Delayed choice quantum eraser – Yoon Vs Walborn experiment/paper


by San K
Tags: choice, delayed, eraser, experiment or paper, quantum, walborn, yoon
San K
San K is offline
#1
May17-11, 02:32 PM
P: 915
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/




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...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?
Phys.Org News Partner Physics news on Phys.org
Physicists design quantum switches which can be activated by single photons
'Dressed' laser aimed at clouds may be key to inducing rain, lightning
Higher-order nonlinear optical processes observed using the SACLA X-ray free-electron laser
San K
San K is offline
#2
Jun16-11, 03:22 AM
P: 915
Quote Quote by San K View Post
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/




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...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?
The answer might be that you cannot really control the randomness of the quantum/photon.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Delayed choice quantum eraser Quantum Physics 47
Delayed choice quantum eraser experiment Quantum Physics 1
delayed choice quantum eraser experiment in terms of MWI and/or BI Quantum Physics 1
Delayed choice quantum eraser Quantum Physics 2
Really delayed choice quantum eraser Quantum Physics 2