Timeline for Is my understanding of the delayed choice quantum eraser correct?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 11, 2016 at 12:44 | comment | added | Stéphane Rollandin | About time, the problem is that saying "when a particle is detected at one slit" or "after erasing" mixes causality and chronology in a way that seems natural but do not hold when one wants to analyses EPR-like experiments, by which I mean experiments where entanglement is key. | |
| May 11, 2016 at 12:40 | comment | added | Stéphane Rollandin | You are right, I have been talking about interpretation where you meant understanding, but it's because I do not really see the difference: real understanding as opposed to interpretation lies in the mathematical framework of QM and it is not what we are talking about here. | |
| May 11, 2016 at 11:58 | comment | added | fiftyeight | I really was not trying to "interpret" or philosophise really; but just to use the asumptions of QM, which perhaps I am wrong about. As far as I understand QM still has a concept of time, and the cocnept of the wave-function "collapsing" to a single eigenstate. When a particle is detected at one slit, does that not "collapse" the wave function? if so, how come after "erasing" (which as far as I understand just means tweaking the results so it is no longer possible to know which slit the particle went through) the wave function is not "collapsed"? i.e. we get interference. | |
| May 11, 2016 at 8:42 | history | answered | Stéphane Rollandin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |