Undergrad I can determine the photon path in delayed erasure

  • Thread starter Thread starter djorkaef
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Path Photon
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, particularly the implications of photon path determination. It highlights that detectors D3 and D4 do not show interference patterns due to known photon paths, while D1 and D2 do exhibit interference patterns because the paths remain indeterminate. The participant questions the impact of slight distance variations on photon paths and whether they could theoretically allow for path determination without losing the interference pattern. It is noted that if the paths differ significantly, the experiment would not yield interference, emphasizing the importance of experimental setup details. The conversation concludes with an acknowledgment of the complexities inherent in the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment.
djorkaef
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Dear,

I am going into quantum physics the past days specifically the dual slit because it boggles my mind.
You can find the Wikipedia here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser

And this is the picture:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#/media/File:Kim_EtAl_Quantum_Eraser.svg
upload_2016-12-23_18-46-32.png


Now it is said that D3 and D4 never have an interference pattern because we know the path those photons took. It is also said that D1 and D2 always have an interference pattern because we can't know the path those photons took because of the randomness in the green silver plates.

But here it comes (my thinking): The distance the photon travels to D1 is never the same as the distance to D2. This is because you can never put 2 objects at an 100% exact distance from each other. There is always the slightest of differences. This is also the case for Mb to BSc and Ma to BSc and PS to Ma and PS to Mb and so on... all these paths have distances that are different from each other. I can measure the exact distance the photon has traveled by time measurement and speed of light. If I then compare that distance to the experiment layout distances I can puzzle this in and find the exact path. Right? So why is it still an interference pattern if we could theoretically determine its path?

What is wrong in my thinking :(
 

Attachments

  • upload_2016-12-23_18-45-51.png
    upload_2016-12-23_18-45-51.png
    8.2 KB · Views: 456
Physics news on Phys.org
There's uncertainty in the arrival time of the photons, because photons are always a bit spread out and any part of the wave packet might trigger the detector.

If the two paths differ in length so much that you can reliably tell the difference between them, the experiment won't work in the first place.
 
Strilanc said:
arrival time of the photons, because photons are always a bit spread out and any part of the wave packet might trigger the detector.

If the two paths differ in length so much that you can reliably tell the difference between them, the experiment won't work in the first place.

Thank you that could probably make sense. Much better then other explanations I heard.

The more I know about this experiment the more my brain get's totally wrecked by it.

So the print displayed on D0 is not only aware of how its twin photon will bounce on randomized silver plates in the future, it will also know if the future distances of both slits to sensors D1 and D2 are similar enough for the path not to be detected on the twin.

Now I start wondering what will happen if I change the distances after the photon already landed on D0 but the twin had not arrived on D1/D2 yet. But it would be impossible to act that fast.
 
If you took an entangled photon coming out of a BBo crystal, and let it go through a double slit setup, you would not see an interference build up. You would first need to make the light coherent. Then it would no longer be entangled on several observables.

The point being that the details of the setup make all the difference, as Strilanc says. There are many complexities in the DCQE as you noted, more than many of the other core quantum examples.
 
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...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 81 ·
3
Replies
81
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K