Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment

Started by josephpalazzo, May 07, 2014, 11:37:40 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Shol'va

You do realize by saying you are looking to be proven wrong basically implies you think you are right. Good for you!
You're not here to be proven wrong. You're here to argue because it gives you an opportunity to feel secure and gives you a reason to look down on others. You've clearly expressed this in your responses. Just like a theist that needs to argue in order to reinforce their belief. "If they can't convince me then I am right. I need to know I am right. Therefore I will argue and dismiss their arguments."

It is obvious that none of us can prove anything since your own position of god is unprovable. So I ask again. Will you be leaving now?

Shol'va

You know ... for somebody that claims is here to learn about atheism, you sure spend a lot of time disputing and NO time asking questions and listening.

Casparov

Quote from: Shol'va on May 09, 2014, 08:02:22 PM
You do realize by saying you are looking to be proven wrong basically implies you think you are right. Good for you!
You're not here to be proven wrong. You're here to argue because it gives you an opportunity to feel secure and gives you a reason to look down on others. You've clearly expressed this in your responses. Just like a theist that needs to argue in order to reinforce their belief. "If they can't convince me then I am right. I need to know I am right. Therefore I will argue and dismiss their arguments."

It is obvious that none of us can prove anything since your own position of god is unprovable. So I ask again. Will you be leaving now?

Yes Shol'va I'll be leaving soon. If I came off that way to you I apologize. I'm not looking for a reason to look down on others, but I am trying to find out if I'm right and expose and improve upon the weaknesses in my world view. If you never put your world view to the test, you can never truly know if it's sound. I think I will find a Philosophy Forum or a Physics Forum next.
“The Fanatical Atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures whoâ€"in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"â€"cannot hear the music of other spheres.” - Albert Einstein

Shol'va

Then may I suggest that you skip the philosophy forum altogether as well as physics forum unless you are talking to physicists.
Which, by the way, I believe you were on here, and still rejected their point.
Either way, if you are in search for truth, before you reach out, you first need to reach in. Because if you want to find god, you surely will ... I say this because I am reminded of a quote, I believe Lincoln said it, and from what I remember it is along the lines of if you go looking for evil in men, expecting to find it, you surely will. And so it is with quests for god. Whatever it is you WANT to find it because you want to believe it, you will.

You must first get to know yourself, know your biases, desires, and take them into account. Otherwise you're going to look at the evidence and conclude whatever it is you wanted to conclude beforehand.

Casparov

Quote from: Shol'va on May 09, 2014, 08:21:09 PM
Then may I suggest that you skip the philosophy forum altogether as well as physics forum unless you are talking to physicists.
Which, by the way, I believe you were on here, and still rejected their point.
Either way, if you are in search for truth, before you reach out, you first need to reach in. Because if you want to find god, you surely will ... I say this because I am reminded of a quote, I believe Lincoln said it, and from what I remember it is along the lines of if you go looking for evil in men, expecting to find it, you surely will. And so it is with quests for god. Whatever it is you WANT to find it because you want to believe it, you will.

You must first get to know yourself, know your biases, desires, and take them into account. Otherwise you're going to look at the evidence and conclude whatever it is you wanted to conclude beforehand.

Thanks for the advice.

Quote“I searched for God and found only myself. I searched for myself and found only God.” - Rumi
“The Fanatical Atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures whoâ€"in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"â€"cannot hear the music of other spheres.” - Albert Einstein

Shol'va

#50
That might actually mean something if "God" was, you know, defined.

"I searched for the FSM and found only myself. I searched for myself and found only the FSM"

Shol'va

And by the way your quote is a Sufi proverb.
Sufism is a branch of Islam.
Do you love Allah?

Casparov

Quote from: Shol'va on May 09, 2014, 08:31:56 PM
That might actually mean something if "God" was, you know, defined.

"I searched for the FSM and found only myself. I searched for myself and found only the FSM"

Shol'va

And by the way your quote is a Sufi proverb.
Sufism is a branch of Islam.
Do you love Allah?

Sufism is the mystical sect of Islam, just as Gnosticism is the mystical sect of Christianity, just as Kaballah is the mystical sect of Judaism. I believe all of these mystical sects agree that they speak of the same ultimate truth towards which there are many paths.

As I said in a previous post, I am not religious, and yet I consider myself a member of every religion.

Quote“Yes I am, I am also a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, and a Jew.” - Mahatma Gandhi
“The Fanatical Atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures whoâ€"in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"â€"cannot hear the music of other spheres.” - Albert Einstein

Shol'va

#52
Don't take this the wrong way, but since you're here to find out more about the way the non-religious think, what you wrote sounds, to me anyway, like talking about fantasy novels. I myself like fantasy novels by many different authors.
Religions are like a salad bar.

Casparov

#53
Quote from: Shol'va on May 09, 2014, 09:28:46 PM
Don't take this the wrong way, but since you're here to find out more about the way the non-religious think, what you wrote sounds, to me anyway, like talking about fantasy novels. I myself like fantasy novels by many different authors.

With all due respect, I feel pretty secure in assuming that you have not actually read any of the texts of these various mystical traditions. You have thus writ them off as fiction without giving them a chance. I on the other hand have at least read what they have to say with an open mind, and I have concluded that they all speak of the same core message and approach it from different angles and traditions. You probably have only read part and pieces of the Bible. But have you read Abdul-Qadir Gilani, or The Hujwiri? Have you read the Bhagavad Gita or The Upinishads? Have you read The Gospel of Thomas or The Gospel of Phillip?  The Testimony of Truth or The Secret Book of James? The Diamond Sutra or the Lotus Sutra of Buddhism?

All of these deliver the same message, some better than others, all are just pointers pointing in the same direction. You have writ them all off as fantasy before having read them. Take the Bhagavad Gita for instance:

It is a story of Krishna and Arjuna having a heated discussion in the middle of a battle field. You would say, "Pffft, krishna is not real! No actual battle took place! This is fiction!" But you would be missing the entire point of the document. It is not about whether or not an actual battle took place and Krishna and Arjuna actually had the conversation, it was written to deliver a messaging to the reader. The point of the Bhagavad Gita is not to suggest that these two people had a real conversation in the middle of a real battlefield, it is to deliver a message.

A message you will never receive because you are too concerned with all religions being fiction and all gods not existing. This is the meaning of the quote I have in my signature by Albert Einstein. You are so blinded by religion as the 'opium of the masses' that you cannot see the beauty of other spheres.
“The Fanatical Atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures whoâ€"in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"â€"cannot hear the music of other spheres.” - Albert Einstein

josephpalazzo

Quote from: Casparov on May 09, 2014, 03:27:56 PM

JosephPalazzo, If you don't like the phrase, "cause wave collapse," then I will use, "prohibit the interference pattern."

It doesn't work that way. If you follow my blog on the The Essential Quantum Mechanics, the whole theory hinges on equation 33 ( up to there, it was all math), and that equation has to do with wave/particle duality. Up until all those observations were made which were unexplained by classical physics,  they were based on the idea that every energy exchange could come out in only two different categories: energy exchange by waves, or by particles. But Einstein's photoelectric effect, Rutherford's atom, spectral lines analysis, the Stern-Gerlach experiment, to name a few, defied that categorization. It was not until  the 1920's that De Broglie hypothesis  led the way to QM. Then came Schroedinger, Heisenberg and Dirac that formalized QM on a sound mathematical basis (which my blog is a good starting point if you want to learn that stuff).

Now the whole idea behind the wave collapse is in the wavefunction was taken as a real wave, with a real wavelength, real frequency etc, but it isn't. You can`t measure the wavelength/frequency of the wavefunction. The belief was that this particle/wave was in some quantum states, and when a measurement is taken, it collapses to a certain state.  However, in QFT, (see my blog  The Essential Quantum Field Theory, equations 37,38) the wavefunction is no longer a quantum state but a quantum operator. It will no longer collapse, how could it, it`s a mathematical object. Those physicists who are still using wave collapse are behind the times. Their education is incomplete, that`s why I don`t pay attention to them.

BTW, did you read up on  LuboÅ¡ Motl at http://motls.blogspot.ca/2010/11/delayed-choice-quantum-eraser.html , he has an extensive explanation on Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiments. You won`t find better explanation.

I will answer questions on the physics, but not on wild speculations.

Hijiri Byakuren

Quote from: Casparov on May 09, 2014, 08:00:00 PM
I have come here in search of someone who can prove me wrong.
You must first prove that you are right. You have not done so.
Speak when you have something to say, not when you have to say something.

Sargon The Grape - My Youtube Channel

Solitary

 :blahblah:
QuoteYou have thus writ them off as fiction without giving them a chance.

It is not about whether or not an actual battle took place and Krishna and Arjuna actually had the conversation, it was written to deliver a messaging to the reader
]

Which is it fiction, or non fiction. All the gods of history are considered as myths, the Scripture has the same people in it that are mythical figures---therefore it is a myth or fiction too, no matter what the message is. As to the other religions, Buddha is a god to the Hindus, and Buddha himself never believed he was---therefore it is mythical and a fantasy. By the way, I have read all the books and about all the religions. Yes they have good messages, but they are still based on myths and---therefore fiction. Modern Buddhism and the various schools do give the good messages that Buddha taught, but they also teach things he never believed in, so are corrupted by other religions---there are no prayers, sacrifices, thou shall not's, rituals etc. in his philosophy. There is just good advice for a better world and how to not suffer from desire, and not demands, just suggestions.  Solitary
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Berati

Quote from: Casparov on May 09, 2014, 03:27:56 PM
Here is the thing:
The presence of path information anywhere in the universe is sufficient to prohibit any possibility of interference. It is irrelevant whether a future observer might decide to acquire it. The mere possibility is enough. - from http://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.6578v2.pdf

Here is the real thing. If you read that paper you will note that the word conscious or consciousness doesn't appear at all. Not once. And yet you claim that consciousness is the main take away from this paper. Doesn't that strike even you as a little odd?
As you have been previously told, you are shoehorning consciousness into these experiments in order to appease your desire to put yourself at the center of the universe, but the universe doesn't care what you think.


QuoteShimon Malin does not understand that wave function collapse occurs as soon as there is merely "the presence of path information anywhere in the universe". Before anybody looks at the printed out paper or hears the bells, if the information is already present and available to conscious observers anywhere in the universe, the collapse takes place. So he is right in a sense that "no human interaction is necessary" but he is wrong if he concludes that "measuring devices cause the collapse". The which path information has to be available to conscious observers, being only available to measuring devices and then erased so that no conscious observers will ever have the possibility to obtain the information does not collapse the wave function.

Here is another example of you stuffing in consciousness even though it isn't necessary. You're assertion that "The which path information has to be available to conscious observers" is just that. An bold assertion that is not required anywhere in the experiment.


QuoteI am confused as to what you guys think prohibits the interference pattern. It is undeniable that the cause is "the presence of which-path information in the universe" but what does this mean? That a measuring device can have this information? Or a conscious observer?

We can present a case:

P1) An "observation" prohibits the possibility of an interference pattern
P2) Obtaining or merely having access to available which-path information constitutes an "observation"
P3) Once an observation is made, the prohibition of the possibility of an interference pattern is permanent
P4) Measuring devices that record and then erase their which path information do not permanently prohibit interference patterns
C1) Per P3 and P4, measuring devices cannot be said to be making an "observation"

Premise 3 is the one you may call into question. Here is the explanation:

Once an Observation is made, it is permanent. If the which-path observation becomes available to a conscious observer (EVEN FOR A SECOND) it's too late. It's done. The interference pattern will be prohibited permanently and there is no way to get it to reappear after that. No matter what you do after an observation is made, the interference pattern wont come back EVER! Therefore, a True Observation PERMANENTLY prohibits the interference pattern.

However, If the which-path information becomes available to an unconscious measuring device, it can erase that which-path information LONG AFTER THE MEASUREMENT, and behold, the interference pattern reappears just as if no "observation" had been made. (this is because indeed no "observation" was made) Therefore, unconscious measuring devices do not make "Observations."

This should show that "which path information being available to an unconscious measuring device" does not itself prohibit the interference pattern, and therefore cannot be a true "observation".

What hangs you up is that a measuring device is required in order for any conscious observer to ever obtain the which-path information, you therefore argue that the measuring devices measurement is prohibiting the interference pattern, not the conscious observer. It is a well established fact that what prohibits the interference pattern is the ability to obtain which-path information. The question is, "the ability for what to obtain which-path information? Measuring devices or conscious observers?"

When a conscious observer obtains which-path information, the interference pattern is permanently prohibited. Even if that which-path information is obtained only for one second and then erased, the interference pattern will never reappear. On the other hand unconscious measuring devices can obtain which-path information (which should prohibit the interference pattern) but if they erase the information the interference pattern reappears. (this should not happen if the measuring devices were making true "observations") One can only conclude that a True Observation only takes place when which-path information is obtained or available to a Conscious Observer. Measuring devices can relay this information so that it is "observed" or than can erase it so that it is "not observed" but the measuring devices themselves are doing any "observing" themselves.

I am very open to being wrong. I am not dogmatic about this. But no one is providing any argument to the contrary. What is the argument for measuring devices as true observers? I have been presented no good reason to believe that "which-path information becoming available to an unconscious measuring device prohibits the interference pattern."


Rethink your entire premise above keeping these four rules in mind and you will understand why your insertion of a conscious being "anywhere in the universe" is unnecessary for QM to function as it does and why your case above is false.  These rules are what has been proven and verified by QM experiments. The conjecture you add about conscious beings HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN.
This part you must understand if you want to understand our position.

(Thanks to JP for sharing this link)

Quote1.   Quantum mechanics only predicts the final results of experiments: it is not possible to say what the "real properties of the system" were prior to the measurement; and it's unsurprising that everything that occurs before a measurement may influence its outcome

2.   All the predictions of quantum mechanics for the outcomes of the measurements are probabilistic and we can't influence the random generator: there can't be any hidden variables that decide about the exact fate of individual particles, not even in principle, and whenever some phenomena are random in the quantum sense, the data is genuinely random and produced by Nature at the given moment; we should never think that it was "us" who made the decision

3.   Nature never forgets about any correlations: if the equations of quantum mechanics predict two objects "A, B" or their properties to be correlated - i.e. the probabilities of combinations of outcomes "P(A1, B3)" can't be universally written as "P(A1) P(B3)", then Nature never forgets about this correlation, not even after a long time (or at a very different place); so Nature's random generator that decides about the outcome of the measurement of "B" uses the conditional probabilities in which all quantities that have already been measured - e.g. "A1" - are already assumed; after "A" is measured to be "A1", the relevant probabilities for outcomes in "B" are the conditional probabilities assuming "A1"; this prescription may be visualized as a "collapse of the wave function" but this collapse is not a real physical process in any sense, it is just a rule for us to know which amplitudes are relevant

4.   Correlation is not causation: the fact that two spatially or temporarily separated measurements are correlated doesn't mean that one of them has physically influenced the other; instead, in all EPR-like experiments above, the correlation between the two measurements appears because both measurements share a common past - or a common "cause", if you wish; this comment is the typical and nearly universal reason why there's never any propagation of "faster than light" signals in any similar experiments as many people incorrectly say

So far, you have been unable to separate what the experiments CAN actually prove with what your CONJECTURE is concerning the results. Let me repeat this because it is the source of all our disagreements:
you have been unable to separate what the experiments CAN actually prove with what your CONJECTURE is concerning the results

The science here holds no interest for you. The conjecture apparently is the only thing you are concerned with.
Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

josephpalazzo

#58
Quote from: Casparov on May 09, 2014, 03:27:56 PM

The question is, "the ability for what to obtain which-path information? Measuring devices or conscious observers?"

When a conscious observer obtains which-path information, the interference pattern is permanently prohibited. Even if that which-path information is obtained only for one second and then erased, the interference pattern will never reappear. On the other hand unconscious measuring devices can obtain which-path information (which should prohibit the interference pattern) but if they erase the information the interference pattern reappears. (this should not happen if the measuring devices were making true "observations") One can only conclude that a True Observation only takes place when which-path information is obtained or available to a Conscious Observer. Measuring devices can relay this information so that it is "observed" or than can erase it so that it is "not observed" but the measuring devices themselves are doing any "observing" themselves.

I am very open to being wrong. I am not dogmatic about this. But no one is providing any argument to the contrary. What is the argument for measuring devices as true observers? I have been presented no good reason to believe that "which-path information becoming available to an unconscious measuring device prohibits the interference pattern."

It doesn't look like you are aware of what's doing on during the experiment. Here's some clarification:



QuoteCASE 1

You have a double-slit experiment:



You have an interference pattern




Quote

CASE 2

You have a double-slit with a detector at one of the slit:



You have no interference.


NOTE:

(1) THE INTERFERENCE IS DUE TO THE NO- PRESENCE OF THE DETECTOR.

(2) THE NO-INTERFERENCE IS DUE TO PRESENCE OF THE DETECTOR.

IN BOTH CASES, WHAT IS OBSERVED IS NOT DUE TO A CONSCIOUS MIND BUT TO WHETHER THERE IS A DETECTOR OR NOT.


EDIT: If you want the mathematical explanation of these two cases, see my blog Two-slit experiment

Casparov

Quote from: josephpalazzo on May 10, 2014, 11:36:35 AM
NOTE:

(1) THE INTERFERENCE IS DUE TO THE NO- PRESENCE OF THE DETECTOR.

(2) THE NO-INTERFERENCE IS DUE TO PRESENCE OF THE DETECTOR.

IN BOTH CASES, WHAT IS OBSERVED IS NOT DUE TO A CONSCIOUS MIND BUT TO WHETHER THERE IS A DETECTOR OR NOT.

I am aware of Young's Double Slit Experiment. Thank you. You seem to be suggesting that the mere presence of a detector causes the interference pattern to disappear. Keeping in mind what we have learned via the Eraser Experiments, such as http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/Walborn.pdf which actually uses the Young Double Slit, what is it about the presence of a detector that causes the interference pattern to disappear? If the detector records which-path information and then erases it, does the detector's mere presence still cause the interference pattern to disappear? If not, why not?
“The Fanatical Atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures whoâ€"in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"â€"cannot hear the music of other spheres.” - Albert Einstein