I Counterfactual quantum computation on interferometer

artis
Messages
1,479
Reaction score
976
I watched a video on the topic by Sabine Hossenfelder.
Now it is said by many that this proves the photon "knows" something in advance because a certain state of a certain beam splitter can be probed in theory without the photon ever encountering that beam splitter because it took another path. The reason it took another path is also exactly because of the state of that beam splitter that it "probed" without actually probing it.

Now maybe I have got this wrong but what is so exotic in all of this?
Isn't this analogous to for example a loop of pipe with a pump and two parallel valves with different diameters.
If the water flows in such loop and I randomly close either of the valves the water then simply takes the route through the other open valve but given their different diameter I can know which path the water took by simply measuring the pressure before the valve.
So in this loop the "detector" would be a pressure sensor while in the quantum example the detector is a light detector and water is a laser beam and valves are beam splitters.

Now you might say that my valves are different diameter and that gives it away, but in the quantum example I think that translates into the angles and positions of the beam splitters , because only certain beam paths create constructive interference and therefore hit the detector.
So why is this then considered something "mystical" ?

 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
Physics news on Phys.org
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In her YouTube video Bell’s Theorem Experiments on Entangled Photons, Dr. Fugate shows how polarization-entangled photons violate Bell’s inequality. In this Insight, I will use quantum information theory to explain why such entangled photon-polarization qubits violate the version of Bell’s inequality due to John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard Holt known as the...
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
I asked a question related to a table levitating but I am going to try to be specific about my question after one of the forum mentors stated I should make my question more specific (although I'm still not sure why one couldn't have asked if a table levitating is possible according to physics). Specifically, I am interested in knowing how much justification we have for an extreme low probability thermal fluctuation that results in a "miraculous" event compared to, say, a dice roll. Does a...

Similar threads

Back
Top