Are these three statements true:
(1) We can observe where A hits (thereby seeing A as a particle instead of a wave) before B’s path determines the availability of information?
(2) Measuring where A hits, (even if done with thousands of previous data points of A sorted by B hits showing the interference patterns) has no predictive power over whether B’s whichpath information will be erased or not?
(3) Whether or not B’s whichpath information was erased, has predictive power over where A landed?
You must log in or register to comment.
The more I think about it, (2) and (3) can’t both be true right. Because correlation is symmetric.
So I’m assuming (2) is true and (3) is false.
What I don’t understand then if this is the case, is how individual events have zero predictive power but we have predictable patterns emerge over thousands of events. Doesn’t predictable patterns imply predictive power of the events making up those patterns?
how individual events have zero predictive power but we have predictable patterns emerge over thousands of events
The trick is that you don’t see the interference pattern in the raw data. You see one big blob. Every popular science explanation of DCQEE fails to mention this one important fact. See my past illustration for reference. You need to separate the blob into two overlapping interference patterns manually, and you must use the quantum eraser bit to decide whether to assign each event to pattern A or pattern B. If you have already erased the bit, you cannot do the assignment.
P.S. If you going to talk about particle A and path B and whatever, it helps to post a link to the picture you are looking at.