Tom Campbell and his outrageous claim

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter batmanandjoker
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
2 replies · 6K views
batmanandjoker
Messages
75
Reaction score
2
So I just came across this while going through some comments on a youtube video talking about the double slit
[Edited to remove extraneous noise from the original source]
(here's what i heard from Tom Campbell (NASA physicist) They repeated the experiment, they let the detector detect and they burned the data before watching it then they checked and there was an ... interference pattern)

Even if this guy is unknowingly referencing the double slit eraser this statement can't be correct, right? This has to be a misunderstanding of what's going on either by the user above or this Tom Campbell character. I'm asking this question because I am not a physicist and just wanted some confirmation that this claim was indeed false. Thanks again for any help clarifying this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Use
Code:
[QUOTE]quoted[/QUOTE]
to quote things.

I'm going to go out on a limb and state the "Mondestrasz" misunderstood, or was told a bad analogy for, the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. If the which-way information had literally been written down on something you could literally burn, the environment is already hopelessly entangled with the result and burning wouldn't reverse that.

To actually delay the choice to erase, the result needs to be stored in an unmeasured qubit (which is not a thing you can burn). And the results don't change after the fact when you choose to measure the qubit. Instead, the results stay the same but you split them into two groups based on the outcome of measuring the associated qubit. Each group will contain an interference pattern, but they fill in each others' holes so together they sum into the overall lack-of-interference pattern you recorded.
 
batmanandjoker said:
I'm asking this question because I am not a physicist and just wanted some confirmation that this claim was indeed false.

The claim is not merely false, it is powerful evidence in support of the proposition that there is no such thing as unutterable nonsense.
This thread is closed, and if you have any interest in understanding quantum mechanics you'll want to stop watching Dr. Quantum's videos.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71, bhobba and phinds