3 ms·
Ok, that's definitely not what OP said. Of course the particle still can interfere with itself after the slit, it's just that when the measurement is made, the
by rafaelero 5y ago
Ok, that's definitely not what OP said. Of course the particle still can interfere with itself after the slit, it's just that when the measurement is made, the pattern of two waves interfering gets much weaker/non-existent.
Also, the experiment you are alluding to does not say what you think it says. Perhaps you will be interested on another video from Sabine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQv5CVELG3U&ab_channel=SabineHossenfelder https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQv5CVELG3U&ab_channel=Sabin...
- lmm 5y agoI don't/can't watch videos. I'll happily look at something written, but frankly "the experiment you are alluding to does not say what you think it says" does not convince me that you know what you're talking about and are looking to find the truth. I have a master's in this stuff and I'm pretty sure what I said is a fair description of the experiment in question; if you think something is different about it then be specific.
- rafaelero 5y agoYou can read the transcription. Sean Carrol also wrote about it too https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2019/09/21/the-notorious-delayed-choice-quantum-eraser/ https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2019/09/21/the-not...
- lmm 5y agoI agree with the article you've linked (although the graphs are either mislabelled or being used to illustrate a different experiment from the one they're actually taken from; in the Kim et al setup R03 is not R01 + R02, it's a measurement from a different detector). How do you think it contradicts what I said?