Naked Science Forum

Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: HenryBraxton on 15/04/2019 10:41:06

Title: Is this simplification of Quantum Erasing correct?
Post by: HenryBraxton on 15/04/2019 10:41:06
Double slit experiment shows a wave pattern when "which path" info is unknown.

When which path the photon took is known, a particle pattern exists.

If the which path information is collected and stored, say, on a harddrive, but nobody looks at the data, then that info is still unknown and a wave pattern exists? Or does the data need to be destroyed from the drive to show a wave pattern?
Title: Re: Is this simplification of Quantum Erasing correct?
Post by: evan_au on 15/04/2019 11:14:22
You  destroy the wave pattern in the process of measuring which slit the photon passed through.
- You need to measure it to write it to the hard disk.
- It doesn't matter whether you read the hard disk or not.
Title: Re: Is this simplification of Quantum Erasing correct?
Post by: RobC on 15/04/2019 12:44:14
I find it unsettling that even after 50 years since the single electron double-slit diffraction was first demonstrated by Giulio Pozzi that no plausible explanation has been given.
Title: Re: Is this simplification of Quantum Erasing correct?
Post by: yor_on on 15/04/2019 16:52:11
Don't know about your 'quantum erasing' but there is a explanation. It's called HUP (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle).

It's not that complicated to get, although it in some ways tells you just as much as 'c' do, that is nothing. Unless you're prepared to step out of what we think.
Title: Re: Is this simplification of Quantum Erasing correct?
Post by: yor_on on 15/04/2019 16:54:44
If you do, I better warn you, you will probably seem slightly deranged to most people.
Title: Re: Is this simplification of Quantum Erasing correct?
Post by: yor_on on 15/04/2019 16:58:22
As for if a 'passive  recording' becomes a 'observation'?
Yes, as far as I'm concerned.


Otherwise there would be no 'universe' to observe.