1
$\begingroup$

In quantum eraser experiments, which path information is made available and then destroyed before the photon hits the screen. Now, say we had an experiment in which a photon is sent to a double slit apparatus. However, one of the slits is covered. Thus, which path information is available. However, if we uncovered the other slit before the photon hit the screen would an interference pattern be produced? Is this, at least theoretically, a legitimate quantum eraser experiment?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Covering a slit doesn't make path information available, it simply changes one experiment into a different one. Photons are still not moving and they are, for sure, not hitting screens. $\endgroup$ – CuriousOne Dec 29 '15 at 6:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I understand that this would convert the experiment into a single slit experiment. But the fact of the matter is that you know which slit the photon went through so I don't understand how you can say that path information is not available $\endgroup$ – Clement Decker Dec 29 '15 at 7:02
  • $\begingroup$ That the photon "went" anywhere is not a testable hypothesis, it's an implicit human assumption about photons being classical point particles with some strange habits. That assumption has been buried a long time ago in proper physics. It is, however, still spooking around in many heads and especially the layman literature, not to mention a whole field of quantum optics folks who just can't let got of single particle quantum mechanics as it was envisioned around 1923-1927. Nature, analyzed properly, doesn't give any indication that photons are such particles. $\endgroup$ – CuriousOne Dec 29 '15 at 7:10
  • $\begingroup$ it's not an eraser because the information is still available. If you close a slit randomly, the which path is unknown and there is not interference :) @Curiousone : if one closes one slit and observes a hit on the screen, he gets the which path information, whatever the light quantum is. No ? $\endgroup$ – user46925 Dec 29 '15 at 7:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @CuriousOne : enjoy pdf $\endgroup$ – user46925 Dec 29 '15 at 8:02
0
$\begingroup$

Why do you keep referring to particles going through the slits when it seems evident that what went through the slits was in wave form and only becomes a particle when it hits the back screen or when the observer creates a decoherance by the use of an electrified camera during his observation.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ while it's not wrong in your model, this doesn't answer the OP ( not just electrified , any measure device ) $\endgroup$ – user46925 Jan 9 '16 at 4:42

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.