Delayed choice quantum eraser – Yoon Vs Walborn experiment/paper

[San K]

Delayed choice quantum eraser – Yoon Vs Walborn experiment/paper

is it true that in the Walborn experiment we manipulate p, but in Yoon paper we do not?

The below link discusses the Walborn paper:
http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/


[PLAIN]http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/PHY5657.gif

s = s-photon, p = p-photon
s-photon is going down and detected by detector Ds
p-photon is going up and detected by detector Dp
The delay (path length) for p is such that s is detected at Ds well before p reaches the polarizer.
Case 1:
The polarizer/eraser is kept there and the experiment is repeated same way for say a million photons (sent one by one)
Case 2:
The polarizer/eraser is removed AFTER s is detected at Ds (and before p reaches the polarizer) and the same sequence of events is repeated same way for say a million photons (sent one by one)

Questions:
a) Will the pattern in case 1 (after correlating the entangled pairs and removing noise) be that of an interference pattern?
b) Will the pattern in case 2 1 (after correlating the entangled pairs and removing noise) be that of a non- interference pattern?


c) In case 2 (or even case 1) when s arrives
a. its position is marked? On the screen of Ds
b. However we do not know which one is the real s till we correlate with p? (i.e. remove noise)
c. Why can we not figure out s simply via timing (velocity, distance, time calculation), without having to correlate with p?

d) Case 2 is interesting because this is different from the experiment by Yoon where we do not mess with p?
Yoon paper is discussed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser

In the Yoon paper the path of p is not “controlled” ….hence when s strikes Ds, one could conclude that the path of p has been fixed (probabilistically) at the time struck Ds.

However the Walborn paper is different -- where we still play with P (after s has struck Ds) by keeping or removing the polarizer/eraser.

Thus

Yoon-kim = DCQE with p allowed to follow whatever path it will take
Walborn = DCQE with manipulation of p?

Yoon = one could still conclude that once s is detected, the path of p is fixed ("probabilistically")
Walborn = we are "operating" on p after s is detected, thus s that has happened in the past is showing results that correlate with p that is (being manipulated) in future?

 

[San K]

Delayed choice quantum eraser – Yoon Vs Walborn experiment/paper

is it true that in the Walborn experiment we manipulate p, but in Yoon paper we do not?

The below link discusses the Walborn paper:
http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/


[PLAIN]http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/PHY5657.gif

s = s-photon, p = p-photon
s-photon is going down and detected by detector Ds
p-photon is going up and detected by detector Dp
The delay (path length) for p is such that s is detected at Ds well before p reaches the polarizer.
Case 1:
The polarizer/eraser is kept there and the experiment is repeated same way for say a million photons (sent one by one)
Case 2:
The polarizer/eraser is removed AFTER s is detected at Ds (and before p reaches the polarizer) and the same sequence of events is repeated same way for say a million photons (sent one by one)

Questions:
a) Will the pattern in case 1 (after correlating the entangled pairs and removing noise) be that of an interference pattern?
b) Will the pattern in case 2 1 (after correlating the entangled pairs and removing noise) be that of a non- interference pattern?


c) In case 2 (or even case 1) when s arrives
a. its position is marked? On the screen of Ds
b. However we do not know which one is the real s till we correlate with p? (i.e. remove noise)
c. Why can we not figure out s simply via timing (velocity, distance, time calculation), without having to correlate with p?

d) Case 2 is interesting because this is different from the experiment by Yoon where we do not mess with p?
Yoon paper is discussed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser

In the Yoon paper the path of p is not “controlled” ….hence when s strikes Ds, one could conclude that the path of p has been fixed (probabilistically) at the time struck Ds.

However the Walborn paper is different -- where we still play with P (after s has struck Ds) by keeping or removing the polarizer/eraser.

Thus

Yoon-kim = DCQE with p allowed to follow whatever path it will take
Walborn = DCQE with manipulation of p?

Yoon = one could still conclude that once s is detected, the path of p is fixed ("probabilistically")
Walborn = we are "operating" on p after s is detected, thus s that has happened in the past is showing results that correlate with p that is (being manipulated) in future?

The answer might be that you cannot really control the randomness of the quantum/photon.