Mandel quantum eraser: No signal/idler-correlations needed?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Mandel quantum eraser experiment and its interpretations, particularly focusing on the necessity of measuring correlations between signal and idler photons. Participants explore different setups and their implications for concepts like retrocausality and faster-than-light communication, as well as the clarity of various depictions of the experiment.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that interference in the Mandel quantum eraser experiment occurs when the origins of idler photons are made indistinguishable, but questions whether this can lead to retrocausality or FTL communication if the idler beam splitter is delayed.
  • Another participant agrees that the depictions of the experiment are oversimplified, noting the absence of coincidence counting and the need for interference-sensitive filtering before detecting idler photons.
  • A participant seeks clarification on what is meant by "interference sensitive filtering," questioning whether it is a theoretical necessity or a method to reduce experimental noise.
  • One participant compares the Mandel experiment to the Walborn experiment, suggesting similarities in their setups and discussing the implications of correlated phases in downconversion processes.
  • It is noted that in the second experiment, the correlation of phases for idler photons allows for interference without a coincidence counter, but this does not imply the possibility of FTL communication.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of measuring correlations in the Mandel quantum eraser experiment, with some arguing that it is essential for consistency with causality, while others suggest that interference can occur without such measurements. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these interpretations.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of clarity on the definitions of terms like "interference sensitive filtering" and the dependence of conclusions on specific experimental setups. The discussion also highlights unresolved questions about the relationship between the setups and their implications for concepts like retrocausality.

greypilgrim
Messages
583
Reaction score
44
Hi.
I found slightly different depictions of the Mandel quantum eraser experiment (1991). They are all from German sources, but I think they are pretty clear nonetheless.
The first is from a German schoolbook:
mandel.PNG


The second is from here:
Mandel91.gif

Mandel91_2.gif


They claim that interference appears when the origins of the idler photons are made indistinguishable (second picture in the first setup, first picture in the second setup) and disappears otherwise. However it seems to me that this choice (inserting or pulling out the idler beam splitter in the first setup or the red block in the second could be arbitrarily delayed by making the optical paths of the idler photons longer, even longer than the paths of the signal photons, causing all the weird things like retrocausality or FTL communication.

I know other setups (e.g. Kim et al. (2000)) don't exhibit this since they need to measure correlations between signal and idler photons, which make everything consistent with causality and SRT. Also, in Kim's setup it's not really a choice whether or not the idler photon are indistinguishable, it just happens in 50% of all cases.

Are the depictions above just terrible oversimplifications, or do they really not need to measure correlations? Unfortunately I couldn't find Mandel's original publication.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
greypilgrim said:
Are the depictions above just terrible oversimplifications
Yes. Not only coincidence counting is missing but some interference sensitive filtering has to be present before detection of idler photon.
 
zonde said:
interference sensitive filtering
What do you mean by that? Is it a theoretical necessity or something to reduce experimental noise?
 
greypilgrim said:
What do you mean by that? Is it a theoretical necessity or something to reduce experimental noise?
Actually I was thinking that the setup is like in Walborn experiment: http://laser.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/eraser/Walborn.pdf
Then this Cthugha's comment applies: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/quantum-eraser-experiment.300985/#post-2125687 (this is what I meant with "interference sensitive filtering")

I would say that the first experiment (first two pictures) is quite similar to Walborn experiment.
The second experiment however is different. In first picture of second experiment the first idler overlaps in downconverter crystal with the second idler. So for the second downconversion the phases are correlated for idlers and so they are correlated for signal photons as well and you can observe interference without coincidence counter. But you can't propose any FTL communication as second downconversion happens only after you have blocked/not blocked first idler.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K