However, the photon is now ENTANGLED with the which-path apparatus. The state of the photon cannot be specified without reference to the states of the polarizers. This kind of distinction becomes very apparent when you look at the math. I’m not suggesting that getting into the math is a good idea for this kind of course. What I am suggesting is that such distinctions are CRUCIAL. I think they have everything to do with why we all struggle with QM.
I continue to struggle with basic concepts. On the one hand, I have been watching some of Leonard Susskind's lectures on QM, in which he essentially equates measurement with entanglement between an isolated system and another system. This is confusing to me. Measurement in the QM sense seems to involve the acquisition of a particular value for an observable at a particular time. Entanglement, on the other hand, does not seem to occur at a particular time in the experiment, but is merely introduced as part of the framework for calculating the time evolution of the system, given the experimental apparatus. Perhaps there is some ultimate equivalence but it is beyond me at the moment
The issue of time seems to be at the heart of varying interpretations of QM. Whether a system is in a particular state at a particular time, whether it is in multiple states, or whether it exists merely as potentialities until it interacts with some other system. What exactly causes it to exhibit certain behavior, and when exactly these causal relationships come into play in the course of an experiment. These are very unresolved questions in my mind, and perhaps they can't be resolved under current paradigms.
But the results for me do not looks much weird. I attached a picture. Lets allow for a single quantum to have double polarization. In this way it possible to explain quantum eraser experiment in easy classical way.
Let see the picture. After quantum pass the wire with diagonal polarizers it gets double
polarizations. Two types of such double polarizations is possible. So much likely it is 50% probability to get one of its.
Final erasers cut one of these two types and we see interference.
Can you offer some experiment which would deny or confirm the idea?
I hope someone can answer him.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.