Undergrad Delayed choice quantum eraser with actual 'choice'?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, particularly questioning the nature of 'choice' in erasing path information. It critiques Kim's experiment for lacking a true choice by experimenters and inquires about more controllable experiments, such as using a beam splitter after the signal photon hits the screen. The conversation mentions the speed of these experiments, suggesting they occur faster than human intervention. A recent experiment, the Big Bell Test, is highlighted, which involved crowdsourcing random choices from internet users globally. The outcomes of this experiment are still pending announcement.
greypilgrim
Messages
581
Reaction score
44
Hi.

The Wikipedia article on the delayed choice quantum eraser is mostly about Kim's experiment where there's IMHO not really a 'choice' about the erasure of the path information, at least not by the experimentators. Have such experiments also been performed where this choice is more controllable, e.g. by mechanically inserting a beam splitter to make the idler photons indistinguishable (after the signal photon already hit the screen)?

If yes, how was this choice made? I guess all those experiments are faster than a human could press a button. But normal random number generators might present the same possibilities for loopholes as Bell test experiments.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
greypilgrim said:
Hi.

The Wikipedia article on the delayed choice quantum eraser is mostly about Kim's experiment where there's IMHO not really a 'choice' about the erasure of the path information, at least not by the experimentators. Have such experiments also been performed where this choice is more controllable, e.g. by mechanically inserting a beam splitter to make the idler photons indistinguishable (after the signal photon already hit the screen)?

If yes, how was this choice made? I guess all those experiments are faster than a human could press a button. But normal random number generators might present the same possibilities for loopholes as Bell test experiments.

There actually was a similar experiment just a few weeks ago in which they crowdsourced random choices to internet users all around the world. I don't know if the outcomes have been announced yet though.
 
Gan_HOPE326 said:
There actually was a similar experiment just a few weeks ago in which they crowdsourced random choices to internet users all around the world. I don't know if the outcomes have been announced yet though.
Ah, yes! The Big Bell Test -- http://www.thebigbelltest.org/
 
  • Like
Likes DrChinese
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K