of the dynamics of the full three-level system gives the same result. There is no need to assume explicitly that the wave function has collapsed, nor even to assume that an ideal measurement has been made. In addition, we differentiate between what has been referred to as the quantum Zeno effect and what has been termed the quantum Zeno paradox. The former is the inhibition of induced transitions, and the latter is the, as yet experimentally unobserved, inhibition of spontaneous decay. Our interpretation, which emphasizes the ``measurement''-induced interruption of atomic-state coherences as the cause of inhibited quantum transitions, suggests a resolution to the quantum Zeno paradox. The theoretical limit of continuous observation is discussed.
The quantum Zeno effect consists in the hindrance of the evolution of a quantum system that is very frequently monitored and found to be in its initial state at every single measurement. On the basis of the correct formula for the survival probability, i.e. the probability of finding the system in its initial state at every single measurement, we critically analyze a recent proposal and experimental test, that make use of an oscillating system. PACS: 03.65.Bz, 42.50.-p 1 The seminal formulation of the quantum Zeno effect, due to Misra and Sudarshan [1], deals with the probability of observing an unstable system in its initial state throughout a time interval ∆ = [0, t]. The purpose of this note is to point out that the quantum Zeno effect has not been experimentally observed, yet, in its original formulation. Indeed, we shall argue that the interesting proposal by Cook [2], that makes use of a two-level system undergoing Rabi oscillations, as well as the beautiful experiment performed by Itano et al. [3], investigate the probability of finding the
We present the physics of the quantum Zeno effect, whose gist is often expressed by invoking the adage "a watched pot never boils". We review aspects of the theoretical and experimental work done on the effect since its inception in 1977, and mention some applications. We dedicate the article - with our very best wishes - to Rudolf Zahradnik at the occasion of his great jubilee. Perhaps Rudolf's lasting youthfulness and freshness are due to that he himself had been frequently observed throughout his life: until the political turn-around in 1989 by those who wished, by their surveillance, to prevent Rudolf from spoiling the youth by his personal culture and his passion for science and things beautiful and useful in general. This attempt had failed. Out of gratitude, the youth has infected Rudolf with its youthfulness. Chronically. Since 1989, Rudolf has been closely watched by the public at large. For the same traits of his as before, but with the opposite goal and for the benefit of all generations. We relish keeping him in sight ...