- #1
San K
- 911
- 1
Delayed choice quantum eraser – Yoon Vs Walborn experiment/paper
is it true that in the Walborn experiment we manipulate p, but in Yoon paper we do not?
The below link discusses the Walborn paper:
http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/
[PLAIN]http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/PHY5657.gif
s = s-photon, p = p-photon
s-photon is going down and detected by detector Ds
p-photon is going up and detected by detector Dp
The delay (path length) for p is such that s is detected at Ds well before p reaches the polarizer.
Case 1:
The polarizer/eraser is kept there and the experiment is repeated same way for say a million photons (sent one by one)
Case 2:
The polarizer/eraser is removed AFTER s is detected at Ds (and before p reaches the polarizer) and the same sequence of events is repeated same way for say a million photons (sent one by one)
Questions:
a) Will the pattern in case 1 (after correlating the entangled pairs and removing noise) be that of an interference pattern?
b) Will the pattern in case 2 1 (after correlating the entangled pairs and removing noise) be that of a non- interference pattern?
c) In case 2 (or even case 1) when s arrives
a. its position is marked? On the screen of Ds
b. However we do not know which one is the real s till we correlate with p? (i.e. remove noise)
c. Why can we not figure out s simply via timing (velocity, distance, time calculation), without having to correlate with p?
d) Case 2 is interesting because this is different from the experiment by Yoon where we do not mess with p?
Yoon paper is discussed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser
In the Yoon paper the path of p is not “controlled” ….hence when s strikes Ds, one could conclude that the path of p has been fixed (probabilistically) at the time struck Ds.
However the Walborn paper is different -- where we still play with P (after s has struck Ds) by keeping or removing the polarizer/eraser.
Thus
Yoon-kim = DCQE with p allowed to follow whatever path it will take
Walborn = DCQE with manipulation of p?
Yoon = one could still conclude that once s is detected, the path of p is fixed ("probabilistically")
Walborn = we are "operating" on p after s is detected, thus s that has happened in the past is showing results that correlate with p that is (being manipulated) in future?
is it true that in the Walborn experiment we manipulate p, but in Yoon paper we do not?
The below link discusses the Walborn paper:
http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/
[PLAIN]http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/PHY5657.gif
s = s-photon, p = p-photon
s-photon is going down and detected by detector Ds
p-photon is going up and detected by detector Dp
The delay (path length) for p is such that s is detected at Ds well before p reaches the polarizer.
Case 1:
The polarizer/eraser is kept there and the experiment is repeated same way for say a million photons (sent one by one)
Case 2:
The polarizer/eraser is removed AFTER s is detected at Ds (and before p reaches the polarizer) and the same sequence of events is repeated same way for say a million photons (sent one by one)
Questions:
a) Will the pattern in case 1 (after correlating the entangled pairs and removing noise) be that of an interference pattern?
b) Will the pattern in case 2 1 (after correlating the entangled pairs and removing noise) be that of a non- interference pattern?
c) In case 2 (or even case 1) when s arrives
a. its position is marked? On the screen of Ds
b. However we do not know which one is the real s till we correlate with p? (i.e. remove noise)
c. Why can we not figure out s simply via timing (velocity, distance, time calculation), without having to correlate with p?
d) Case 2 is interesting because this is different from the experiment by Yoon where we do not mess with p?
Yoon paper is discussed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser
In the Yoon paper the path of p is not “controlled” ….hence when s strikes Ds, one could conclude that the path of p has been fixed (probabilistically) at the time struck Ds.
However the Walborn paper is different -- where we still play with P (after s has struck Ds) by keeping or removing the polarizer/eraser.
Thus
Yoon-kim = DCQE with p allowed to follow whatever path it will take
Walborn = DCQE with manipulation of p?
Yoon = one could still conclude that once s is detected, the path of p is fixed ("probabilistically")
Walborn = we are "operating" on p after s is detected, thus s that has happened in the past is showing results that correlate with p that is (being manipulated) in future?
Last edited by a moderator: