Physics Forums

Physics Forums (http://www.physicsforums.com/index.php)
-   Quantum Physics (http://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=62)
-   -   Mandel & Faster than Light Communication ? (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=76664)

ShalomShlomo May23-05 05:20 PM

Mandel & Faster than Light Communication ?
 
In Mandel et Al's most famous experiment (Fig 6 at ‎[url]http://student.science.nus.edu.sg/~g0203645/Atomic%20Molecular%20and%20Optical%20Physics/Quantum%20effects%20in%20one-photon%20and%20two-‎photon%20interference.pdf) the signal beams from two coherent downconverters are ‎observed to interfere only if the two corresponding idler beams are allowed to ‎interfere.‎

Let's say that the a blocking object is inserted or removed in front of idler beam 1 at ‎point A. Let us also say that the signal beams are detected at point B.‎
The direct distance between A and B is x light seconds, and the distance travelled by ‎the idler 1 light beam from the 1 downconverter plus the distance travelled by the ‎signal 1 beam from the 1 downconverter to B is y light seconds.‎

When the object is inserted/removed at A, how long does it take for the interference ‎pattern at B to disappear/appear ?‎

Is it
‎1) Instantaneously
‎2) x seconds later, or‎
‎3) y seconds later ?‎

‎(I know that the detector needs to move back and forth to see interference patterns, ‎but assume it can move back and forth and record very quickly).‎

The above is question 1.‎

Question 2:‎
Since light travels at the speed of light, and from Relativity, something travelling at ‎the speed of light experiences simultaneously different times (unlike all less-than-‎light-speed particles/waves), does it make any sense to say that light communicates ‎and interferes with itself at what an outside inertial observer would call different ‎times, due to those different times being experienced by the light beam ‎simultaneously (ie can General Relativity's understanding of the light beams ‎experience of simultaneous time explain some of the Quantum results seen in ‎Question 1) ?‎
‎(and is there a good [very] basic paper which explains the link ?)‎

werty May25-05 03:29 AM

The link didnt seem to work for me, but its sound like it might be the usual delayed choice experiment, which cant be used for faster then light communication.

Furhermore I was under the impression that things moving with the speed of light didnt experience time at all, since they follow delta tau = 0 lines, eg their clocks dont ever change, time is standin still for these things.

ShalomShlomo May25-05 09:25 AM

That's not quite right.

Bell showed that communication does travel faster than light, but we just can't use that random-to-random communication to piggyback any information on.

Here's another URL to the same paper - See Fig 6:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start...nce.pdf&e=9707
IFABOVEDOESN'TWORKTHENUSEwww.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://student.science.nus.edu.sg/~g0203645/Atomic%2520Molecular%2520and%2520Optical%2520Physics/Quantum%2520effects%2520in%2520one-photon%2520and%2520two-photon%2520interference.pdf&e=9707

But in Mandel's now classically quoted experiment, blocking Idler beam 1 does cause a noticeable change elsewhere at the Signal detector where the interference pattern disappears.

What is the time gap between blocking the idler path, and noticing the signal interference pattern disappearing.

Is it

1] Instantaneous (like Bohm's pilot wave) - but this has been proven impossible by Eberhard in similar but not identical cases

2] The direct straight line distance between the cause and effect. Cause is the place where the idler beam is blocked, and effect is the signal beam detector (A & B in my previous post)

3] The actual distance travelled by the light beams between the cause and effect (which is longer than 2] as the light beams take a tortuous route in the experiment - this is the sum of two paths, the idler beam from downconverter to block, and the signal beam from downconverter to detector).

or 4] The distance between where the two idler beams would have first met each other on the one hand, and the effect on the other. This is similar to 3], but with an addition - ie this is the sum of two paths, the idler beam from downconverter to the point it would have first met the other idler beam, and the signal beam from downconverter to detector. After all, according to Mandel, it is the idler beams meeting each other and destroying latent information which allows the interference pattern to occur at the signal detector. (missed this one out the first time).

We can gain (can we not) significant understanding of the 'spooky' quantum effect by determining if the answer is 2), 3) or 4).

Can anyone help me understand which it is.

ShalomShlomo

DrChinese May25-05 10:43 AM

Quote:

Quote by ShalomShlomo
2] The direct straight line distance between the cause and effect. Cause is the place where the idler beam is blocked, and effect is the signal beam detector (A & B in my previous post)

The effect you describe travels no faster than c. So case 2 is the correct answer.

It is easy to be confused by the description of the setup. Because it is fundamental that the signal and idler paths are co-mingled. You must also consider that the idler detector plays a role.

In all of the cases Mandel describes in which it appears something happens FTL, you will find that coincidences are an issue - so it is not FTL communication. In all of the cases in which the behavior does not require comparing results from signal and idler, the communication is at c or less.

ShalomShlomo May25-05 01:19 PM

Quote:

Quote by DrChinese
The effect you describe travels no faster than c. So case 2 is the correct answer.

It is easy to be confused by the description of the setup. Because it is fundamental that the signal and idler paths are co-mingled. You must also consider that the idler detector plays a role.

Thanks.

But NO on two counts.

1) Mandel has shown that the Idler detector plays no part in what occurs. It is only the theoretical threat of detection, irrespective of whether the detector is there or not, that makes the Signal interference pattern appear or disappear.

2) Bell showed that we live in a non-local universe. Somehow, entanglement is causing FTL communication, it is just a communication that we can never use to send information.

Was your answer 2 based on dogma, or do you have a model to explain why the answer should be 2.

I have a feeling the answer is one of the options other than 2 (2 makes least sense if you think about it).

Looking forward to your reply

ShalomShlomo

DrChinese May25-05 01:55 PM

Quote:

Quote by ShalomShlomo
Thanks.

But NO on two counts.

1) Mandel has shown that the Idler detector plays no part in what occurs. It is only the theoretical threat of detection, irrespective of whether the detector is there or not, that makes the Signal interference pattern appear or disappear.

2) Bell showed that we live in a non-local universe. Somehow, entanglement is causing FTL communication, it is just a communication that we can never use to send information.

Was your answer 2 based on dogma, or do you have a model to explain why the answer should be 2.

I have a feeling the answer is one of the options other than 2 (2 makes least sense if you think about it).

Looking forward to your reply

ShalomShlomo

Well, look... This is a system. It is a bit difficult to artifically dissect it as you are attempting. Your "choices" are confusing, so I tried to pick one that came as close as possible. The blocking must occur prior to the detection for the interference pattern to be eliminated. Turning on and off the blocking does not allow you to change the pattern faster than c. So if you are trying to assert something specific, please just go ahead and say it.

The fact is that there is no known or demonstrable FTL signalling occurring in any of the experiments Mandel describes in this paper. It MIGHT be acceptable to say there is an FTL effect, although that is certainly debatable too. The standard dogma, of course, is that there is instantaneous collapse of the wave function relating the two photons. These experiments do not describe any new effects over and above what you could have predicted years ago. They do repackage it nicely so that variations on quantum behavior can be studied in more detail using the entangled photons.

chronon May25-05 02:26 PM

I would say that the correct answer is (3). Although the system may be quantum in nature, the interference or lack of it can be explained in terms of wave optics.

ShalomShlomo May25-05 03:07 PM

Quote:

Quote by DrChinese
Turning on and off the blocking does not allow you to change the pattern faster than c.

Who says ? If you are you relying on Eberhard's proof, then is it valid to this case ? Aspect's experiment seems to indicate that your understanding doesn't match out what quantum reality has to offer.
Quote:

Quote by DrChinese
The standard dogma, of course, is that there is instantaneous collapse of the wave function relating the two photons.

You have put your finger on the problem. Instantaneous for the two photons, which are at two non-identical positions (ie space divided), means FTL !
That was exactly Bell's 1964 revolution.
Quote:

Quote by chronon
I would say that the correct answer is (3). Although the system may be quantum in nature, the interference or lack of it can be explained in terms of wave optics.

Sorry. No way. The world we live in is much stranger than that. Look at Mandel's experiments and results. Changing something at A (blocking one beam) changes another beam at B which has absolutely no connection by wave optics at all to A. This bears no relation to wave optics whatsoever. I wish the world we lived in was that simple.

So, does anyone have an answer from 1, 2, 3 or 4 ? Thanks if you do

ShalomShlomo

werty May25-05 03:51 PM

Bell and Aspects exeperiments show (if you trust em, which I do) that "local reality" is nonexistent, they dont show that any signals travel faster then light, eg they dont show that there is a non-local reality just that there arent a combined "local reality", there might be a local nonreality :). Furthermore since these exeperiments (Mandell etc) all follow the laws of QM they must all obey the reduced density matrix idea, that is all that one can locally know about a system is encoded in the reduced density matrix, which in turn is independent of anything you do to the other parts of the system, since that part has been traced out. So if there is indeed FTL between the particles, which hasnt been shown to take place, it can never be used to send any information faster than light. Atleast according to QM, and relativity ofcourse. Since the relativity principle nowadays says that you cant send information faster then light. Signals can go FTL, but you cant use them to anything "usefull" =). Also its interessting to note that since we cant send information faster than light we can never observe or in otherways assertain that particles communicate FTL, we cant catch em in the act so to speak. For if we could, we could use it to send information FTL.

DrChinese May25-05 04:44 PM

Quote:

Quote by ShalomShlomo
Who says ? If you are you relying on Eberhard's proof, then is it valid to this case ? Aspect's experiment seems to indicate that your understanding doesn't match out what quantum reality has to offer.

Your Mandel question is completely equivalent to asking how fast an interference pattern disappears when one of the two slits is blocked in a traditional double-slit setup. There is absolutely no difference in how the interference occurs - it is a superposition of 2 possible paths to the signal detector.

Eberhard's proof has nothing to do with the matter that I can see. The question you are asking can be experimentally tested.

I do not follow the reference to Aspect. Aspect showed that Bell's Inequality is violated. What am I missing?

DrChinese May25-05 04:55 PM

Quote:

Quote by chronon
I would say that the correct answer is (3). Although the system may be quantum in nature, the interference or lack of it can be explained in terms of wave optics.

Reading the answers again, yeah maybe 3 is better. Anyway, as you say, this is essentially classical at this point and there is nothing weird going on between the blocking and the detection.

ShalomShlomo May25-05 05:10 PM

Quote:

Quote by werty
Furthermore since these exeperiments (Mandell etc) all follow the laws of QM they must all obey the reduced density matrix idea

Assuming the reduced density matrix is a full and correct description of quantum mechanics - which it might not be.

Either way, which is the answer ? 1, 2, 3 or 4 ?

ShalomShlomo

p.s.: And I wish I could change the title of this thread. FTL communication was meant to imply, as in Bell's Proof, that the measurement of the wave-function at a point A simultaneously changes the wave-function of an entangled photon at some other space-separated point B, causing observable results. I know we can't send information on this change, but the change happens.

DrChinese May25-05 09:01 PM

Quote:

Quote by ShalomShlomo
...the measurement of the wave-function at a point A simultaneously changes the wave-function of an entangled photon at some other space-separated point B, causing observable results. I know we can't send information on this change, but the change happens.

This is standard CI, so who is questioning this? And what does this have to do with the experiment you are referencing? Shouldn't we be talking about an Aspect-like experiment?

vanesch May25-05 10:57 PM

Quote:

Quote by ShalomShlomo
But in Mandel's now classically quoted experiment, blocking Idler beam 1 does cause a noticeable change elsewhere at the Signal detector where the interference pattern disappears.

What is the time gap between blocking the idler path, and noticing the signal interference pattern disappearing.

Can you point out exactly which set up you are talking about ? Usually, in order to see "signal beam interference", you need to subselect a signal beam image by an idler detection in one way or another.

cheers,
Patrick.

ShalomShlomo May26-05 12:44 AM

Quote:

Quote by DrChinese
Your Mandel question is completely equivalent to asking how fast an interference pattern disappears when one of the two slits is blocked in a traditional double-slit setup.

Interesting analogy. But when blocking one of two slits, we understand that light already through the blocked slit continues to propagate to the detector, and interference-effects only disappear once the time taken for those waves to arrive have been reached. We have a well defined and well understood model for the disappearance of the interference pattern.
Quote:

Quote by DrChinese
Reading the answers again, yeah maybe 3 is better. Anyway, as you say, this is essentially classical at this point and there is nothing weird going on between the blocking and the detection.

Classical !? Whilst we know the blocking of the idler beam propagates to the Signal detector, since we see the interference pattern disappear, we have no model to discover along which route or how soon the cause propagates to the effect ! And you are just guessing by your answers first of 2), and now of 3).

Can you come up with a model justifying answer 1, 2, 3 or 4 ?

ShalomShlomo

ShalomShlomo May26-05 12:49 AM

Quote:

Quote by vanesch
Can you point out exactly which set up you are talking about ? Usually, in order to see "signal beam interference", you need to subselect a signal beam image by an idler detection in one way or another.

Vanesch, the experiment is pretty fully detailed at:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start...nce.pdf&e=9707
IFABOVEDOESN'TWORKTHENUSEwww.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://student.science.nus.edu.sg/~g0203645/Atomic%2520Molecular%2520and%2520Optical%2520Physi cs/Quantum%2520effects%2520in%2520one-photon%2520and%2520two-photon%2520interference.pdf&e=9707

See Fig 6 and the text there.

ShalomShlomo

werty May26-05 01:19 AM

Quote:

Quote by ShalomShlomo
Assuming the reduced density matrix is a full and correct description of quantum mechanics - which it might not be.

Either way, which is the answer ? 1, 2, 3 or 4 ?

ShalomShlomo

p.s.: And I wish I could change the title of this thread. FTL communication was meant to imply, as in Bell's Proof, that the measurement of the wave-function at a point A simultaneously changes the wave-function of an entangled photon at some other space-separated point B, causing observable results. I know we can't send information on this change, but the change happens.

I don't know what the time gap is, maybe we can say that detection of the path of the idler photon causes immediate collapse and so destroys interference, however I don't like to do that since I feel that it implies that the particles are little balls with FTL intercom. I don't know what they are and I don't think anyone do. We only know how they behave, what will happen in experiments (roughly). There is also the problem of determining when interference have disappeared, you cant do it with only one detection, can you do it with two !? I think that any answer to how long it takes for the interference to disappear has to do with ones idea of what is going on, so it hard to use these answers to figure out what is going on :uhh: Eg. if you use somekind of wave model than the interference occurs only at the detector and thus the interference is destroyed when one of the waves fails to show up. If you use the particle model, than the interference can be said to be destroyed when the path of the idler photon is detected, collapse is immediate. :smile:

werty May26-05 01:30 AM

One can also say that interference is destroyed at the moment you decide what experiment to do. This as DrChinese said where similar to the standard two slit experiment. People have tried every imaginable thing to try to fool the photon into giving up what path they took and still have interference. It seems the photon are smarter than us.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014 Physics Forums