Delayed choice quantum communication - "Berlin riddle"

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on a thought experiment regarding delayed choice quantum communication, specifically the "Berlin riddle." In this scenario, a sender in Berlin transmits a photon towards a recipient on the moon, with the intention of conveying information about whether a wall has been torn down. The sender removes the double-slit setup after sending the photon, which theoretically alters the photon's behavior from a definite path to a state of superposition. Ultimately, the absence of a signal on the moon indicates that the wall remains standing, demonstrating a non-traditional communication method that does not involve faster-than-light (FTL) transmission.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles, particularly wave-particle duality.
  • Familiarity with the double-slit experiment and its implications for quantum behavior.
  • Knowledge of photon behavior in quantum communication scenarios.
  • Basic grasp of superposition and measurement in quantum systems.
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the implications of the double-slit experiment on quantum information theory.
  • Research the concept of superposition and its role in quantum mechanics.
  • Investigate the principles of quantum entanglement and its potential applications in communication.
  • Learn about the limitations of quantum communication and the concept of causality in physics.
USEFUL FOR

Quantum physicists, researchers in quantum communication, and anyone interested in the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics and information transfer.

Bob Ziegler
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
At 12.00h a specific event is being expected in Berlin, whether the wall ist teared down, or not. The sender is in Berlin and wants to send the information about the event to the recipient on the moon. Both sides know about the possibly upcoming event. As the light takes 1 second to the moon, the sender sends 0.8 seconds before 12:00h a photon through a double slit in direction of the moon. The photon (slit inormation) is being measured and stored at the double slit, through what slit it went, that's why it is assumed the photon goes straight towards the moon, without effect of the wave-function. The recipient expects 0.2 seconds after 12:00h an incoming photon or no signal, and knows before: incoming photon means, that the "wall was teared" down, a missing photon means "wall still standing". At 12:00h it turns out, that the wall is still standing. The double-slit is immediately being removed at the sender in Berlin, so that the path-information is being destroyed, in expectation, that the photon in superposition does not longer fly straight, but now corresponding to the wave function, so that it misses the detector on the moon very likely. On the moon no signal is measured 0.2 after 12:00, with the interpretation that the wall is still standing. That is how the moon knew whithin 0.2 seconds about the event on earth, whereas a usual communication would have taken 1 second.

This idea of communication requires prior information (how to act) at both spots, and the light goes in usual speed towards the moon. So it appears to be no ftl communication.

But does it work that way?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your scenario is very difficult to understand. Can you state clearly what is the expected result in all cases?

Bob Ziegler said:
The double-slit is immediately being removed at the sender in Berlin, so that the path-information is being destroyed, in expectation, that the photon in superposition does not longer fly straight, but now corresponding to the wave function, so that it misses the detector on the moon very likely.
There is nothing you can do to the double-slit setup after the photon has passed through the slits that will affect that photon.

Note also that one photon does not give an interference pattern. It is the cumulative effect of many photons that will do that.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 157 ·
6
Replies
157
Views
16K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K