Wheeler's Delayed Choice Experiment

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around Wheeler's Delayed Choice Experiment and its implications for causality, realism, and quantum mechanics. Participants explore whether the experiment violates causality and the nature of communication in relation to faster-than-light (FTL) scenarios, engaging in both theoretical and conceptual reasoning.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the experiment does not violate causality because quantum theory is considered a causal theory.
  • Others suggest that the experiment challenges our intuitive understanding of realism, indicating that photons and other quantum objects do not exist in a classical sense while they travel.
  • One participant questions the concept of "strong causality" and seeks clarification on its meaning and the mechanisms of any claimed violation.
  • Another participant mentions that John G. Cramer believes the experiment violates a type of causality, prompting a request for further explanation from him.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of FTL communication, asserting that it would violate causality, while others argue that Wheeler's experiment does not demonstrate such communication.
  • Thought experiments involving entangled coins are presented to illustrate potential scenarios of communication and probability, but they raise questions about the nature of wave function collapse and correlation.
  • There is a request for clarification on the thought experiments without using quantum mechanics terminology, indicating a desire for a more intuitive understanding.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether Wheeler's Delayed Choice Experiment violates causality, with some asserting it does not while others claim it does. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives on the implications of the experiment.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding causality and communication, particularly in relation to hypothetical scenarios and the interpretation of quantum mechanics. There are unresolved questions regarding the definitions and implications of terms like "strong causality" and "wave function collapse."

  • #31
mathal said:
Wheeler proposed delayed time experiments to demonstrate that actions in a 'present' could alter the outcome of an experiment where photons (or any other quantum object) began their path before the alteration occurred. Experiments have demonstrated over and over again that he was correct.
To make this clear.
0.Wheeler did accept that actions in the present can alter the past. He went to the extreme of referring to measurements in the present altering a photons history to the 'present' from it's inception billions of years ago, to make that point.
the experiments - precis
1. a photon begins it's path.
2. the path of one of the possibilities of the photon is altered.
3. a measurement of each photon's path is noted.

The statistical results of such experiments (and that is necessarily all you'll ever get-statistical non specific data) is in agreement with the conditions if the experiment had been set up ahead of time ,as if the entire experiment was like when the photon's path was altered.

There is only one model, the De Broglie-Bohm theory, that can offer an explanation that is not either acausal or time-reversed.

perhaps there is another model? (i.e.do you know of one or is De Broglie-Bohm what you aver to?)

Personally I prefer a block universe acausal model.

mathal

So it does allow us to interact with the past? does it happen in reality? so that would mean it violates a type of causality?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
mathal said:
There is only one model, the De Broglie-Bohm theory, that can offer an explanation that is not either acausal or time-reversed.

You missed one word. You should say There is only one realistic model...
'Realistic' :== 'assuming objective existence of intuitive, but nondetectable entities like "photon paths" '
Or maybe you meant that using the word 'acausal'...?

Anyway - since EPR/Bell I definitely prefer and advocate non-realistic models than shy time-reversed causalities , Bohmian pilots, and similar constructs.
 
  • #33
xts said:
You missed one word. You should say There is only one realistic model...
'Realistic' :== 'assuming objective existence of intuitive, but nondetectable entities like "photon paths" '
Or maybe you meant that using the word 'acausal'...?

Anyway - since EPR/Bell I definitely prefer and advocate non-realistic models than shy time-reversed causalities , Bohmian pilots, and similar constructs.

has it been verified that wheelers expierament allows it to influence the past?
 
  • #34
Come on!

It is fully verified and non-controversial what is the outcome of the Wheeler's experiment.

The answer to your question depends only on definition you put under the word: 'influence', which depends in turn on your ontological and lexical taste.

The dispute is not about anything related to the world. It is related to the word. And, unfortunately, this word has no precisely defined and commonly accepted meaning - different people (philosophers) use it differnetly.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
Simultaneity is the issue here. In GR, there is no absolute simultaneity. Extending quantum theory to macroscopic reality is as difficut as extending GR to the quantum realm.
 
  • #36
byron178 said:
has it been verified that wheelers expierament allows it to influence the past?

The problem with Wheelers experiment and the like is that the explanations either be very mysterious - or stick to QM theory and do not think!

The latter is the safest because almost all models of understanding have errors compared to the theory - for example by being (gross) simplifications - or by introducing unneccessary ideas that are not part of the theory.

A guaranteed wrong model - which often is easy for analysis - is to imagine that the photons forming waves in space like a boat on the lake (With dark energy - space is hardly empty). When photons meetings a double split or a half-silvered mirror or a PBS then waves go both ways - but the ship = the particle follows only one of them. Interference takes place between the waves and then they control the ship = particle.

Following this model, there is no time problem - since Wheeler just stop one wave (with or without particles) - and thereby stop the interference.

Remember it is not a theory - stick to that - only a crutch.


(PS Many (all?) of this type of experiments use coincidence counters - ie that it is hard to talk about a real disturbed time sequence.)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K