This paper discusses the well-known delayed choice Quantum Eraser experiment performed by Kim et al. in 2000 and analyzes it from a Classical Physics perspective. I have included a diagram of the setup used in the experiment. I show that the result of the experiment can be explained by Classical Physics and does not require “Spooky action at a distance” due to entangled particles, as Einstein famously once put it, nor events modifying the past due to the delayed choice aspect of the experiment.
This paper discusses the well-known delayed choice Quantum Eraser experiment performed by Kim et al. in 2000 and analyzes it from a Classical Physics perspective. I have included a diagram of the setup used in the experiment. I show that the result of the experiment can be explained by Classical Physics and does not require “Spooky action at a distance” due to entangled particles, as Einstein famously once put it, nor events modifying the past due to the delayed choice aspect of the experiment.
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.
Ever since the proposal of delayed choice quantum erasure and subsequent realization in the experiment by Kim et al., the interpretation and implications of delayed-choice experiments have remained a subject of intense foundational debate. This paper resolves the apparent paradox attached to the experiment using standard quantum mechanics. Using an extended Mach-Zehnder interferometer which captures every operational feature of the original experiment, we show that choosing between which-path and erasure detectors is simply a choice of measurement bases, which does not rewrite a photon's past. Furthermore, by mapping the experiment to a two-way Stern-Gerlach framework, we prove that quantum erasure is an expected result of measuring entangled states, not a physical anomaly. Ultimately, through a pedagogical game, we illustrate that the illusion of retrocausality arises from asking illegitimate questions, and that a forward-in-time description is entirely sufficient to explain the logic.
According to Quantum Mechanics, the particles can exhibit either particle properties or wave properties depending on the experimental set up (wave-particle dualism). A special behavior occurs for a system of two entangled particles 1 and 2 that propagate along two different directions in the space. In such a case, the entangled particle 2 should exhibit either the particle behavior or the wave behavior depending on the kind of measurement that is performed on particle 1 whatever is the actual distance between the two particles. The apparently surprising fact is that the "choice" of what kind of measurement is performed on particle 1 can be also made when particle 2 has been already detected (delayed-choice quantum eraser).These theoretical predictions have been confirmed by the experiments and seem to suggest that a future measurement can affect a past event. Recently, both the concepts of "delayed choice" and of "quantum erasure" have been criticized by Ellerman and by Kastner. In this paper we propose an alternative analysis of the delayed-choice quantum eraser with two entangled particles and we show that it does not imply an inversion of the natural cause-effect temporal order of the physical events.
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.
Kim et al published an article, ``A delayed choice quantum eraser,'' in 1999 that appeared to show many remarkable things, including that the choice of observable erases the interference fringes that were previously recorded in a double slit experiment. However, the solidity of those conclusions hinges on whether or not quantum mechanics provides the only available explanation of that experiment. By thinking outside the box we have a different way of viewing that experiment. We find there is no delayed choice in the Kim experiment of 1999. There is no quantum eraser. What appears to be a delayed choice and a quantum eraser involve a different understanding of Kim's experiment than the one we favor. We also show how the double slit experiment can be understood with local cause and effect, and without complementarity.
Abstract In this article, we present a detailed analysis of two famous delayed choice experiments: Wheeler’s classic gedanken-experiment and the delayed quantum eraser. Our analysis shows that the outcomes of both experiments can be fully explained on the basis of the information collected during the experiments using textbook quantum mechanics only. At no point in the argument, information from the future is needed to explain what happens next. In fact, more is true: for both experiments, we show, in a strictly mathematical way, that a modified version in which the time-ordering of the steps is changed to avoid the delayed choice leads to exactly the same final state. In this operational sense, the scenarios are completely equivalent in terms of conclusions that can be drawn from their outcomes.