It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
-As pointed out two times before, your whole argument is ridiculous, if it was all caused by the physical act of measuring, there would be no mystery in Quantum science. it is absolutely moronic to suggest that the whole premise of QP has been based on a flawed setup all these decades, and that you are the one to point this out.
So again, it is your turn to debunk me and tell me how these experiments do not prove that it is in fact the availability of Which path info that is the causal factor of these results.
Originally posted by MightyPenfriend
Want me to go in depth on the Delayed QE exp. and completely shut you up?
In an effort to reconcile quantum predictions and com- mon sense, it was suggested that quantum particles may in fact know in advance to which experiment they will be confronted, via a hidden variable, and could thus de- cide which behaviour to exhibit. This simplistic argu- ment was however challenged by Wheeler in his elegant ‘delayed choice’ arrangement [6–8]. In this gedanken ex- periment, sketched in Fig. 1(a), a quantum particle is sent towards a Mach-Zender interferometer. The relative phase φ between the two arms of the interferometer can be adjusted such that the particle will emerge in output D0 with certainty. That is, the interference is fully con- structive in output D0, and fully destructive in output D1. This measurement thus clearly highlights the wave aspect of the quantum particle. However, the observer performing the experiment has the choice of modifying the above experiment, in particular by removing the sec- ond beam-splitter of the interferometer. In this case, he will perform a which-path measurement. The photon will be detected in each mode with probability one half, thus exhibiting particle-like behaviour. The main point is that the experimentalist is free to choose which experiment to perform (i.e. interference or which-path, thus testing the wave or the particle aspect), once the particle is al- ready inside the interferometer. Thus, the particle could not have known in advance (for instance via a hidden variable) the kind of experiment it will be confronted, since this choice was simply not made when the parti- cle entered the interferometer. Wheeler’s experiment has been implemented experimentally using various systems, all confirming quantum predictions [9–12]. In a recent experiment with single photons, a space-like separation between the choice of measurement and the moment the photon enters the interferometer was achieved
In other words, no model in which the photon decided in advance which behaviour to exhibit—knowing in advance the measure- ment setup—can account for the observed statistics. In our experiment, we achieve strong Bell inequality viola- tions, hence giving an experimental refutation to such hidden variable models, up to a few additional assump- tions due to imperfections in our setup.
In order to show that the measurement choice could not have been known in advance, we must ensure that our quantum controlled beam-splitter behaves in a gen- uine quantum way. In particular, we will ensure that it creates entanglement between the system and ancilla photons, which is the clear signature of a quantum pro- cess. The global state of the system and ancilla pho- tons, given in equation (3), is entangled for all values 0 < α < π/2. Note that ⟨ψp|ψw⟩ ∼ cosφ, hence the de- gree of entanglement depends on φ and α; in particular for α = π/4 and φ = π/2, the state (3) is maximally entangled.
Experimentally we observe a maximal violation of S = 2.45±0.03, for α = π/4 and φ = π/2, which is in good agreement with theoretical predictions (see Fig. 4). Therefore, our data could not been accounted for by any model in which the system photon would have known in advance whether to behave as a particle or as a wave.
In conclusion we have reported on a quantum delayed choice experiment, giving a novel demonstration of wave- particle duality, Feynman’s ’one real mystery’ in quan- tum mechanics. In our experiment, the delayed choice of Wheeler’s proposal is replaced by a quantum controlled beam-splitter followed by a Bell inequality test. In this way we demonstrate genuine quantum behaviour of single photons. The demonstration of a quantum controlled beam-splitter shows that a single measurement device can continuously tune between particle and wave mea- surements, hence pointing towards a more refined notion of complementarity in quantum mechanics
There is a very common fallacy, here called the separation fallacy, that is involved in the inter- pretation of quantum experiments involving a certain type of separation such as the: double-slit experiments, which-way interferometer experiments, polarization analyzer experiments, Stern- Gerlach experiments, and quantum eraser experiments. It is the separation fallacy that leads not only to flawed textbook accounts of these experiments but to flawed inferences about retro- causality in the context of ”delayed choice” versions of separation experiments.
In each case, given an incoming quantum particle, the apparatus creates a certain labelled or tagged (i.e., entangled) superposition of certain eigenstates (the ”separation”). Detectors can be placed in certain positions (determined by the tags) so that when the evolving superposition state is finally projected or collapsed by the detectors, then only one of the eigenstates can register at each detector. The separation fallacy mistakes the creation of a tagged or entangled superposition for a measurement. Thus it treats the particle as if it had already been projected or collapsed to an eigenstate at the separation apparatus rather than at the later detectors. But if the detectors were suddenly removed while the particle was in the apparatus, then the superposition would continue to evolve and have distinctive effects (e.g., interference patterns in the two-slit experiment).
Hence the separation fallacy makes it seem that by the delayed choice to insert or remove the appropriately positioned detectors, one can retro-cause either a collapse to an eigenstate or not at the particle’s entrance into the separation apparatus.
Thus what is called ”detecting which slit the particle went through” is a misinterpretation. It is only placing a detector in such a position so that when the superposition projects to an eigenstate, only one of the eigenstates can register in that detector. It is about detector placement; it is not
By erroneously talking about the detector ”showing the particle went through slit 1,” we imply a
type of retro-causality. If the detector is suddenly removed after the particle has passed the slits, then the superposition state continues to evolve and shows interference on the far wall (not shown)—in which case people say ”the particle went through both slits.” Thus the ”bad talk” makes it seem that by removing or inserting the detector after the particle is beyond the slits, one can retro-cause the particle to go through both slits or one slit only.
This sudden removal or insertion of detectors that can only detect one of the slit-eigenstates is a version of Wheeler’s delayed choice thought-experiment
It is said that the second beam-splitter ”erases” the ”which-way information” so that a hit at either detector could have come from either arm, and thus an interference pattern emerges.
But this is also incorrect. The superposition state |T 1⟩ + |R1⟩ (which contains no which-way information) is further transformed at the second beam-splitter to the superposition |T 1, T 2⟩ + |T 1, R2⟩ + |R1, T 2⟩ + |R1, R2⟩ that can be regrouped according to what can register at each detector:
The so-called ”which-way information” was not there to be ”erased” since the particle did not take one way or the other in the first place. The second beam-splitter only allows the superposition state [|T 1, R2⟩ + |R1, T 2⟩]D1 to be registered at D1 or the superposition state [|T 1, T 2⟩ + |R1, R2⟩]D2 to be registered at D2. By using a phase shifter φ, an interference pattern can be recorded at each detector since each one is now detecting a superposition that will involve interference.
By inserting or removing the second beam-splitter after the particle has traversed the first beam- splitter (as in ), the separation fallacy makes it seem that we can retro-cause the particle to go through both arms or only one arm.
The point is not the second beam-splitter but the detectors being able to register the collapse to either eigenstate and thus the interference between them. Instead of inserting the second beam- splitter, we could rig up more mirrors, a lens, and a single detector so that when the single detector causes the collapse, then it is will register either arm-eigenstate.
Ramtha you mean. I read one of her books a few years ago, it was an interesting read but I like to focus more on the scientific aspect of it.
Originally posted by DeliriumAquarium
reply to post by MightyPenfriend
You're fighting an uphill battle, my friend.
Reality as you think is not affected by consciousness as you think.
Although, you change reality all the time, you just take it for granted...
Looking in all the wrong places, limited by beliefs and labels. (Both of you)edit on 16-8-2012 by DeliriumAquarium because: added "although" for clarity