Delayed choice quantum eraser experiment in terms of MWI and/or BI

initialMAN
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I'm sure there's been a lot of posts on this before, but even after taking a look at some of them, this experiment is still eluding my understanding.
I'm aware that there's no backwards causation--and that the eraser causes interference by random 'categorization'--but I'm nonetheless dissatisfied that I don't have a visual picture of the phenomenon. I know that's it possible to have one through realist interpretations of QM since they (must be) consistent with standard QM equations. Could anyone give me a complete, step-by-step description of the entire standard delayed choice quantum eraser experiment: http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scully/kim-scully-web.htm
in terms of MWI? or perhaps BI--if not MWI, but I'd prefer MWI--including how the correlation exists in either case? I haven't taken any QM courses (and won't be able to for about a year) so I'd greatly appreciate descriptions that don't stray too far past basic mathematics.

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you don't know much about QM, you might find this analogy useful:
https://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=7
which is written by having the Bohmian view of quantum mechanics in mind.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would like to know the validity of the following criticism of one of Zeilinger's latest papers https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.07756 "violation of bell inequality with unentangled photons" The review is by Francis Villatoro, in Spanish, https://francis.naukas.com/2025/07/26/sin-entrelazamiento-no-se-pueden-incumplir-las-desigualdades-de-bell/ I will translate and summarize the criticism as follows: -It is true that a Bell inequality is violated, but not a CHSH inequality. The...
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
This is not, strictly speaking, a discussion of interpretations per se. We often see discussions based on QM as it was understood during the early days and the famous Einstein-Bohr debates. The problem with this is that things in QM have advanced tremendously since then, and the 'weirdness' that puzzles those attempting to understand QM has changed. I recently came across a synopsis of these advances, allowing those interested in interpretational issues to understand the modern view...
Back
Top