Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1707.06995

The curious case of the double-slit experiment and a black hole

Satish Ramakrishna, Onuttom Narayan

Published Jul 21, 2017• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

This experiment was conceived of as a method of transmitting information from inside a black hole to the outside. As it turns out, it doesn't work in the form described (and possibly not in any form), but the way in which Nature prevents quantum-mechanical effects from transmitting usable information using quantum correlations is illuminating. In the process, one can learn some quantum theory, as well as quantum optics. The proposed scheme uses a double-slit experiment, in the manner of the Delayed Choice set up (see Kim et. al.), where the region where the interference takes place (between "signal" photons) is spatially separated from the region where the Delayed Choice (with "idler" photons) is made. Indeed, this Double-Delayed Choice, which is this thought experiment, has one of the idler photons slip inside the event horizon and serves as the method to attempt to communicate from the inside to the outside.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1707.06995

Related papers

Taming the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser

Johannes Fankhauser

I discuss the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment by drawing an analogy to a Bell-type measurement and giving a straightforward account in standard quantum mechanics. The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment turns out to resemble a Bell-type scenario in which the resolution of the paradox is rather trivial, and so there really is no mystery. At first glance, the experiment suggests that measurements on one part of an entangled photon pair (the idler) can be employed to control whether the measurement outcome of the other part of the photon pair (the signal) produces interference fringes at a screen after being sent through a double slit. Significantly, the choice whether there is interference or not can be made long after the signal photon encounters the screen. The results of the experiment have been alleged to invoke some sort of backwards in time influence. I argue that this issue can be eliminated by taking into proper account the role of the signal photon. Likewise, in the de Broglie–Bohm picture the trajectories of the particle can be given a well-defined description at any instant of time during the experiment. Thus, it is again clear that there is no need to resort to any kind of backwards in time influence. Quanta 2019; 8: 44-56.

arXiv:1707.07884•Quanta•Aug 11, 2019•10 citations

Quantum behavior in the Double Slit Experiment and the limitations of the equipment used.

Ernest Heinz

Abstract: Many problems exist in the Double Slit Experiment when you consider that the elements in the test are moving as waves. Outside of the pattern resembling peeks and troughs that overlap each other; there is no real scientific explanation on how this is taking place. In a more accurate and classical way, can we explain how the dark and light areas of the interference pattern are being made? Why is an Interference pattern being made when particles are being sent through the exercise one at a time? And how is it that through observation the Interference pattern collapses in on itself. Waves add more questions than they do answers, a very typical outcome of an incorrect solution. Maybe the unanswered questions left behind by the wave theory is a confirmation of its inaccuracy and not the mystique of its results. Rather than double down on the wave theory with time traveling particles, elements of duality, and the Copenhagen Interpretation; l reconsidered that elements tested in the double slit experiment behave as particles. But this time, I weighed the thought that these bits of matter are much smaller than previously thought. This new logic allowed particles with straight trajectories to interact with the edge of materials used in the double slit wall in a very detailed way. This created a storm of new ways to look at what is really taking place in the test; revealing the competence of the detectors utilized and the capacity of the Nonlinear Optical Crystal. Everything solved from just one idea, that quantum move as particles but on a much smaller scale. This is the enigma of the Double Slit Experiment.

•May 1, 2018•0 citations

A New Variant on Young’s Double-slit Experiment and Wheeler’s Delayed Choice Experiment

Yuan Kai

Based on the basic version of the Double-slit experiment, a coherent light source, such as a laser beam, illuminates a plate pierced by two parallel slits, and the light passing through the slits is observed on a screen behind the plate.The wave nature of light causes the light waves passing through the two slits to interfere, producing bright and dark bands on the screen — a result that would not be expected if light consisted of classical particles. Our new variant is as below: We shut one of the two parallel slits once the light passed the slits. Or we keep the two slits shutting and opening randomly in high speed. We believe this variant experiment could lead to a farther fundamental understanding of the Quantum Mechanics.

•Aug 1, 2017•0 citations

Taming the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser

Johannes Fankhauser

I discuss the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment (DCQE) by drawing an analogy to a Bell-type measurement and giving a straightforward account in standard quantum mechanics. The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment turns out to resemble a Bell-type scenario in which the paradox's resolution is rather trivial, and so there really is no mystery. At first glance, the experiment suggests that measurements on one part of an entangled photon pair (the idler) can be employed to control whether the measurement outcome of the other part of the photon pair (the signal) produces interference fringes at a screen after being sent through a double slit. Significantly, the choice whether there is interference or not can be made long after the signal photon encounters the screen. The results of the experiment have been alleged to invoke some sort of 'backwards in time influence'. I argue that this issue can be eliminated by taking into proper account the role of the signal photon. Likewise, in the de Broglie-Bohm picture the particle's trajectories can be given a well-defined description at any instant of time during the experiment. Thus, it is again clear that there is no need to resort to any kind of 'backwards in time influence'.

•Aug 12, 2017•9 citations

Quantum Eraser Experiments

George Jaroszkiewicz

Introduction In recent years, numerous quantum optics experiments have demonstrated novel quantum effects based on quantum amplitude superposition. Some of these empirical observations raise disturbing questions about the nature of reality, particularly concerning quantum nonlocality. In this chapter we discuss some experiments that suggest (to us, at least) that the information void, that uncharted regime between signal preparation and outcome detection, is not well modeled by classical spacetime. Something strange seems to be lurking there. For the purposes of exposition, the sequence of experiments we discuss in this chapter does not follow the historical sequence of those experiments, We discuss first the delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment of Kim et al. (Kim et al., 2000), referred to here as KIM. This leads us to define a heuristic measure of which-path information that is central to the theme of this chapter. This leads to a discussion of Wheeler's thought experiments on the conundrum of delayed choice in physics, particularly evident in the phenomenon of galactic lensing (Wheeler, 1983), and its empirical implementation, the delayed-choice interferometer experiment of Jacques et al., referred to as JACQUES. Our final experiment in this sequence is the double-slit quantum eraser of Walborn et al. (Walborn et al., 2002), referred to as WALBORN. That experiment gives a significant challenge for quantized detector networks (QDN) to reproduce its empirical results. Such experiments have led to suggestions that interference patterns formed by particles impacting on a screen may be influenced in some way by decisions made long after those particles had landed on that screen. Our objective in this chapter is to show by a detailed QDN analysis of those experiments that quantum principles do not support these suggestions. Nevertheless, something bizarre seems to be there. There are two complementary aspects in these experiments that have deeply worried physicists. The first involves spatial nonlocality and is the point of Wheeler's concerns. Historically, it has been a great source of debate among physicists.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 28, 2017•0 citations

Double-slit quantum eraser

Stephen Patrick Walborn, Marcelo Terra Cunha, Sebastião Pádua +1 more

We report a quantum eraser experiment which actually uses a Young double slit to create interference. The experiment can be considered an optical analogy of an experiment proposed by Scully, Englert, and Walther [Nature (London) 351, 111 (1991)]. One photon of an entangled pair is incident on a Young double slit of appropriate dimensions to create an interference pattern in a distant detection region. Quarter-wave plates, oriented so that their fast axes are orthogonal, are placed in front of each slit to serve as which-path markers. The quarter-wave plates mark the polarization of the interfering photon and thus destroy the interference pattern. To recover interference, we measure the polarization of the other entangled photon. In addition, we perform the experiment under ``delayed erasure'' circumstances.

arXiv:quant-ph/0106078•Physical Review A•Feb 20, 2002•307 citations
This experiment was conceived of as a method of transmitting information from inside a black hole to the outside. As it turns out, it doesn't work in the form described (and possibly not in any form), but the way in which Nature prevents quantum-mechanical effects from transmitting usable information using quantum correlations is illuminating. In the process, one can learn some quantum theory, as well as quantum optics. The proposed scheme uses a double-slit experiment, in the manner of the Delayed Choice set up (see Kim et. al.), where the region where the interference takes place (between "signal" photons) is spatially separated from the region where the Delayed Choice (with "idler" photons) is made. Indeed, this Double-Delayed Choice, which is this thought experiment, has one of the idler photons slip inside the event horizon and serves as the method to attempt to communicate from the inside to the outside.
I discuss the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment by drawing an analogy to a Bell-type measurement and giving a straightforward account in standard quantum mechanics. The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment turns out to resemble a Bell-type scenario in which the resolution of the paradox is rather trivial, and so there really is no mystery. At first glance, the experiment suggests that measurements on one part of an entangled photon pair (the idler) can be employed to control whether the measurement outcome of the other part of the photon pair (the signal) produces interference fringes at a screen after being sent through a double slit. Significantly, the choice whether there is interference or not can be made long after the signal photon encounters the screen. The results of the experiment have been alleged to invoke some sort of backwards in time influence. I argue that this issue can be eliminated by taking into proper account the role of the signal photon. Likewise, in the de Broglie–Bohm picture the trajectories of the particle can be given a well-defined description at any instant of time during the experiment. Thus, it is again clear that there is no need to resort to any kind of backwards in time influence. Quanta 2019; 8: 44-56.
Abstract: Many problems exist in the Double Slit Experiment when you consider that the elements in the test are moving as waves. Outside of the pattern resembling peeks and troughs that overlap each other; there is no real scientific explanation on how this is taking place. In a more accurate and classical way, can we explain how the dark and light areas of the interference pattern are being made? Why is an Interference pattern being made when particles are being sent through the exercise one at a time? And how is it that through observation the Interference pattern collapses in on itself. Waves add more questions than they do answers, a very typical outcome of an incorrect solution. Maybe the unanswered questions left behind by the wave theory is a confirmation of its inaccuracy and not the mystique of its results. Rather than double down on the wave theory with time traveling particles, elements of duality, and the Copenhagen Interpretation; l reconsidered that elements tested in the double slit experiment behave as particles. But this time, I weighed the thought that these bits of matter are much smaller than previously thought. This new logic allowed particles with straight trajectories to interact with the edge of materials used in the double slit wall in a very detailed way. This created a storm of new ways to look at what is really taking place in the test; revealing the competence of the detectors utilized and the capacity of the Nonlinear Optical Crystal. Everything solved from just one idea, that quantum move as particles but on a much smaller scale. This is the enigma of the Double Slit Experiment.
Based on the basic version of the Double-slit experiment, a coherent light source, such as a laser beam, illuminates a plate pierced by two parallel slits, and the light passing through the slits is observed on a screen behind the plate.The wave nature of light causes the light waves passing through the two slits to interfere, producing bright and dark bands on the screen — a result that would not be expected if light consisted of classical particles. Our new variant is as below: We shut one of the two parallel slits once the light passed the slits. Or we keep the two slits shutting and opening randomly in high speed. We believe this variant experiment could lead to a farther fundamental understanding of the Quantum Mechanics.
I discuss the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment (DCQE) by drawing an analogy to a Bell-type measurement and giving a straightforward account in standard quantum mechanics. The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment turns out to resemble a Bell-type scenario in which the paradox's resolution is rather trivial, and so there really is no mystery. At first glance, the experiment suggests that measurements on one part of an entangled photon pair (the idler) can be employed to control whether the measurement outcome of the other part of the photon pair (the signal) produces interference fringes at a screen after being sent through a double slit. Significantly, the choice whether there is interference or not can be made long after the signal photon encounters the screen. The results of the experiment have been alleged to invoke some sort of 'backwards in time influence'. I argue that this issue can be eliminated by taking into proper account the role of the signal photon. Likewise, in the de Broglie-Bohm picture the particle's trajectories can be given a well-defined description at any instant of time during the experiment. Thus, it is again clear that there is no need to resort to any kind of 'backwards in time influence'.
Introduction In recent years, numerous quantum optics experiments have demonstrated novel quantum effects based on quantum amplitude superposition. Some of these empirical observations raise disturbing questions about the nature of reality, particularly concerning quantum nonlocality. In this chapter we discuss some experiments that suggest (to us, at least) that the information void, that uncharted regime between signal preparation and outcome detection, is not well modeled by classical spacetime. Something strange seems to be lurking there. For the purposes of exposition, the sequence of experiments we discuss in this chapter does not follow the historical sequence of those experiments, We discuss first the delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment of Kim et al. (Kim et al., 2000), referred to here as KIM. This leads us to define a heuristic measure of which-path information that is central to the theme of this chapter. This leads to a discussion of Wheeler's thought experiments on the conundrum of delayed choice in physics, particularly evident in the phenomenon of galactic lensing (Wheeler, 1983), and its empirical implementation, the delayed-choice interferometer experiment of Jacques et al., referred to as JACQUES. Our final experiment in this sequence is the double-slit quantum eraser of Walborn et al. (Walborn et al., 2002), referred to as WALBORN. That experiment gives a significant challenge for quantized detector networks (QDN) to reproduce its empirical results. Such experiments have led to suggestions that interference patterns formed by particles impacting on a screen may be influenced in some way by decisions made long after those particles had landed on that screen. Our objective in this chapter is to show by a detailed QDN analysis of those experiments that quantum principles do not support these suggestions. Nevertheless, something bizarre seems to be there. There are two complementary aspects in these experiments that have deeply worried physicists. The first involves spatial nonlocality and is the point of Wheeler's concerns. Historically, it has been a great source of debate among physicists.
We report a quantum eraser experiment which actually uses a Young double slit to create interference. The experiment can be considered an optical analogy of an experiment proposed by Scully, Englert, and Walther [Nature (London) 351, 111 (1991)]. One photon of an entangled pair is incident on a Young double slit of appropriate dimensions to create an interference pattern in a distant detection region. Quarter-wave plates, oriented so that their fast axes are orthogonal, are placed in front of each slit to serve as which-path markers. The quarter-wave plates mark the polarization of the interfering photon and thus destroy the interference pattern. To recover interference, we measure the polarization of the other entangled photon. In addition, we perform the experiment under ``delayed erasure'' circumstances.