Understanding Quantum Eraser Experiments

Click For Summary
Quantum eraser experiments demonstrate the principle of complementarity between path distinguishability and interference in entangled particles. When one particle of an entangled pair is manipulated to erase information about its state, the other particle can exhibit interference patterns, highlighting non-local implications. The discussion emphasizes that interference can only be observed when no permanent record of the particle's path exists, akin to the double-slit experiment. It is noted that decoherence plays a significant role, as it can convert superpositions into mixed states, but under certain conditions, this decoherence can be undone. Overall, the conversation revolves around the foundational principles of quantum mechanics as illustrated by these experiments.
  • #31
alexepascual said:
I don't want to get into this fight, but I think that interpretations so far are just that

Indeed they are.

Well said.

Thanks
Bill
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
bhobba said:
Indeed they are. Well said. Thanks
Bill
But when I said that they are just interpretations I did not mean to diminish their importance.
And even I know you will disagree on this, I consider the "ensenble interpretation" also as a "interpretation"
But I am not saying that you are wrong and I am right. I am just saying that we have different points of view.
 
  • #33
alexepascual said:
And even I know you will disagree on this, I consider the "ensenble interpretation" also as a "interpretation"
But I am not saying that you are wrong and I am right. I am just saying that we have different points of view.

The ensemble interpretation is just an interpretation like any other - it's what I hold to - but that means nothing.

No interpretation is better than another - they are all simply different viewpoints.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #34
In my humble opinion, an electron passing through the slits unobserved is like a qbit, it is both 0 and 1 simultaneously. An 'observation' is anything which turns that qbit into either a 0 or a 1 (= slit A or B). It doesn't matter what, when, where or who will 'notice' that change. A bit in the universe's information has been changed. The 'superposed' 0+1 was one state. A 0 is a different state, and a 1 is yet another different state. If we setup the apparatus so that it is not 'observed', the state will remain as it was, 0+1 simultaneously, we will not have caused a change in that bit of the universe's information. If we cause the qbit to change to either 0 or 1, (even if we do not 'look' at that change), that constitutes an 'observation'.
 
  • #35
bhobba said:
This wave particle stuff is wrong - here is the 'correct' explanation of the double slit:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0703/0703126.pdf

If I understand Marcella correctly, the slits prepare a state in terms of position, and the detection screen measures the momentum.

Would it be ok to say instead, that:
(a) The slits put the system in a certain position state, which is equivalent to the sum of many momentum states
(b) The system evolves in time from this initial state, such that the corresponding projection back onto the position basis also evolves in time
(c) The evolution thus takes the system through various states which are the sums of many position states
(c) Finally, the screen measures the position again at some point in its evolution.

Is this a valid, and mathematically equivalent, description to Marcella's? If so, then - although more complicated when described in words - it is perhaps a more acceptable picture. After all, a screen actually measures position and not momentum!
 
  • #36
Swamp Thing said:
Is this a valid, and mathematically equivalent, description to Marcella's?

Close enough.

For completeness I need to also mention while this is a more more satisfactory analysis of the double slit its still not quite correct:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1009.2408v1.pdf

It's not as bad as the above makes out because these type of simplifying assumptions are made all the time in mathematical modelling. But it is an unfortunate characteristic of some areas in physics that as you proceed from beginning explanations you see what went before was wrong. In this case that would be the wave particle duality at the beginning level, to the intermediate one once you have learned the QM formalism (that would be the Marcella paper), to the advanced level (that would be the above).

Thanks
Bill
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K