Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: sciconoclast on 09/06/2010 19:18:46
-
Does anyone know if the apparent anomaly in the later version of the Chiao Experiment has ever been explained in the following years?
The person who can answer this question is obviously familiar with this experiment but I will enter a brief description out of courtesy for other possible viewers. Some time ago the Raymond Chiao Team at the University at Berkley performed an experiment to test if using polarity to identify the route for a photon would dissolve an interference pattern. In the original experiment photons were split by a down converter and then directed by mirrors to the same beam splitter and then by mirrors to a detector.
When a polarizing shifter was placed in only one path just after the down converter ( photon tagging ) the pattern dissolved. When polarizing filters were placed just after the beam splitter on both paths ( quantum erasing ) the pattern was restored. Later, one of the original architects of the experiment, Marland Scully of the University of New Mexico, suggested a variation in which the polarizing shifters were replaced by polarizing beam splitters.
The Chao Team found that when photons from all four paths were detected together there was an absence of an interference pattern. However, when, and only when, the detection was segregated into groups containing only photon paths that would produce the same polarity, interference patterns emerged. This seemed to contradict quantum theory expectations.
Marland Scully gave the effect a name, " Medieval Necromancy ". I would like to know if over the passing years there has been an explanation compatible with the present state of quantum theory put forward to explain this supposed anomaly. I am interested in a main stream response, hopefully with a quoted source that can be used as a reference or foot note.
-
You might like this one. (http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/qphil.html)
-
Checking Back
The link that your-on supplied does not provide an explanation to the later Chiao experiment. Instead it reaffirms the unexplained anomaly: " such possibilities provoke consternation ".
Maybe I should state the contradiction to quantum theory expectations. With four possible paths, with two corresponding to each of the two polarizations for both the idler path and the signal path, polarization cannot identify, or tag, a route. So there should have been an interference pattern at the detector regardless of the polarization combination, but there was not.
Without any explanations having been supplied during the last four months I assume it is safe to add this experiment to those listed on my web site as being in disagreement with quantum theory.
-
You're making the broad assumption that the stochastic nature of QED can produce concrete and real conclusions in every case and for ALL conditions. It doesn't
When QED is superceded by a deterministic model of the atomic world a lot more will be revealed and thus the picture will become a lot clearly.
-
I've been unable to find that article in Discovery magazine?
-
I am familiar with quantum eraser, which is an adaptation of the wheeler delayed choice experiment. How does the Chiao Experiment differ then?
-
I dislike pomposity.
You are using what you don't understand to prove something else, am I right :)
Impressive.
Why don't you concentrate on proving your own theory instead, as it is, if you have one?
-
I dislike pomposity.
You are using what you don't understand to prove something else, am I right :)
Impressive.
Why don't you concentrate on proving your own theory instead, as it is, if you have one?
You mistake that for pomposity? Interesting.
It was a statement of my ignorance, nonetheless.
-
Not you QC.
==
"Without any explanations having been supplied during the last four months I assume it is safe to add this experiment to those listed on my web site as being in disagreement with quantum theory."
Those experiments are discussable, not all agree, but they are all meant to develop Quantum theory, not disprove it. To use them as examples why QM is wrong is offensive and in rather bad taste, as I see it.
-
I've been working on a method of estimating the localised intensity of pomposity
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.physics.rutgers.edu%2F%7Ecroft%2Fformulas203-06.jpg&hash=a11104085dd3bdfea584a4b7f8521ec7)
-
Foolosophy, that would be a good avatar... Yoron - sorry, picked you up wrong! People, please use qoutations!
....anyway... i'll ask again ''I am familiar with quantum eraser, which is an adaptation of the wheeler delayed choice experiment. How does the Chiao Experiment differ then?''
-
If you go to the link for Quantum Philosophy supplied by your_on scroll down to the diagrams labeled " How to Destroy and Revive a Light Wave ". The diagram on the right shows the earlier Chiao experiment. If you replace the two polarizing filters with polarizing beam splitters and then place a detector at the end of each of the now four paths, you will have a diagram of the follow up Chiao experiment. XXXXXXXXXXXXX I am modifying this reply on 5/11/1915 :Instead of saying "place a detector at the end of each of the now four paths" I should have said each of the now four paths are directed to a single detector capable of determining polarity and position.!!!!!! I am currently working on a paper describing historic experiments that are counter to the Bohr interpretation of photon interference pattern and ran across my earlier incorrect post and decided to correct it.
If you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser you will find a diagram of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment. It is a much more complicated experiment that utilizes just about everything except polarizers.
The follow up Chiao experiment was actually a control for the earlier experiment which was designed to test quantum tagging through polarization. The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment is designed to test the principle of entanglement. There is more than one version of this experiment and I hope I have the one you are referring to and that it clears things up.
-
foolosophy, quantumclue?
Fifth time someone has had my name wrong.
-
What's wrong with my name? Any mods on who can change it for me?
-
foolosophy, quantumclue?
Fifth time someone has had my name wrong.
I am not sure what exactly you are driving at QontomKloo
-
If you go to the link for Quantum Philosophy supplied by your_on...
foolosophy, quantumclue?
Fifth time someone has had my name wrong.
Is the above quote the mis-spelling? I think Sciconoclast was referring to yor_on's link to a quantum philosophy site.
-
If you go to the link for Quantum Philosophy supplied by your_on...
foolosophy, quantumclue?
Fifth time someone has had my name wrong.
Is the above quote the mis-spelling? I think Sciconoclast was referring to yor_on's link to a quantum philosophy site.
Oh dear, second mistake this year I've made concerning someones post.
Not good.
-
If you go to the link for Quantum Philosophy supplied by your_on...
foolosophy, quantumclue?
Fifth time someone has had my name wrong.
Is the above quote the mis-spelling? I think Sciconoclast was referring to yor_on's link to a quantum philosophy site.
Oh dear, second mistake this year I've made concerning someones post.
Not good.
2nd msitake this year??
Mistakes are not toleratied in here
You may received punishment from above for your errors
I hope you make it this time
I can only suggest a written apology to the Thought Masters and then pray for forgiveness
Scientific principles may not save you now my child
-
Have you recieved a warning over something, because it seems something has ruffled your feathers?
-
Have you recieved a warning over something, because it seems something has ruffled your feathers?
A warming?
Perhaps one or two for expressing views via the sarcasm channel - this communication technique is apparently forbidden by the temple of worship and its high priests.
I fear for my very existence in this establishment
I really don't know which way to turn to now
I am finished - totally washed up
I had my chance and I blew it - Its all over now - My ball room days are over
-
I posed a genuine question. Your behaviour yesterday, seemed a bit off.
-
I posed a genuine question. Your behaviour yesterday, seemed a bit off.
elaborate if you can
what do you mean by "off"?
-
Never mind.
-
Never mind.
It's best if we end it this way
We dont want to attract any attention in this VERY serious forum that forbids humour and sarcasm now would we?