The experiment of Kim et al. (1999) (with small modification)

[grzegorzsz830402]

Modification specifications:

Variation 1.

Placement of horizontal polarizer after BSa.

Placement of vertical polarizer after BSb.

Variation 2.

Placement of horizontal polarizer after Ma.

Placement of vertical polarizer after Mb.

Question1:
Is it safe to assume, that this modification would not prevent detection at D1 and D2?

Question2:
What predictions there would be, from Quantum Physics point of View?
How those modification would afect experiment results, what changes it would predict, if any?

 

[yucheng]

Would you please cite the aforementioned paper (a doi, link etc)?

 

[DrChinese]

Would you please cite the aforementioned paper (a doi, link etc)?

It is here:

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9903047
A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser (1999)
This paper reports a "delayed choice quantum eraser" experiment proposed by Scully and Drühl in 1982. The experimental results demonstrated the possibility of simultaneously observing both particle-like and wave-like behavior of a quantum via quantum entanglement. The which-path or both-path information of a quantum can be erased or marked by its entangled twin even after the registration of the quantum.

 

[grzegorzsz830402]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraserThe experiment of Kim et al. (1999)Yet, proposed modifications are mine.

And I do not think that, experiment with this modification have been done.

That is why I am interested in quantum theory predictions.

I believe, quantum theory would not be able to predict at all, how those modifications would alter results of this experiment.

 

[weirdoguy]

I believe

Based on what?

 

[grzegorzsz830402]

Because, no one could, so far. (who was strong supporter of quantum theory). If you can provide your predictions, please do so.
And my conviction is that that those modifications will alter experiment results in a specific maner.

 

[weirdoguy]

Because, no one could, so far.

Um, so you came up with some modifications and you say that quantum theory can't predict the outcome because no one did the calculations to (let me emphasize) your modifications, which were not published anywhere?

 

[grzegorzsz830402]

There is no need for any calculations.
Yet, If you do not feel confident in your own understanding of quantum theory, you do not have to provide your predictions. :)

 

[Haborix]

What are we doing here? You say there is no need for any calculations, but then tease us about our understanding of quantum theory to convince(???) us to do some calculations. As a sign of good faith, you could at least try these calculations, which you claim could not end up with any predictions, and show as exactly where you think something goes wrong.

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed temporarily for Moderation...

 

[berkeman]

After some Mentor stuff, thread will remain closed. Thanks folks.