Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Question


by JPBenowitz
Tags: choice, delayed, eraser, quantum
San K
San K is offline
#19
Feb18-13, 09:07 AM
P: 915
Quote Quote by rkastner View Post
As the idler's state is collapsed at a particular detector, that influences the signal photon's detection probabilities; and vice versa. I explain this in detail in Chapter 5 of my book.

RK
Good point rkastner. May I add that:

The idler's state during collapse is not controllable/pre-determinable
rkastner
rkastner is offline
#20
Feb18-13, 01:04 PM
P: 158
San K: indeed.
alexepascual
alexepascual is offline
#21
Feb20-13, 08:33 PM
P: 338
Even though you can't decide the particular value you'll get for the observable you are measuring on the idler photon, you can decide which observable to measure. Don't you think that that would affect the statistics on the other side? Even if this was possible, given the fact that both measurement events are space-like, this sould not imply retrocausality, but it would imply faster-than-light signaling. I know most people think that in Dopfer's experiment coincidence counting is the only way to get an interference pattern, but I am not convinced yet.
alexepascual
alexepascual is offline
#22
Feb20-13, 08:42 PM
P: 338
Ruth, If after making a measurement, or having some quantum state recorded in a stable way (decoherence or "collapse" in the language of CI) you have a definite state, then the set of all these outcomes in the past, present and future could be mapped on a diagram, constituting what could be called "a block model". Wouldn't it ? This is if we think that there is only one outcome after measurement, which all one-world interpretations (not only TI) propose.
alexepascual
alexepascual is offline
#23
Feb20-13, 08:44 PM
P: 338
Quote Quote by rkastner View Post
Alex, I think the ability to send a signal superluminally wouldn't imply retrocausality as we've defined it here, because there is really no well-defined direction of the signal in a causal sense.
I agree. It happens that I have read some other places (I don't remember if it was on this forum or some article) people saying the opposite. So I was interested in knowing your opinion.
rkastner
rkastner is offline
#24
Feb20-13, 11:07 PM
P: 158
Quote Quote by alexepascual View Post
Even though you can't decide the particular value you'll get for the observable you are measuring on the idler photon, you can decide which observable to measure. Don't you think that that would affect the statistics on the other side? Even if this was possible, given the fact that both measurement events are space-like, this sould not imply retrocausality, but it would imply faster-than-light signaling. I know most people think that in Dopfer's experiment coincidence counting is the only way to get an interference pattern, but I am not convinced yet.
As far as I know, every time someone claims to have devised an experiment that could do this, there is a problem with it; e.g. a contribution has been disregarded as negligible that really isn't. You always need a coincidence count in order to see such statistics.

Regarding sending a signal into one's own past: in order to do this using FTL signalling you have to collaborate with someone in a different inertial frame, both parties using FTL signalling. Wiki has a pretty good discussion of this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_diagram (under 'speed of light as a limit'). The problem is that each observer just sends a FTL signal to the other observer based on their observation of an event, but they have have no way of knowing whether that event was a 'signal' or not.
rkastner
rkastner is offline
#25
Feb20-13, 11:11 PM
P: 158
Quote Quote by alexepascual View Post
Ruth, If after making a measurement, or having some quantum state recorded in a stable way (decoherence or "collapse" in the language of CI) you have a definite state, then the set of all these outcomes in the past, present and future could be mapped on a diagram, constituting what could be called "a block model". Wouldn't it ? This is if we think that there is only one outcome after measurement, which all one-world interpretations (not only TI) propose.
You can only put the determinate events on a ST diagram after the events have been actualized in spacetime. In my interpretation (PTI) the future really does not exist yet except as indeterminate possibilities and those are not spacetime entities. Since future events don't exist in spacetime you can't put them on a spacetime diagram. Similarly, any past situations that are not actualized (such as which path a photon took in a delayed choice experiment whose choice has not yet been made) cannot be put on a ST diagram either. This is an important issue and I discuss it in detail in Chapter 8 of my book.
alexepascual
alexepascual is offline
#26
Feb21-13, 07:48 AM
P: 338
Quote Quote by rkastner View Post
You can only put the determinate events on a ST diagram after the events have been actualized in spacetime. In my interpretation (PTI) the future really does not exist yet except as indeterminate possibilities and those are not spacetime entities. Since future events don't exist in spacetime you can't put them on a spacetime diagram. Similarly, any past situations that are not actualized (such as which path a photon took in a delayed choice experiment whose choice has not yet been made) cannot be put on a ST diagram either. This is an important issue and I discuss it in detail in Chapter 8 of my book.
Ruth, I think this would make a very interesting conversation. I will give you my point of view perhaps tomorrow because I have some personal problems to take care now. I'll also reply to your other post at that time. Thanks, --Alex--
alexepascual
alexepascual is offline
#27
Feb22-13, 07:16 AM
P: 338
Quote Quote by rkastner View Post
You can only put the determinate events on a ST diagram after the events have been actualized in spacetime. In my interpretation (PTI) the future really does not exist yet except as indeterminate possibilities and those are not spacetime entities. Since future events don't exist in spacetime you can't put them on a spacetime diagram. Similarly, any past situations that are not actualized (such as which path a photon took in a delayed choice experiment whose choice has not yet been made) cannot be put on a ST diagram either. This is an important issue and I discuss it in detail in Chapter 8 of my book.
Ruth, If you think that when a measurement is made and you get one of the possible outcomes, that represents an actualization and that is the only outcome that gets to be part of "reality" (if you don't have objections to using that word). We could imagine a universe composed of all those events. Even if there is no way for us to know what the events in the future will be, we know that each act of measurement will produce only one value for the observable being measured. In other words, we have two alternatives in representing the future 1) We look at "one history" or chain of events or 2) we can look at a branching scheme where all the possible outcomes of each measurement are included and each leads to different chain of events that in turn branch again when new "measurements" are made. I put "measurements" in quotes because actually we don't need a measurement carried by a physcisist in the lab but just an interaction between the quantum state with a macroscopic object that "collapses" the wave function. If you believe that a measurement produces only one eigenvalue, I don't see why we could not imagine a future that consists of all these unique autcomes, even if we can't predict now what the value will be.
We can also imagine that the weather this year will show some kind of definite evolution which we can't predict either. But we can imagine that at the end of the year we'll be able to put the actuall data in a diagram. We usually imagine a single future, not a series of possible ones. Of course if can consider the different alternatives and their probability in order to make some decision, such as what crop to plant now if that's what we do. But usually have the belief that the future will be one. I think that's the usual way to look at things. Of course there is the many-worlds interpretation where all possible paths of evolution count and are "real" and the consistent histories where we consider different histories but only one is part of reality. I'll appreciate your opinion on this and it would be nice to hear from Dr. Chinese.
alexepascual
alexepascual is offline
#28
Feb25-13, 10:47 AM
P: 338
Quote Quote by rkastner View Post
Alex, I think the ability to send a signal superluminally wouldn't imply retrocausality as we've defined it here, because there is really no well-defined direction of the signal in a causal sense.
I already expresed my agreement with this, but I would like to add that part of the difficulty here may reside in the fact that most people use the term causality without having a very clear definition. In classical physics, of course for something to be a "cause" it has to be in the past light cone of what is considered to be the "effect", but if someone talks about "retrocausality", then we are not considering that order in time as the main characteristic of causality. We usually think that between the cause and the effect there is some "mechanism" and usually we think in terms of locality or in other words "no action at a distance". But if we can't look at the "mechanism", then maybe we can find some useful definition of causality in terms of the type of correlation between cause and effect. This is something that I have not investigated by looking for articles on it, but I can imagine that it would also apply to analysis of causal connections in medicine, biology and other subjects. Probably one of the elements that we would consider is that the "effect" would show an increase in frequency when we use our "freedom of choice" or some quantum random number generator that we assume is not influenced by the "effect". Tweaking the "effect" by some means should not influence the statistics of the "cause". I know I have expressed this in a not very clear way. It is because I am pondering this as I write. Perhaps you or one of our friends in the forum can throw some more light on this.
rkastner
rkastner is offline
#29
Feb26-13, 10:15 PM
P: 158
Causality is a very slippery notion indeed. I do address this in Chapter 7 of my book.
alexepascual
alexepascual is offline
#30
Feb28-13, 10:32 AM
P: 338
Quote Quote by rkastner View Post
Causality is a very slippery notion indeed. I do address this in Chapter 7 of my book.
I won't be able for the moment to get a hold of your book. Maybe you could give us your point of view summarized in a few sentences.
Thanks,
--Alex--
rkastner
rkastner is offline
#31
Feb28-13, 12:51 PM
P: 158
you can find it here: http://transactionalinterpretation.org/

Scroll down a bit
DrChinese
DrChinese is offline
#32
Feb28-13, 01:02 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
DrChinese's Avatar
P: 5,146
Quote Quote by rkastner View Post
you can find it here: http://transactionalinterpretation.org/

Scroll down a bit
I liked the PowerPoint presentation, Ruth. Nice job of delineating some of the differences between TI and CI.
alexepascual
alexepascual is offline
#33
Feb28-13, 03:24 PM
P: 338
Quote Quote by rkastner View Post
you can find it here: http://transactionalinterpretation.org/
Scroll down a bit
Thanks Ruth, I'll take a look at the material in your website and let you know if I have questions or comments on it.
rkastner
rkastner is offline
#34
Feb28-13, 05:13 PM
P: 158
Thanks Dr. Chinese! :)
alexepascual
alexepascual is offline
#35
Apr27-13, 04:56 PM
P: 338
Quote Quote by rkastner View Post
Causality is a very slippery notion indeed. I do address this in Chapter 7 of my book.

Ruth, I have now read chapter 7. In it you say:
"As noted in Chapter 1, traditional approaches to measurement in quantum theory
inevitably end up needing to invoke an ‘observing consciousness’ in order to ‘collapse’
the wave function (or state vector) and bring about a determinate outcome, necessitating
speculative forays into psycho-physical parallelism"

I would like to understand if this means you see psycho-physical parallelism as a problematic concept and if this is so, why you think there is a problem with it.
Thanks.
rkastner
rkastner is offline
#36
Apr28-13, 12:12 AM
P: 158
I view psycho-physical parallelism as problematic in the context of interpreting physical theory because it is so speculative, and because it does not appear to be based on any sort of physical theory. As Kent has noted, "we don't have a good theory of mind." In Chapter 1 I quote from Kent (2010): "“...the fact that we don't have a good theory of mind, even in classical physics, doesn't give us a free pass to conclude anything we please. That way lies scientific ruin: any physical theory is consistent with any observations if we can bridge any discrepancy by tacking on arbitrary assumptions about the link between mind states and physics.” (A. Kent, 2010, from Many Worlds? Everett, Quantum Theory, and Reality , p.21)


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Question about delayed choice quantum eraser Quantum Physics 53
Question on Decoherence and the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Quantum Physics 2
Question about the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment Quantum Physics 5
Question regarding the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser expirement - interference at D0 Quantum Physics 9
delayed choice quantum eraser question Quantum Physics 7