Started by josephpalazzo, May 07, 2014, 11:37:40 AM
QuoteUpon accessing the information gathered by the Coincidence Circuit, we the observer are shocked to learn that the pattern shown by the positions registered at D0 at Time 2 depends entirely on the information gathered later at Time 4 and available to us at the conclusion of the experiment. The position of a photon at detector D0 has been registered and scanned. Yet the actual position of the photon arriving at D0 will be at one place if we later learn more information; and the actual position will be at another place if we do not.
QuoteIn all experiments performed to date, this choice took place either in the past or, in some delayed-choice arrangements, in the future of the interference. Thus in principle, physical communications between choice and interference were not excluded. Here we report a quantum eraser experiment, in which by enforcing Einstein locality no such communication is possible.... No naive realistic picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum could be seen as showing particle- or wave-like behavior would depend on a causally disconnected choice. It is therefore suggestive to abandon such pictures altogether.
QuoteIf the observer measures the photons, his choice of the type of measurement decides whether the atoms can be described by a wave or a particle picture. Firstly, when the photons are measured in a way that reveals welcher-weg information of the atoms, the atoms do not show interference, not even conditionally on the photonsâ€™ specific mea- surement results. Secondly, if the photons are measured such that this irrevocably erases any welcher-weg information about the atoms, then the atoms will show perfect but distinct interference patterns.
QuoteSince the welcher-weg information of the atoms is carried by the photons, the choice of measurement of the photonsâ€" either revealing or erasing the atomsâ€™ welcher-weg informationâ€"can be delayed until â€œlong after the atoms have passedâ€ the photon detectors at the double slit. The later measurement of the photons â€˜decidesâ€™ whether the atoms can show interference or not even after the atoms have been detected.
QuoteOur work demonstrates and confirms that whether the correlations between two entangled photons reveal welcher- weg information or an interference pattern of one (system) photon, depends on the choice of measurement on the other (environment) photon, even when all the events on the two sides that can be space-like separated, are space-like separated. The fact that it is possible to decide whether a wave or particle feature manifests itself long afterâ€"and even space-like separated fromâ€"the measurement teaches us that we should not have any naive realistic picture for interpreting quantum phenomena.
QuoteRoss Rhodes is a science writer and lecturer for both professional and lay audiences, specializing in the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics. He is the founder of and principal contributor to BottomLayer.com, a web resource devoted to the convergence of physics, philosophy, and computer science. Mr. Rhodes has written for publications in science and theology; lectured in the United States and Europe on the foundations of quantum mechanics; and provided editorial assistance to leading researchers in the field. He obtained his B.A. from Tufts University in 1974, and his Juris Doctor from the University of Connecticut in 1981.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on May 07, 2014, 02:59:02 PMAll of these interpretations have proven to be useless as they do not lead to any new predictions. You can find tons of these speculations but none predicts anything new, you can use the paper iit's written on as toilet paper.
Quote from: Casparov on May 07, 2014, 03:34:50 PMAre you serious? Anton Zeilinger is world renowned as on of the most respected living Experimental Quantum Physicists alive today second only to maybe Alain Aspect! His lab and team in Vienna is one of the most well funded and well staffed operations in the world. Are you kidding me right now?? Your going to wipe your ass with any experimental proof that disagrees with your beliefs? What are you a Fundamentalist Materialist?You're going to say you can throw out the entire experiment and it's conclusive results on the basis that "it doesn't predict anything new"? First of all, you don't know that that is the case. Zeilinger is applying Quantum Theory to applications within the field of Quantum Cryptology and Quantum Optics, so no these experiments are not worthless. Second of all, even if they didn't predict anything new, that is no basis to entirely disregard conclusive experimental results! I mean wtf is going on here....Okay well then change your statement to:Interpretation (correct): some have interpreted that the delayed choice to observe or not the path of the idler changes the outcome of an event in the past. This is has been proven experimentally in 2013. In fact it conclusively violates causality. But you can just throw out all of those experimental proofs because they don't predict anything new and are therefore worthless. So in conclusion, causality is not violated nana nana boo boo!This is getting sad. You don't debate the evidence, you look for any opportunity to just throw the evidence out instead... Atheist Apologetics at it's best.
Quote from: Solitary on May 07, 2014, 03:14:13 PMCasparov, you again post crap that is not from main stream scientists, but science writers that are also prejudiced by religion, are philosophers, or to promote their agenda that questions science. You are still being disingenuous after being called out on it. Just go play in traffic! Solitary
QuoteYour commentator wishes to thank Dr. Kim for reviewing this commentary before posting.
Quote from: Jason78 on May 07, 2014, 03:41:07 PM
Quote from: Casparov on May 07, 2014, 03:34:50 PMAre you kidding me right now?? Your going to wipe your ass with any experimental proof that disagrees with your beliefs? What are you a Fundamentalist Materialist?
Quote from: Solitary on May 07, 2014, 04:05:05 PMAfter his works on Bell's inequalities, he (Aspect) turned toward studies of laser cooling of neutral atoms and is now mostly involved in Boseâ€"Einstein condensates related experiments.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on May 07, 2014, 04:14:17 PMThis might bore you to death, but the DCQE experiment gives exactly the same results as the double-slit experiment:1) If the path of the photon is unknown, there is an interference - you get that with the double-slit.2) If the path of the photon is known, there is no interference - you also get that with the double-slit.The only safe conclusion is that it doesn't matter if you place an eraser and/or a delayed choice in the experiment. Now if you had had a different result than the double-slit experiment, then you would have something to chew on. But that is not the case, and when you think about it, that makes sense that you would get exactly the same result: why would the photon behave differently just because you made it go through a longer path in one part of the experiment than its entangled partner? Answer: no reason whatsoever, which is what nature is telling us.Any other interpretation is hogwash.