Article
Observation of a ‘‘quantum eraser’’: A revival of coherence in a twophoton interference experiment
Physical Review A (Impact Factor: 2.81). 07/1992; 45(11):77297739. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.45.7729
Source: PubMed
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.

 "There have been many quantum optics experiments involving two photon entangled states and quantum eraser arrangements to prove the complementarity arguments above. Three of the better ones are [9] [10] [11]. One experiment in particular by Zeilinger's group [12] is worthy of a special note. "
Article: A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Explained by the Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This paper explains the delayed choice quantum eraser of Kim et al. in terms of the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics by John Cramer. It is kept deliberately mathematically simple to help explain the transactional technique. The emphasis is on a clear understanding of how the instantaneous "collapse" of the wave function due to a measurement at a specific time and place may be reinterpreted as a gradual collapse over the entire path of the photon and over the entire transit time from slit to detector. This is made possible by the use of a retarded offer wave, which is thought to travel from the slits (or rather the small region within the parametric crystal where downconversion takes place) to the detector and an advanced counter wave traveling backward in time from the detector to the slits. The point here is to make clear how simple the Cramer transactional picture is and how much more intuitive the collapse of the wave function becomes if viewed in this way. Also any confusion about possible retrocausal signaling is put to rest. A delayed choice quantum eraser does not require any sort of backward in time communication. This paper makes the point that it is preferable to use the Transactional Interpretation (TI) over the usual Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) for a more intuitive understanding of the quantum eraser delayed choice experiment. Both methods give exactly the same end results and can be used interchangeably.Foundations of Physics 01/2015; DOI:10.1007/s1070101599568 · 1.03 Impact Factor 
 "Again, both the causal interpretation [38] and its extension to Boson fields [31] can explain the Wheeler delayedchoice experiment in a causal, nonparadoxical way. A further push of conceptual boundaries occurred with the introduction of quantum erasure experiments [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45]. Perhaps the best example is the quantum eraser experiment of Kim et al [45]. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: I argue that quantum optical experiments that purport to refute Bohr's principle of complementarity (BPC) fail in their aim. Some of these experiments try to refute complementarity by refuting the so called particlewave duality relations, which evolved from the WoottersZureck reformulation of BPC (WZPC). I therefore consider it important for my forgoing arguments to first recall the essential tenets of BPC, and to clearly separate BPC from WZPC, which I will argue is a direct contradiction of BPC. This leads to a need to consider the meaning of particlewave duality relations and to question their fundamental status. I further argue (albeit, in opposition to BPC) that particle and wave complementary concepts are on a different footing than other pairs of complementary concepts.Foundations of Physics 08/2014; DOI:10.1007/s1070101599595 · 1.03 Impact Factor 
 "After the two slits, a photon is in a state that entangles the spatial slit states and the polarization states which might be represented as: s1 ⊗ h + s2 ⊗ v (for a discussion of this type of entanglement, see [7]). But as this superposition evolves, it cannot be separated into a superposition of the slitstates as before, so the interference disappears. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: There is a very common fallacy, here called the separation fallacy, that is involved in the interpretation of quantum experiments involving a certain type of separation such as the: doubleslit experiments, whichway interferometer experiments, polarization analyzer experiments, SternGerlach experiments, and quantum eraser experiments. It is the separation fallacy that leads not only to flawed textbook accounts of these experiments but to flawed inferences about retrocausality in the context of "delayed choice" versions of separation experiments.