- #1
- 3,766
- 297
Patrick posted the following interesting link in another thread:
I'd like to discuss this some more. Whenever I have read about these experiments I have always hoped to see the results of one in particular but I have never found what I wanted. I can guess what the results would be, but maybe some would disagree.
An obvious extension of the third experiment, the delayed erasure, would be the following:
let photon s hit the screen first. *Then* (after the impactof s) randomly decide whether a polarizer will be inserted in the path of photon p. This way, the choice of inserting the polarizer in the path of p is made *after* photon s has hit the screen.
Even better: make the path of beam p so long that even a signal at the speed of light could not get from s to p to exchange any info between those two.
Now, I can guess what the result would be (I can't see any other possibility unless completely new physics would come into play but maybe some will disagree):
I think that the pattern on the screen will not be a clear interference or non-interference pattern. It will be more messy. But then, if someone separately plot the impacts of s corresponding to the case where the polarizer was in the path of p and the impacts of s corresponding to when the polarizer was absent, one would see a non-interference and an interference pattern, respectively. I can't think of anything else that could happen (unless, again, something drastically new emerges).
I would find this an interesting experiment to do. I know that some would say that if we accept the experiments testing Bell's inequality, we already know about the nonlocality aspect of QM and that my experiment does not bring anything new. Still, I think it would be an interesting different check. And one that would clearly show not only a nonlocality in space but also one in time (the s photon would not only know what happens very far, but also what happens in the future!). I know that some people will say (I'm used to having my ideas shot down, as you see ) that it's obvious that a nonlocality in space leads to a nonlocality in time (we just have to view a n experiment testing Bell's inequality in a different Lorentz frame) but still, those are all theoretical considerations. We should do experiment and let Nature tells us what is correct. And the experiment I am thinking about here offers a new twist, I would think.
Of course, I am sure it's not a new idea, so I would also like to have reference to this type of experiment, if anyone knows.
Cheers
Pat
vanesch said:...
http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/
cheers,
patrick.
I'd like to discuss this some more. Whenever I have read about these experiments I have always hoped to see the results of one in particular but I have never found what I wanted. I can guess what the results would be, but maybe some would disagree.
An obvious extension of the third experiment, the delayed erasure, would be the following:
let photon s hit the screen first. *Then* (after the impactof s) randomly decide whether a polarizer will be inserted in the path of photon p. This way, the choice of inserting the polarizer in the path of p is made *after* photon s has hit the screen.
Even better: make the path of beam p so long that even a signal at the speed of light could not get from s to p to exchange any info between those two.
Now, I can guess what the result would be (I can't see any other possibility unless completely new physics would come into play but maybe some will disagree):
I think that the pattern on the screen will not be a clear interference or non-interference pattern. It will be more messy. But then, if someone separately plot the impacts of s corresponding to the case where the polarizer was in the path of p and the impacts of s corresponding to when the polarizer was absent, one would see a non-interference and an interference pattern, respectively. I can't think of anything else that could happen (unless, again, something drastically new emerges).
I would find this an interesting experiment to do. I know that some would say that if we accept the experiments testing Bell's inequality, we already know about the nonlocality aspect of QM and that my experiment does not bring anything new. Still, I think it would be an interesting different check. And one that would clearly show not only a nonlocality in space but also one in time (the s photon would not only know what happens very far, but also what happens in the future!). I know that some people will say (I'm used to having my ideas shot down, as you see ) that it's obvious that a nonlocality in space leads to a nonlocality in time (we just have to view a n experiment testing Bell's inequality in a different Lorentz frame) but still, those are all theoretical considerations. We should do experiment and let Nature tells us what is correct. And the experiment I am thinking about here offers a new twist, I would think.
Of course, I am sure it's not a new idea, so I would also like to have reference to this type of experiment, if anyone knows.
Cheers
Pat
Last edited by a moderator: