Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser

Xris,

well the Copenhagen interpretation is dominant and has been dominant for over half a century, so I don't know how much more agreeable things can get.

Exogen
You seem intent on the double split experiment. That is why I ask you why do we see a distortion if no slit is present but only a single obstacle? It should not happen with present accepted science. I read an article on this anomaly but can not remember where. I will endeavour to find it.

Many question the experiment and it's conclusion, it is like the BB. So many experts have invested their careers in the science of certainties and fear to accept new thinking.

Xris, well the double slit experiment and its variants seem to show that it is not the electron detectors that is causing the particle or wave patterns.

"It turns out that, so far as experimentalists have been able to determine, the difference is not whether electrons were run through an electron detector at the slits. It turns out that, so far as experimentalists have been able to determine, the difference is whether the analysis of the results at the back wall is conducted when information about the electrons' positions at the slits is available, or not."

Xris, well the double slit experiment and its variants seem to show that it is not the electron detectors that is causing the particle or wave patterns.

"It turns out that, so far as experimentalists have been able to determine, the difference is not whether electrons were run through an electron detector at the slits. It turns out that, so far as experimentalists have been able to determine, the difference is whether the analysis of the results at the back wall is conducted when information about the electrons' positions at the slits is available, or not."

But with my example there should be no distortion. The theory that answers your questions can be explained by the strings of light and electrons being entwined in a rope structure and connecting every atom there is in existence. Electrons and light are never particles but ropes that connect everything. That is why light and electrons communicate almost instantaneously. What we observe is the action of two atoms connected by ropes. I can not remember the exact theory or it's proponent but I will try to remember. It certainly deserved attention.

-- Updated Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:29 pm to add the following --

Bill Gaede and his electro magnetic rope, speculative, theory.

Xris,

sounds like some sort of hidden variable theory. But even if that was true, and this theory explains non-locality as actually being local interactions that are merely hidden from observations via these "ropes" it does not explain the variations of the double slit experiment.

If the difference is in looking at the information after the fact, or not, the hidden variables are already ruled out because whatever effect they should be having, should be independent of observation. Yet, the variations on the double slit experiment rule out the presence of hidden variables.

At that point you have to elicit something like Descartes evil genius or make your determinism and realism possible.

Xris,

sounds like some sort of hidden variable theory. But even if that was true, and this theory explains non-locality as actually being local interactions that are merely hidden from observations via these "ropes" it does not explain the variations of the double slit experiment.

If the difference is in looking at the information after the fact, or not, the hidden variables are already ruled out because whatever effect they should be having, should be independent of observation. Yet, the variations on the double slit experiment rule out the presence of hidden variables.

At that point you have to elicit something like Descartes evil genius or make your determinism and realism possible.

Exogen,
Your not getting the point of the experiment. He shone a laser at a pin and instead of getting a display with shadow of the pin, he obtained a similar pattern to the double split experiment, without the splits. We are not necessarily seeing light particles or electrons hitting the screen. If true it makes a mockery of the whole experiment.

Xris, your going to have to elaborate cause I'm not sure the experiment you are referring to then. I thought we were only referring to the double slit and its variations.

Xris, your going to have to elaborate cause I'm not sure the experiment you are referring to then. I thought we were only referring to the double slit and its variations.

Sorry Oxygen but you will have to search for Bill Gaede. He is bit of a maverick and although his conclusions need verification his simple demonstration does make the double split experiment dubious. He questions the quantum particle theory and simply asks, is there an electron particle? Is their discrete particle of light? We accept quantum as a fact when in reality it is a concept that has never been questioned or verified by observation or experiment. Science has become the new religion were we have to accept our high priests knowledge as if it was sacrosanct and not to be questioned. It does not matter if Bill Gaede is right or wrong but his questioning of what the gods decree is essential to gaining the truth.

He has many links on you tube.xris

Science has become the new religion were we have to accept our high priests knowledge as if it was sacrosanct and not to be questioned. It does not matter if Bill Gaede is right or wrong but his questioning of what the gods decree is essential to gaining the truth.

It is somewhat sad to me to note how consistently, in my experience, those that equate science to religion so desperately need it to function like religion in order for their arguments to have coherence. Not to be questioned? There is no model that has ever been questioned more than quantum field theory--the theory that makes the most sense out of the delayed choice double slit results.

Does this model constitute sacrosanct truth? Of course not. Scientists know that the model is wrong. For one thing it predicts an overall field energy for the vacuum of space that is 120 orders of magnitude greater than what empirical experiments have measured. That constitutes the most erroneous prediction in the history of science. So why is the model still used and revered? Because the model works within its appropriate sphere of application, and we don't have any better (i.e., more comprehensive) model yet. "Truth" isn't the business of science, only of dogmatists.

Gaede's demonstration is typical of those with a predisposed agenda, cleverly misrepresenting their information as being illustrative of scientific information rather than the spin job that it is. Last month's book-of-the-month was all about how religionists have misrepresented factual values from the equations of physics as proof that the universe is fine-tuned to produce life. The book responsibly exposed the types of shams routinely used by such dogmatists, but of course our friend, Xris, who requires fine-tuning to be true and real for the coherence of his positions, decried the book without even bothering to read it. The advantage of such techniques of course, is that it permits their perpetrators to always be right.

And yes, Xris, I already know you're not religious. But your position is dogmatic, nevertheless.

Getting back to the delayed choice experiment; again as I understand it the fact that we can have information about which where the electron will be effects the results. The detectors are supposed to be ruled out by this experiment as being a cause of collapsing the wave function or not to either an interference pattern or a particle pattern.

Again this experiment, as I understand it, falsifies the idea that the detectors are variables in the original double slit experiment.

You can crucify the messenger but try confronting the message. Science is the new religion it has gone beyond it's original mandate and deals in concepts rather than empirical experiments. We spend billions looking for particles that might not even exist, refusing to accept that we might just be fundamentally wrong. You talk about electrons as if we understand them and when the actual experiment you use to deny that description conflicts with it, you call it the undetermined quantum universe. I am not asking you to believe that Bill Gaede is the new messiah of science but he does ask certain questions that have not been answered by those who oppose his reasoning. As for reading another faith driven book about the religous nature of science, no thanks my cup runneth over.

Oxygen, If you believe in the description of atoms, electrons and the quantum theoretical universe then yes you do have a universe beyond our determination , random, with magical acts where the observer effects the very nature of matter. Sorry but I can not make that leap of faith.

Very well, Xris. Your viewpoint is welcome, but I'm going to continue to try exposing your misrepresentations of this subject. The integrity of this topic requires no less.

Science is the new religion it has gone beyond it's original mandate and deals in concepts rather than empirical experiments.

Science has always dealt with concepts. Empirical experimentation is science' methodology for testing those concepts. Unlike religion, science does not embrace those concepts as fact until repeatable experimental results are documented. It's the reason why even such a ballyhooed concept as String Theory is still not accepted science: no experimental evidence.

We spend billions looking for particles that might not even exist, refusing to accept that we might just be fundamentally wrong.

Incorrect. We spend billions to see if we're right. If we refused to accept that we're wrong, we wouldn't bother to look for them; we would declare their existence by fiat, the way religion does.

You talk about electrons as if we understand them and when the actual experiment you use to deny that description conflicts with it, you call it the undetermined quantum universe.

Correct. That is science being responsible. As soon as evidence of causality for quantum dynamics arises in such a manner as to suggest falsifiable experimentation, science will be all over it, you can bet. Until then, any introduction of causal assumption can only qualify as speculative. Speculation has value, of course. Just as religion does.

I am not asking you to believe that Bill Gaede is the new messiah of science but he does ask certain questions that have not been answered by those who oppose his reasoning.

Someday he should consider asking questions that suggest falsifiable experimentation that can be replicated by others and interpreted in a scientificaly responsible manner rather than serve as fodder for his predefined agenda.

Oxygen, If you believe in the description of atoms, electrons and the quantum theoretical universe then yes you do have a universe beyond our determination , random, with magical acts where the observer effects the very nature of matter. Sorry but I can not make that leap of faith.

No magic. No leap of faith required. Just straightforward logical deduction: if you are going to observe phenomena where the scale of the phenomenon is so small that (1) only electrons and photons will be small enough to measure with, and (2) what you are measuring is other electrons and photons, then it is only stubborn human hubris that can maintain the illusion that "observer" and "observed" are separate systems. Let that go and it beomes obvious that your "measurement" will turn into a full-blown interaction, simply as the natural consequence of electrons' and photons' empirical behavior, fundamentally changing not only what you thought was the experiment, but the entire observational situation along with it. The fact that the "final" recording of the situation is at a macroscopic scale of computer readouts and human eyes is natural since the entire recording apparata were implicated at the moment the interaction occurred.

Well you may consider concepts as a reason to invest billions in a science that depends not once on observable conclusions. Where o where did you conclude that an electron is a particle? Have you managed to find and observe one of these pesky varmits. It's this simple acceptance of concepts that gives rise to strange conclusions.The quantum world is not known nor has it any scientific certainties that can dismiss others concepts. You can not dismiss the man without dismissing his simple experiments, so can you? Can you find any one that questions him on any of his concepts? It was not that long ago when to deny the expanding universe was tantamount to suicide. Lets not treat others with contempt just because they are in the minority. I can remember one such guy in history who suffered from another dogmatic faith.

Well you may consider concepts as a reason to invest billions in a science that depends not once on observable conclusions.

We're explorers. It's one of the things that humans do. And the results are observable conclusions when we're right with our hypotheses. Otherwise, we're wrong and we try something else.

Where o where did you conclude that an electron is a particle? Have you managed to find and observe one of these pesky varmits.

A "particle" is a model in the context of physics. It isn't a particle like a sand grain. It isn't even a discreet entity according to quantum field theory. It is merely a convenient way to talk about the electron's behavior in certain non-mathematical contexts, like philosophy forums. When it comes time to experiment, the "particle" becomes field equations in an abstract, multidimensional mathematical continuum called Hilbert space. These abstract equations explain how my household TV worked (back when it was a cathode ray tube instead of LCD). They explain how my compact discs can be read by a laser. They explain how a tunnelling microscope can take pictures of atoms. The point is that the model works when used in its proper context. Science doesn't have to find the "pesky varmits;" only determinists do.

It's this simple acceptance of concepts that gives rise to strange conclusions.

No, its your simple resistance to concepts that gives rise to strange conclusions. In its own mathematical domain--the only valid domain of these concepts--the conclusions are a natural derivation of the mathematical operations. Trying to talk about it in non-mathematical terms is difficult and approximate; after all, it is impossible to "visualize" a Hilbert space. Trying to understand the talk in terms of deterministic, Newtonian paradigms becomes paradoxical. The paradoxes are reflective of the limits of linguistic conceptualization and logical inference, both of which evolved with no experience of subatomic behavior.

The quantum world is not known nor has it any scientific certainties that can dismiss others concepts.

It doesn't dismiss concepts out of hand; rather it will entertain any number of outlandish hypotheses if there is hope that the hypotheses will yield falsifiable conclusions. That is why String Theory is alive and kicking still. That is why hidden-variable physics continues to be pursued. Concepts get dismissed by science when they are (1) falsified or (2) when their predictive potential is exhausted and subsumed within broader conceptual frameworks.

You can not dismiss the man without dismissing his simple experiments, so can you?

Okay, I'll dismiss one of his simple experiments if you like. In his video "Is Light Curved?" he rejects General Relativity's prediction of light curvature by (1) categorically denying that light is a particle and (2) proclaiming that space conceived as a structure is "irrational."


Like most polemicists against science, his methods depend entirely on misrepresenting the claims of science. He connotes light particles as being like the sand grains which I already explained away in my first paragraph, but which he conveniently ignores, as he must to make his subsequent lambasting of wave/particle duality coherent. He connotes Einsteinian Space-Time as being some kind of "substance" molded and shaped to force energy to bend, when in fact Space-Time is an abstract mathematical model that best allows prediction of cosmic-scale empirical behavior. I had to laugh out loud when he actually had the audacity to claim that General Relativity is unfalsifiable by having covered all bases for falsifiability. If he was at all right, scientists would not be so nonplussed about Dark Energy as they are. Then he goes and makes the same point about natural language descriptions of science that I made 3 paragraphs ago, only he doesn't let his audience know that mathematics is the true language of physics--it doesn't support his sham to do so, allowing him to use words like "magic" and "ball" as if they are legitimate pictures of how science conceives of itself. He then presents principle of refraction completely out of context, applying them to particle behavior, when refraction is by definition a model for explaining wave behavior. In short, his arguments require the ignorant credulity of his audience in order to even seem coherent. The man is a snake-oil salesman. Predictably, he ends the video in a tone of complete hyperbole, exactly as a snake-oil salesman bully-pulpits his naive audience into buying his bogus product.

Those who support the status quo get the funds no matter how vague the concept. So we have a model of an electron. Not particle, not a wave? We describe its function but not it's value. What exactly is this field? what does it consist of? Mathematics can draw a picture of it's attributes but not it's true nature. if we live by concepts alone then no argument can be driven by certainty. No, you can not say it can be controlled by observation or this quantum world is indeterminate.

So are you actually claiming light is particle? is that conclusive?

As for you brief dismissal of another scientist, then may I ask again. What is wave? What is field? what is it filled with? What is a particle doing making waves? making fields? Sorry but these simple mathematical explanations will never fully explain the duality of the quantum universe. Scientists themselves are bogged down in one mystery that simple relies on other mysteries. You may think you have dismissed his questions but in reality all you have done is perform an age old ritual. A ritual of instantly condemning any who believe in anything other than the community.

But Xris, isn't your notion of determinism strictly conceptual? I mean you would like to say it is empirical, but Hume was the one who showed that all one ever has is an association through sequence of events, which is not the same as causality. In short, correlation is not causation. Causation comes from a metaphysical argument to be established as a principle.

Now causality may be able to be falsified under certain metaphysical assumptions by empirical data in the context of an experiment but quantum mechanics experiments, like the delayed choice quantum eraser have done as such.