Searching for Quantum Mechanics Lecture on Delayed Choice Experiment

[kesha1]

TL;DR Summary

Small and large envelops quantum mechanics experiment.

Hi everybody.
Some years ago I came across a video on youtube where they talked about an experiment with small and large envelops, when the small ones were placed into the large ones and then it resulted in something interesting.
It might have been an instance of delayed choice, but I am not sure.
The video was of a "popular" quantum mechanics lecture with a very low resolution.
I really like that example and would love to listen or read about it again.
Please let me know if you remember something like that.

 

[anuttarasammyak]

Hi, not an issue of quantum mechanics but a Bayesian statistics, I know the two envelopes problem,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_envelopes_problem

 

[tistemfnp]

For "delayed choice" this is the best source :

watch

 

[PeterDonis]

For "delayed choice" this is the best source :

watch

No, it is not. It is one person's opinion.

 

[tistemfnp]

No, it is not. It is one person's opinion.

Mhhh, just she uses the same argument (correlation) for the "interference pattern" (what it's actually not) that you just very used for explaining why there is no interference in entangled photons.

What's wrong about her "opinion", may I ask? (Actually I just understood your argument as I watched her video long before. It astonishes me to hear one argument in one context and have it ignored in a similar one.)

 

[PeterDonis]

What's wrong about her "opinion", may I ask?

I didn't say it was wrong. I said it was her opinion. You should not be referring someone to a post that's one person's opinion and saying it's "the best source". The best source would be an actual experimental paper describing what was done and what results were obtained.

 

[tistemfnp]

The best source would be an actual experimental paper describing what was done and what results were obtained.

@article{jacques2007experimental,
title={Experimental realization of Wheeler's delayed-choice gedanken experiment},
author={Jacques, Vincent and Wu, E and Grosshans, Fr{\'e}d{\'e}ric and Treussart, Fran{\c{c}}ois and Grangier, Philippe and Aspect, Alain and Roch, Jean-Fran{\c{c}}ois},
journal={Science},
volume={315},
number={5814},
pages={966--968},
year={2007},
publisher={American Association for the Advancement of Science}
}

@article{kim2000delayed,
title={Delayed “choice” quantum eraser},
author={Kim, Yoon-Ho and Yu, Rong and Kulik, Sergei P and Shih, Yanhua and Scully, Marlan O},
journal={Physical Review Letters},
volume={84},
number={1},
pages={1},
year={2000},
publisher={APS}
}

These are the papers. But they are only digestible with the explanations from Hossenfelder IMHO.

 

[PeterDonis]

These are the papers.

Links?

 

[tistemfnp]

Links?

https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0610241.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9903047.pdf

 

[PeterDonis]

https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0610241.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9903047.pdf

Thanks. Both of these papers have been discussed in previous PF threads, as a forum search will show (the easiest way is to search on the arxiv number, which is the name of the pdf file).

 

[weirdoguy]

this is the best source

"Hossenfelder" and "the best" does not go along well together...

 

[tistemfnp]

Hossenfelder" and "the best" does not go along well together...

This is just because she actively reflects what others assume to be carved in stone. And some do not appreciate others thinking and like it more to reflect theories like repititions in a bible, what preserves them from developping own thoughts. Of course this is the opposite of science, which utterly depends on reflecting theory by continued verification and falsification and connected to that - discussion. I don‘t agree with everything she says and her over-confidence sometimes annoys me. But I think her presence is very valuable for scientific progress. The added smiley…

 

[PeroK]

This is just because she actively reflects what others assume to be carved in stone. And some do not appreciate others thinking and like it more to reflect theories like repititions in a bible, what preserves them from developping own thoughts. Of course this is the opposite of science, which utterly depends on reflecting theory by continued verification and falsification and connected to that - discussion. I don‘t agree with everything she says and her over-confidence sometimes annoys me. But I think her presence is very valuable for scientific progress. The added smiley…

You shouldn't confuse an open mind with a maverick position. Scientists who hold a mainstream opinion are not necessarily guilty of accepting science like "repetitions in a bible". An example of an original thinker who works very much within mainstream theory is Scott Aaronson. Included in this blog post are his thoughts on Hossenfelder's theory of superdeterminism.

https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=6215

In terms of making scientific progress, I favour Aaronson over Hossenfelder.

 

[tistemfnp]

Scientists who hold a mainstream opinion are not necessarily guilty of accepting science like "repetitions in a bible".

What I of course didn‘t state. Not criticizing Hossenfelder would be the bible position ;-). My point was about lowering people per se, just because they try to reflect.

Her stance on super-determinism isn‘t helpful. Personally I don‘t go along with it and think it‘s flawed.

 

[PeroK]

What I of course didn‘t state. Not criticizing Hossenfelder would be the bible position ;-). My point was about lowering people per se, just because they try to reflect.

Her stance on super-determinism isn‘t helpful. Personally I don‘t go along with it and think it‘s flawed.

Okay, perhaps something was lost in translation.

 

[vanhees71]

My favourite, from a didactical point of view, is

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0106078v1
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.65.033818

because for this the most complicated theory you need is an understanding of Fraunhofer diffraction of coherent light at a double slit and the workings of quarter-wave plates and polarization measurements and simple manipulations of bras and kets of a two-level system.

Here's my version for a lecture (given as my "habilitation colloquium"). It's understandable at the introductory QM level:

https://itp.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/publ/habil-coll-talk-en.pdf