Eliminating the coincidence counter

Click For Summary
In discussions about the coincidence counter in DCQE, the impact on results at D0 remains uncertain if the counter is omitted. The conversation explores whether wave function collapse occurs upon measurement or requires human observation for information accessibility. In the context of the double slit experiment, it questions if destroying the measurement information affects the interference pattern. The scenario of a robot recording which slit a particle went through, followed by the destruction of that record, raises further inquiries about the necessity of an observer for wave function collapse. Ultimately, the relationship between measurement, information retention, and quantum behavior is central to the discussion.
Fiziqs
Messages
134
Reaction score
0
In DCQE, if you leave out the coincidence counter, does it effect the results at D0? Or is it impossible to know?

What I want to know is...do you collapse the wave when you measure the particle...or does that information need to be accessible to a human observer.

Or even simpler...in the double slit experiment, if you measure which slit the particle went through, and then destroy any information about the result, without ever knowing what it was, does the interference pattern disappear?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Fiziqs said:
Or even simpler...in the double slit experiment, if you measure which slit the particle went through, and then destroy any information about the result, without ever knowing what it was, does the interference pattern disappear?
Thanks

If which slit information was written by a robot arm onto paper and then the paper burnt, so no observer could read it ever again? hmmmm...
 

Thread 'One does not “prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics'

I am slowly going through the book 'What Is a Quantum Field Theory?' by Michel Talagrand. I came across the following quote: One does not" prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments. Although it may seem trite, it does fit in with my modelling view of QM. The more I think about it, the more I believe it could be saying something quite profound. For example, precisely what is the justification of...
View full post »

Similar threads

Undergrad Hossenfelder: Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser, Debunked?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Undergrad Single vs. Double slit coherence clarification please
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
545
Undergrad Why is there no single slit interference when one slit is closed in a double slit experiment?
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
5K
Undergrad Double Slit Interference Question II
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Is There A Study Showing The Observer Effect Ignoring Conscious Intent?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
High School Does DCQE show a shift between the two "which path" results?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Undergrad Parametric down-conversion and double-slits
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
High School Q - Double slit experiment, delayed slit selection observation
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad Please help me understand the double slit experiment and conclusion
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
4K
Undergrad Does a qubit break interference in the double slit experiment?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
799