Talk:Quantum Zeno effect

message: I suggest the definition:
In general, the Zeno effect can be defined as
Class of 
phenomena when a transition is suppressed by some 
interaction which allows the interpretation of the final state 
in terms of ‘‘a transition has not yet occured’’ or ‘‘a 
transition already occurred’’. In quantum mechanics, such 
an interaction is called ‘‘measurement’’ because its result can 
be interpreted in terms of classical mechanics. Frequent 
measurement prohibits the transition. 
If colleagues agree, let us put it a the main page.dima 11:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: http://www.physorg.com/news11087.html
Practical application of the QZE. I've checked around and it doesn't appear to be anything other than what it claims.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Father Shandor (talk • contribs) 12:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone looked at this? 

message: Apparently Alan Turing had something to say about zeno-like paradoxes.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing/#8
…‘the Turing Paradox’; it is easy to show using standard theory that if a system start in an eigenstate of some observable, and measurements are made of that observable N times a second, then, even if the state is not a stationary one, the probability that the system will be in the same state after, say, 1 second, tends to one as N tends to infinity; i.e. that continual observation will prevent motion. Alan and I tackled one or two theoretical physicists with this, and they rather pooh-poohed it by saying that continual observation is not possible. But there is nothing in the standard books (eg Dirac's) to this effect, so that at least the paradox shows up an inadequacy of Quantum Theory as usually presented.
Has anyone explored this connection? 129.7.57.101 02:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection with Turing? 

message: We need a short paragraph about application of Zeno effect. with reference
Some enhancement of a chemical reaction, or some advanced detector based on the Zeno effect..— Preceding unsigned comment added by Domitori (talk • contribs) 01:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  aplication 

message: Does this explain why the rabbit never caught up with the tortoise?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.168.3.4 (talk) 06:15, 16 October 2006‎ (UTC)
:No, but it would explain why a watched pot never boils. —Długosz— Preceding unsigned comment added by Długosz (talk • contribs) 18:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analogy 

message: The cite
Petrosky offers a refutation of this experiment in Physica A 170 (1991) 306-325
is in a style, different from other cites. Could you check it and sullpy the link? dima 14:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petrovsky 

message: Someone might want to mention or reference
http://www.lysator.liu.se/~jc/zeno.qcl.html in the article. I'm the author, so I don't think i should include it myself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.57.245.11 (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  zeno.qcl 

message: :"However, its probability of collapsing into state B, after a very short amount of time t, is proportional to t², since probabilities are proportional to squared amplitudes, and amplitudes behave linearly,"  
from the section "Periodic Measurment of a Quantum System seems to imply that since the wave function is a function of t, the probability is a function of t^2 since hermetian operators are linear...  This makes absolutely no sense and should be removed.
The reason the probability of transition becomes a function of t^2 (as far as my understanding goes) has to do more with the nature of how that decay time is approximated for very small time scales.
Regardless, the statement "However, its probability of collapsing into state B, after a very short amount of time t, is proportional to t², since probabilities are proportional to squared amplitudes, and amplitudes behave linearly." Should be removed. DerwinUMD (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is both, actually. Embedded within the argument is the notion that the Hamiltonian is a linear operator, and for short times the time evolution operator exp(-iHt/hbar) can be expanded in a Taylor series truncated to first order: 1 - iHt/hbar. This can also be thought of as a small phase angle approximation . 69.140.12.180 (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quadradic Time Dependance of Decay Time  

message: Would it be possible to use the quantum Zeno effect (or the watchdog effect) in some way to prevent nuclei of polonium, astatine, or other radioactive elements from ever decaying at all? This would greatly expand the possible applications of these elements if it could be done (since it would effectively "add new stable elements" to the periodic table)? Stonemason89 (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stabilizing Radioactive Elements? 

message: The stuff about consciousness looks rather fringe to me.  Can it be toned down? 66.127.52.47 (talk) 05:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - as far as I'm aware, neurons are quite big, in a quantum sense - I've not heard that we expect them to decohere. 131.111.184.8 (talk) 10:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  consciousness 

message: Does one really need a section for this topic. I mean, it could be a separate article, pointing out the argument and counter-argument between the groups considering various hypotheses related to the significance of the quantum zeno paradox in cognitive science. Such a short description tends to confuse more than help create exposure, and in this particular case, is not much relevant to the article either.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.187.69 (talk) 07:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significance to cognitive science 

message: I like the fact that this is in plain language instead of mathematics, but it seems inconsistent to me. It is first stated that stronger coupling to the environment results in faster collapse. It is then stated that continuous coupling to the environment results in completely slow, or no collapse. Can someone who knows QM please fix this or else explain why it is consistent? Exactly when do obervations/measurements delay collapse and when do they speed it? Can the half-life of radium actually be increased and decreased experimentally, as is implied? David Spector (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible inconsistency in direct and inverse proportionalities 

message: I don't think that the provided quotation by Davies has anything to do with quantum Zeno effect. I think it does not bring anything useful to the discussion and may be deleted. Danko Georgiev (talk) 08:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: A summary of the situation is provided by Davies

message: It would improve the article if it could answer a simple question. Imagine a large lump of uranium. If a given atom decays and fissions, then it will affect nearby atoms, both by its emitted particles, and by its change in radius and momentum. So aren't those nearby atoms "observing" it, simply by being there?  Shouldn't this continuous observation prevent any lump from ever being radioactive?
An answer would greatly help the reader in understanding this subject.  Or, if that answer is currently unknown or debated, then that fact should be mentioned.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100D:B028:6C24:45CB:CD82:838F:D412 (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple Question 

message: I have removed this reference "Koshino" from the article and I have just replaced it by a "Citation needed" because the chapter at the end of which the reference was deals only with the interpretations of QM, while in this paper (PDF available online) there is no interpretational stuff. So this reference had nothing to do there.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jp.basuyaux (talk • contribs) 20:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretational stuff 

message: Substituted at 03:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Maybe it's just me who's not able to parse it, but I'm pretty sure it's grammatically or syntactically incorrect. At the very least it's way too long.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.193.200.213 (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence grammatically incorrect?  

message: I think several of the articles cited may be hoaxes, but this article is so badly written I can't tell what it's supposed to describe.  Turing's quote is about a property of statistics, and has nothing to do with observation frequency. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Which of the citing articles do you think are hoaxes? I'll take a closer look at them. Porphyro (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't believe "Anti-Zeno effect" is even well-defined, it's unclear to me how the overall situation it is described in is different from "nothing quantum happening at all".  is the article I think is possibly a hoax. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll take a look at it in the coming week and at least try to clean up the section if not remove it. Porphyro (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Hoax?

message: These people:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-leaps-long-assumed-to-be-instantaneous-take-time-20190605/
based on a paper here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1287-z
ought to have to take the quantum zeno effect into account, but we haven't been shown (without paying) how they do.
222.153.251.42 (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detecting progress through transitions 

message: I think it should be "slower", not "faster".--Reciprocist (talk) 09:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The stronger the coupling is, and the shorter the decoherence time, the faster it will collapse"