0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
In that experiment, the beam splitter is the double slit and splitting crystal.
proper understanding on how each of its components work is essential to find out the explanation,
Why do you propose to study a beam splitter which is not in the experiment?
Here's another onehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed-choice_experiment#Experimental_detailsQuoteJohn Wheeler's original discussion of the possibility of a delayed choice quantum appeared in an essay entitled "Law Without Law," which was published in a book he and Wojciech Hubert Zurek edited called Quantum Theory and Measurement, pp 182–213. He introduced his remarks by reprising the argument between Albert Einstein, who wanted a comprehensible reality, and Niels Bohr, who thought that Einstein's concept of reality was too restricted. Wheeler indicates that Einstein and Bohr explored the consequences of the laboratory experiment that will be discussed below, one in which light can find its way from one corner of a rectangular array of semi-silvered and fully silvered mirrors to the other corner, and then can be made to reveal itself not only as having gone halfway around the perimeter by a single path and then exited, but also as having gone both ways around the perimeter and then to have "made a choice" as to whether to exit by one port or the other. Not only does this result hold for beams of light, but also for single photons of light. Wheeler remarked:The experiment in the form an interferometer, discussed by Einstein and Bohr, could theoretically be used to investigate whether a photon sometimes sets off along a single path, always follows two paths but sometimes only makes use of one, or whether something else would turn up. However, it was easier to say, "We will, during random runs of the experiment, insert the second half-silvered mirror just before the photon is timed to get there," than it was to figure out a way to make such a rapid substitution. The speed of light is just too fast to permit a mechanical device to do this job, at least within the confines of a laboratory. Much ingenuity was needed to get around this problem.After several supporting experiments were published, Jacques et al. claimed that an experiment of theirs follows fully the original scheme proposed by Wheeler.[14][15] Their complicated experiment is based on the Mach–Zehnder interferometer, involving a triggered diamond N–V colour centre photon generator, polarization, and an electro-optical modulator acting as a switchable beam splitter. Measuring in a closed configuration showed interference, while measuring in an open configuration allowed the path of the particle to be determined, which made interference impossible.In such experiments, Einstein originally argued, it is unreasonable for a single photon to travel simultaneously two routes. Remove the half-silvered mirror at the [upper right], and one will find that the one counter goes off, or the other. Thus the photon has traveled only one route. It travels only one route. but it travels both routes: it travels both routes, but it travels only one route. What nonsense! How obvious it is that quantum theory is inconsistent!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser
John Wheeler's original discussion of the possibility of a delayed choice quantum appeared in an essay entitled "Law Without Law," which was published in a book he and Wojciech Hubert Zurek edited called Quantum Theory and Measurement, pp 182–213. He introduced his remarks by reprising the argument between Albert Einstein, who wanted a comprehensible reality, and Niels Bohr, who thought that Einstein's concept of reality was too restricted. Wheeler indicates that Einstein and Bohr explored the consequences of the laboratory experiment that will be discussed below, one in which light can find its way from one corner of a rectangular array of semi-silvered and fully silvered mirrors to the other corner, and then can be made to reveal itself not only as having gone halfway around the perimeter by a single path and then exited, but also as having gone both ways around the perimeter and then to have "made a choice" as to whether to exit by one port or the other. Not only does this result hold for beams of light, but also for single photons of light. Wheeler remarked:The experiment in the form an interferometer, discussed by Einstein and Bohr, could theoretically be used to investigate whether a photon sometimes sets off along a single path, always follows two paths but sometimes only makes use of one, or whether something else would turn up. However, it was easier to say, "We will, during random runs of the experiment, insert the second half-silvered mirror just before the photon is timed to get there," than it was to figure out a way to make such a rapid substitution. The speed of light is just too fast to permit a mechanical device to do this job, at least within the confines of a laboratory. Much ingenuity was needed to get around this problem.After several supporting experiments were published, Jacques et al. claimed that an experiment of theirs follows fully the original scheme proposed by Wheeler.[14][15] Their complicated experiment is based on the Mach–Zehnder interferometer, involving a triggered diamond N–V colour centre photon generator, polarization, and an electro-optical modulator acting as a switchable beam splitter. Measuring in a closed configuration showed interference, while measuring in an open configuration allowed the path of the particle to be determined, which made interference impossible.In such experiments, Einstein originally argued, it is unreasonable for a single photon to travel simultaneously two routes. Remove the half-silvered mirror at the [upper right], and one will find that the one counter goes off, or the other. Thus the photon has traveled only one route. It travels only one route. but it travels both routes: it travels both routes, but it travels only one route. What nonsense! How obvious it is that quantum theory is inconsistent!
Beam splitters don't do magic. They are very simple.The fact that this sort exists tells you a lot.https://www.thorlabs.com/newgrouppage9.cfm?objectgroup_id=1110&gclid=CjwKCAjwwsmLBhACEiwANq-tXItnY7Y9tZ_9NJnIlPiJWQoOVO-sbl9M3BNJYM7Fc-W_2PF5PkJzQhoCnmkQAvD_BwE
Constant Reflection to Transmission Ratio Over Range50:50 Beamsplitters
So there's clearly something to learn here.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 22/10/2021 16:07:41So there's clearly something to learn here.Yes there is.You need to focus on what's unusual about those beam splitters- the wavelength of the EM radiation isn't particularly important. Nor is the variation of reflection with angle.What's important is the design.Did you spot that?
A few months ago I've made an experiment investigating microwave transmission through plasma. At the time, I found a counterfeit money detector with UVA source from a gas discharge lamp. The experiment can show a weak but convincing difference of opacity in microwave frequency between on and off UVA lamp.Unfortunately, the plasma inside the lamp is not the only electrically conductive material there. There's also phosphor coating inside of the lamp glass which may also change its conductivity when powered on..
Did you check that the microwave detector is not picking up microwaves emitted by the plasma?
If you want to be really certain, you can buy a UV C bulb with no phosphor.You will probably want to screen the UV it produces.
Can you measure the microwaves scattered by the plasma in the lamp when it is on?