Timeline for Is my understanding of the delayed choice quantum eraser correct?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 18, 2023 at 3:38 | comment | added | Duke William | Photon doesn't choose to travel only one way at the separation because of tagging by the polarizer. Actually, the photon travels through both slits but is now entangled with polarizers up to the detector. (This changes wave function now to include entangled states with polarizer) Because of this entanglement (new wavefunction that includes tagging by polarizer), there is no interference at the detector. It is a fallacy to decide wave function reduce to one path at polarizers. | |
| May 11, 2016 at 23:46 | comment | added | David Reishi | @fiftyeight, "Everything I heard about the double-slit experiment suggests that any measurement 'collapses the wave function,' is that not the case?" I'm guessing that what's meant by that is more along lines that any attempt to "detect" light-waves ends up with the energy of the waves being delivered, that is, as point-like energy quanta. | |
| May 11, 2016 at 19:56 | comment | added | David Reishi | @fiftyeight, (2 of 2). But if you look back at your premise of that conclusion, it's not quite right (only because of the video). So what I wanted to do in my answer is clear up the big misconception in the video, but not in a "burst your bubble" type way...since the real experiment and the real way the conclusions are drawn are fascinating enough. | |
| May 11, 2016 at 19:49 | comment | added | David Reishi | @fiftyeight, in your question you're exactly right when you draw the conclusion that "...This seem to suggest that whether we get an interference pattern depends on whether the 'which-way' information 'exists'..." In fact, you should be commended for drawing such a correct conclusion after watching such a misleading video. (Cont.) | |
| May 11, 2016 at 17:33 | comment | added | David Reishi | @fiftyeight, no that's not what I'm saying. According to the quantum explanation, what Fresnel and Arago consciously discovered wasn't the cause but the effect. Little did they realize, what they really discovered was a perfect and very rare means of tagging the photons with which-way information. That, according to the quantum explanation, is what actually caused the lack of interference. Tagging the photons with such information causes them to act differently, to give up their wave-like behavior, to travel each through only one slit, and hence to not interfere. | |
| May 11, 2016 at 12:12 | comment | added | fiftyeight | Are you saying that getting no interference is due to the different polarisations, rather than the mere act of "measurement"? Everything I heard about the double-slit experiment suggests that any measurement "collapses the wave function", is that not the case? | |
| May 11, 2016 at 6:40 | history | edited | David Reishi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed typo
|
| May 11, 2016 at 4:08 | comment | added | anna v | On the other hand one can argue that pushing "underlying quantum nature" is a matter of belief too. The difference lies in that the quantum nature is necessary to model a huge number of experimental data, so "belief" in the underlying quantum framework and its postulates is based on data. Belief in reality of the underlying creation and annihilation operators ( which substitute for particles in the QFT model) is not necessary, it is enough to use them as tools to model the data successfully. | |
| May 11, 2016 at 3:47 | comment | added | anna v | of a free particle running through space is a bump of creation and annihilation operators on its "path" . as it is a matter of belief , it is not worth arguing about. @BillAlsept this is for you too | |
| May 11, 2016 at 3:45 | comment | added | anna v | @DavidReishi it is not worth squabbling over this once you realized the CuriousOne takes the mathematics of quantum field theory as "the reality", and not as a tool to calculate probability distributions through Feynman diagrams. We all know the field lines drawn for classical electric and magnetic fields. We know they are just useful mathematical functions that illustrate the models. You could of course believe that they are the reality and not a mathematical tool. A number of people believe the quantized fields are the reality. Like a lorenz invariant aether, and the probability | |
| May 11, 2016 at 3:21 | comment | added | CuriousOne | @DavidReishi: We can have a chat on this if you like. The physics, that is, I am really not interested in your personal opposition to well meant critique (for the sake of others) of outright false ideas. | |
| May 11, 2016 at 3:10 | history | edited | David Reishi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed a typo
|
| May 11, 2016 at 3:05 | comment | added | David Reishi | @CuriousOne, like I said, this isn't the place for you to come to pester and berate people into accepting your quirky little idea. I'm miffed how you've been getting away with this for so long. I want to pose the suggestion in meta that all members can delete comments to their own questions and answers, say, 12 hours after a comment is posted...basically for no other reason than to try to finally put an end to your off-topic berating and badgering in practically every other question that gets posted. | |
| May 10, 2016 at 23:47 | comment | added | Bill Alsept | It's the only conclusion if you're biased or stuck on the old ways but a solution can be derived on a Particle basis also. Quantum mechanics is one thing and your photon less theory is another. | |
| May 10, 2016 at 23:37 | comment | added | CuriousOne | @DavidReishi: That's the simple and only logical conclusion one can draw from experiments and the structure of quantum field theory, which has superseded single particle quantum mechanics in the late 1940s. It's not a general problem that a lot of people are way behind the times in their understanding of physical ontology. You could have known all of this better since 1929. That you chose not to is your problem alone. | |
| May 10, 2016 at 23:08 | comment | added | Bill Alsept | Not everyone agrees with this no photon theory. Although you do push this agenda a lot, I wonder if it's the overall consensus here on Stack Exchange? How do you prove there are no photons? Better yet why is your photon less theory better than a photon theory? David what do you think? Without photons half of the things you mentioned above are not even needed including the experiment. | |
| May 10, 2016 at 22:56 | comment | added | David Reishi | @CuriousOne, you very well could be right. The problem is, that's your own quirky little idea and such things don't really belong here. For instance, I'd be surprised if you could muster up even a .00001% rate of physicists who agree with your statement, let alone can make heads or tails of it. | |
| May 10, 2016 at 20:51 | comment | added | CuriousOne | There are no photons traveling trough this experiment. Photons only exist where they are being detected, after which they are gone. | |
| May 10, 2016 at 19:40 | history | edited | David Reishi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Changes lenses to filters
|
| May 10, 2016 at 19:34 | history | edited | David Reishi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Changes lenses to filters
|
| May 10, 2016 at 19:01 | history | edited | David Reishi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
addition
|
| May 10, 2016 at 18:51 | history | edited | David Reishi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
clarification
|
| May 10, 2016 at 18:44 | history | answered | David Reishi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |