Implications of Quantum Eraser, Delayed Choice, etc.

  • Thread starter rodsika
  • Start date
  • #26
DrChinese
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,358
1,150
On the contrary, there is a published classical explanation QE with photons:

...
I would not consider the De Raedt et al simulations as a suitable reference, although I very much respect their work. This is a very complex area. There are too many issues involved for it to be cited at this point in time.
 
  • #27
808
10
I would not consider the De Raedt et al simulations as a suitable reference, although I very much respect their work. This is a very complex area. There are too many issues involved for it to be cited at this point in time.
This is your unreviewed personal opinion. The article cited above is a published peer-reviewed article. It is obvious here who is out of line.
 
  • #28
808
10
Are you guys talking about the same thing?

I read it that the polarization interferometer (Fig. 2) path length was sensitive, but the path to the coincidence detector itself was not.

I guess the point is whether the insertion of a plate inside the polarization interferometer "slows" the photon down, is that it?
What do you think is the explanation why the coincidence counts drop from maximum to minimum as soon as the pathlength is changed by ~400 nm, which is approximately the wavelength of the photons?! Remember that if you introduce a phase shift in the photon, it is effectively the same as changing the path length when studying phenomena which rely on the phase.
 
  • #29
DrChinese
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,358
1,150
What do you think is the explanation why the coincidence counts drop from maximum to minimum as soon as the pathlength is changed by ~400 nm, which is approximately the wavelength of the photons?! Remember that if you introduce a phase shift in the photon, it is effectively the same as changing the path length when studying phenomena which rely on the phase.
I consider the interferometer to depend on the path length, phase and timing in a very sensitive manner. But that only counts for the interferometer itself, which is only on one side. I am not disagreeing with anything in particular (besides your reference, which is better discussed elsewhere as the De Raedt et al program is well out of the league and scope of this thread).
 
  • #30
808
10
I consider the interferometer to depend on the path length, phase and timing in a very sensitive manner. But that only counts for the interferometer itself, which is only on one side. I am not disagreeing with anything in particular (besides your reference, which is better discussed elsewhere as the De Raedt et al program is well out of the league and scope of this thread).
But the coincidence count rates depends on path length difference! Look at figures 4-7, the coincidence count rate is in fact an interference pattern on its own simply based on path-length difference. I'm sure I do not need to remind you that a coincidence count involves BOTH A and B arms of the experiment

The coincidence counting is simply filtering the photons such that certain path length differences are preferred over others. You can therefore not look at the results from one arm alone. Besides there is no interference when you look at the B arm data alone, until you filter the data using coincidence counting.
 
  • #31
DrChinese
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,358
1,150
But the coincidence count rates depends on path length difference! Look at figures 4-7, the coincidence count rate is in fact an interference pattern on its own simply based on path-length difference. I'm sure I do not need to remind you that a coincidence count involves BOTH A and B arms of the experiment.
Sure, but the interferometer and its sensitivity are a function of a portion of one arm only. I believe the adjustment of path length is only on the A side and has nothing at all to do with the time window being used for the coincidence matching. In other words, the path length adjustment has no discernible impart on the arrival time at the detectors.

The article does not appear to state, but I believe the usual coincidence window is on the order of nanoseconds. That would imply a distance on the order of 1 meter. But perhaps I am incorrect in my reading of the setup.
 
  • #32
1,478
405
This is your unreviewed personal opinion. The article cited above is a published peer-reviewed article. It is obvious here who is out of line.
You do realise the peer-review process has its problems, don't you? If not, do a Google search.
 
  • #33
3,872
88
The behavior of the particle at the slits seemingly depends on what the photon encounters after the particle has passed through the slit(s).
"Seemingly" is rather appropriate I think. :smile:

A discussion of this is also in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser

Regretfully it's too long ago that I looked into this, and not me but my colleague who left understood it very well... Still I'll give here my 2cts:
Does this prove that:
1. Particles can go back in time and do stuff?
Certainly not (that was indeed my main question at the time).
[..]
3. Does this experiment prove that particles are not really particles but just related to the wavy field that can form interference?
Such interference experiments support wave/field theory.
4. Does this prove that particles don't travel in between but only the detection event is important?
I don't think so...
5. What's the explanation why if which-path information is suppressed, intereference form, does this has to do with decoherence? [..]
We think that it has to do with selection (filtering) of information. Depending on the way you manipulate the information, you may obtain a visible interference pattern or not. It's also possible to do this partially.

Regards,
Harald
 
  • #34
662
2
Unfortunately you are uninformed about this issue. I will welcome you to look at the experiment described in PHYSICAL REVIEW A 71, 052103(2005) [http://people.whitman.edu/~beckmk/QM/qe/qe.pdf] [Broken]. Specifically look at figure 4 where they show how the number of coincidence counts between arms A and B vary as the pathlength difference between the two arms is changed. Also note that the figure shows changes within 4 microns and it takes less than half a micron difference to drop the coincidence counts from maximum to minimum.
I've been busy but took a quick look at the paper (following the correct link posted by DrChinese) and saw it was not talking about the Walborn experiment under discussion, so your weird idea that quarter wave plates can sufficiently disturb the flight time of photons within the sensitivity of modern coincidence counters is not at all supported by the paper you (tried to) link to.

It seems to show the expected oscillation you would expect from standard QM considerations if you change the interferometer pathlengths. Whether this can also have a classical explanation isn't of much interest to me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
DrChinese
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,358
1,150
Referring to a post by billschnieder:

...so your weird idea that quarter wave plates can sufficiently disturb the flight time of photons within the sensitivity of modern coincidence counters is not at all supported by the paper you (tried to) link to.
I'm not accusing billschnieder of any particular position. I have noted that a number of Local Realists have hypothesized that photons are delayed, absorbed, or otherwise transformed by wave plates, beam splitters, or other elements of apparatus in such a way that they are not counted. This is intended to explain, in some manner, the violation of the Bell Inequality (which, if upheld, then rules out Local Realism).

The funny part about this is that such effects have no basis in quantum theory. Which means these are new - and presumably discoverable - physical effects. In fact, there must be dozens (if not hundreds) of such new & previously unknown effects if their idea is correct! That is because there are dozens of entirely different mechanisms for observing violations of Bell Inequalities!!

In the modern post-Aspect world of Bell tests, standard quantum theory has been used to devise many different ways to observe entanglement. Different types of particles, different bases of entanglement, different numbers of particles, different sources, etc. as well as new tests such as GHZ, Hardy etc. All tests say the same thing, which is LR is ruled out. So far, the score is something like QM 1000, LR 0. :smile:

But the LR crew is mostly still stuck on debunking the traditional type. (The exception is the LR computer simulations of De Raedt et al, which at least have the benefit of applying to more that just one type of entanglement. Of course, these simulations have other serious issues which I will not go into here for fear of getting even further off track.)
 
  • #36
911
1
Would it be correct to say that the delayed-choice quantum eraser experiments don't actually change the past, as the particle going through either one or both slits (before we choose to find out which-way info, or 'erase') never existed until we 'erase' or find out which-way info?
the DCQE - does not change the past...i agree/think

however remember one of the photons has stuck the detector before the other has arrived....so the one that is detected has already registered its position
 

Related Threads on Implications of Quantum Eraser, Delayed Choice, etc.

Replies
49
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
720
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
582
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
47
Views
22K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
66
Views
13K
Top