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:1711.09007 · Progress In Electromagnetics Research M

UNOBSERVABLE POTENTIALS TO EXPLAIN A QUANTUM ERASER AND A DELAYED-CHOICE EXPERIMENT

M. Morimoto

Published Jan 1, 2017• 3 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

We present a new explanation for a quantum eraser. Mathematical description of the traditional explanation needs quantum-superposition states. However, the phenomenon can be explained without quantum-superposition states by introducing unobservable potentials which can be identified as an indefinite metric vector. In addition, a delayed choice experiment can also be explained by the interference between the photons and unobservable potentials, which seems like an unreal long-range correlation beyond the causality.

DOI
10.2528/pierm17082201

Related papers

Delayed choice experiments and causality in quantum mechanics

Dominik Šafránek

Although it may seem The Delayed Choice experiments contradict causality and one could construct an experiment which could possibly affect the past, using Many World interpretation we prove it is not possible. We also find a mathematical background to Which-path information and show why its obtainability prevents system from interfering. We find a system which exhibit both interference and correlation and show why one-particle interference and correlations are complementary. Better visible interference pattern leads to worse correlations and vice versa. Then, using knowledge gained from Quantum Eraser and Delayed Choice experiments we prove there is not an objective reality in a sense of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen. Furthermore, we discuss the difference between ``outer'' (non-interacting) and ``inner'' (interacting) observer. We find the mathematical relationship between the ``universal'' wave function used by ``outer'' observer and processes the ``inner'' observer sees, which is our small contribution to the measurement problem.

arXiv:1907.05990•Jul 13, 2019•0 citations

A Classical Explanation for the Delayed Quantum Eraser Experiment

Declan Traill

This work examines the well-known delayed choice Quantum Eraser experiment carried out by Kim et al in 2000 from the standpoint of Classical Physics. I've drawn a diagram of the experiment's setup. I show that the experiment's outcome can be explained using Classical Physics, and that it does not require "spooky action at a distance" owing to entangled particles, as Einstein famously put it, nor events changing the past due to the experiment's delayed choice feature.

Book Publisher International (a part of SCIENCEDOMAIN International)•Apr 22, 2022•0 citations

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

Demystifying the delayed-choice quantum eraser

Tabish Qureshi

Abstract The delayed-choice quantum eraser has long been a subject of controversy, and has been looked at as being incomprehensible to having retro-causal effect in time. Here the delayed-choice quantum eraser is theoretically analyzed using standard quantum mechanics. Employing a Mach–Zehnder interferometer, instead of a conventional two-slit interference, brings in surprising clarity. Some common mistakes in interpreting the experiment are pointed out. It is demonstrated that in the delayed mode there is no which-way information present after the particle is registered on the screen or the final detectors, contrary to popular belief. However, it is shown that another kind of path information is present even after the particle is registered in the final detectors. The registered particle can be used to predict the results of certain yet to be made measurements on the which-way detector. This novel correlation can be tested in a careful experiment. It is consequently argued that there is no big mystery in the experiment, and no retro-causal effect whatsoever.

arXiv:1908.03920•European Journal of Physics•May 12, 2020•17 citations

Delayed Choice and Quantum Eraser: An Illustrated Guide Based on the Wave-or-Particle Geometric Framework

junfeng gu

The delayed-choice experiment and the quantum eraser experiment are two of the most challenging interpretive problems in quantum mechanics. Standard textbook accounts trace the presence or absence of interference to whether the experimenter "knows" the photon's path — a causal framework implying backward-in-time influence. This article offers an intuitive, diagram-rich account grounded in the wave-or-particle geometric framework, revealing that both experiments share a far simpler backbone: interference depends solely on how many waves reach a given detector. One wave → no interference. Two waves → interference. This conclusion alters no mathematical prediction of quantum mechanics; it merely flips the causal arrow from "knowing the path destroys interference" to "the number of waves creates interference." A forthcoming main paper will present the complete three-column correspondence (experimental step → geometry → QFT standard) with full algebraic verification.

•Aug 2, 2026•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
We present a new explanation for a quantum eraser. Mathematical description of the traditional explanation needs quantum-superposition states. However, the phenomenon can be explained without quantum-superposition states by introducing unobservable potentials which can be identified as an indefinite metric vector. In addition, a delayed choice experiment can also be explained by the interference between the photons and unobservable potentials, which seems like an unreal long-range correlation beyond the causality.
Although it may seem The Delayed Choice experiments contradict causality and one could construct an experiment which could possibly affect the past, using Many World interpretation we prove it is not possible. We also find a mathematical background to Which-path information and show why its obtainability prevents system from interfering. We find a system which exhibit both interference and correlation and show why one-particle interference and correlations are complementary. Better visible interference pattern leads to worse correlations and vice versa. Then, using knowledge gained from Quantum Eraser and Delayed Choice experiments we prove there is not an objective reality in a sense of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen. Furthermore, we discuss the difference between ``outer'' (non-interacting) and ``inner'' (interacting) observer. We find the mathematical relationship between the ``universal'' wave function used by ``outer'' observer and processes the ``inner'' observer sees, which is our small contribution to the measurement problem.
This work examines the well-known delayed choice Quantum Eraser experiment carried out by Kim et al in 2000 from the standpoint of Classical Physics. I've drawn a diagram of the experiment's setup. I show that the experiment's outcome can be explained using Classical Physics, and that it does not require "spooky action at a distance" owing to entangled particles, as Einstein famously put it, nor events changing the past due to the experiment's delayed choice feature.
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 The delayed-choice quantum eraser has long been a subject of controversy, and has been looked at as being incomprehensible to having retro-causal effect in time. Here the delayed-choice quantum eraser is theoretically analyzed using standard quantum mechanics. Employing a Mach–Zehnder interferometer, instead of a conventional two-slit interference, brings in surprising clarity. Some common mistakes in interpreting the experiment are pointed out. It is demonstrated that in the delayed mode there is no which-way information present after the particle is registered on the screen or the final detectors, contrary to popular belief. However, it is shown that another kind of path information is present even after the particle is registered in the final detectors. The registered particle can be used to predict the results of certain yet to be made measurements on the which-way detector. This novel correlation can be tested in a careful experiment. It is consequently argued that there is no big mystery in the experiment, and no retro-causal effect whatsoever.
The delayed-choice experiment and the quantum eraser experiment are two of the most challenging interpretive problems in quantum mechanics. Standard textbook accounts trace the presence or absence of interference to whether the experimenter "knows" the photon's path — a causal framework implying backward-in-time influence. This article offers an intuitive, diagram-rich account grounded in the wave-or-particle geometric framework, revealing that both experiments share a far simpler backbone: interference depends solely on how many waves reach a given detector. One wave → no interference. Two waves → interference. This conclusion alters no mathematical prediction of quantum mechanics; it merely flips the causal arrow from "knowing the path destroys interference" to "the number of waves creates interference." A forthcoming main paper will present the complete three-column correspondence (experimental step → geometry → QFT standard) with full algebraic verification.
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'.