Going Backwards in Time and its Consequences

The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser

Saptarshi Ghosh Dastider
Department of Chemistry
M.Sc
Roll number – 4
Sree Chaitanya College, Habra

Abstract
In this paper I discuss the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment by giving a straight
forward account in standard quantum mechanics and will try to introduce the Bohmian
quantum mechanics to some small extent. The delayed choice quantum eraser has the ability
to erase the information in two detectors after the particles have passed through them but
before the results are observed. At the first glance the experiments suggests one entangled
photon pair can be used to control whether the other entangled pair will produce interference
pattern after being sent through a double slit. The choice whether there is interference or not
can be made long after the signal photon hits the screen. The result of this experiment have
been alleged to invoke some ‘ Backwards in the time influences’. In this paper, this issue can
be criticized and eliminated by using the standard collapse interpretation.
 Index

Sl Topic Page No.

No.
1 Introduction 3-4
2 The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser 4-8

3 Delayed Choice in Collapse Interpretation 9-11

4 Explanation of the Delayed Choice Quantum 10-11

Eraser Experiment

5 Entangled Weirdness & the Contrasting 11-13

Bohm’s Quantum Mechanics

6 Conclusion 13

7 List of Figures 14

8 Reference 15-16

2
Introduction
Delayed choice scenarios in slit experiments as found in [Wheeler, 1978(1)], and earlierin [von
Weizsacker, 1941(2)] and [Bohr, 1996(3)], have formed a rich area of theoreticaland experimental
research, as evidenced in the literature ([Eichmann et al., 1993(4)],[Englert and Bergou, 2000(5)],
[Englert et al., 1999(6)], [Mohrhoff, 1999(7)], [Kim et al., 1999(8)],[Walborn et al., 2002(9)], [Kwiat
and Englert, 2004(10)], [Aharonov and Zubairy, 2005(11)],[Peres, 2000(12)], [Egg, 2013(13)]. From
the results of the original delayed choice experiment Wheeler concluded that `no phenomenon is a
phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon', and `the past has no existence except as it is
recorded in thepresent' (ibid.). I shall discuss a modifed version of Wheeler's delayed choice
experiment, one which was 1st proposed by [Scully and Druhl, 1982(14)] and later realized in the
experiments of [Kim et al., 1999].
In his notorious discussion of the double-slit experiment (15), Feynman
claims that this very experiment exemplifies the main mystery of quantum mechanics. It is intended
to make explicit the complementarity between a “wave-like” behavior attributed to photons when an
interference pattern is observed and a “particle-like” behavior when there is no interference. It is
true that complementarity is one of the most important differences between quantum mechanics and
classical mechanics. Properties that are considered as simultaneously observable features of
classical systems, such as for example position and momentum, are no longer simultaneously
measurable for quantum systems. Worse, this complementarity is not limited to position and
momentum but is the general rule for all non-commuting observables. Many Gedanken experiments
have been designed to illustrate these features. A lot of them have been really done and the
predictions of quantum mechanics have always been confirmed. In the standard presentation that is
most often given of the double-slit experiment, either one cannot know which slit the photon passes
through and one observes an interference pattern on the screen (this is interpreted as the fact that
the photon went simultaneously through both slits) or there is a way to get this information, for
example by putting two detectors in front of the slits, and there is no interference because the photon
is supposed to have gone through only one slit (the one indicated by the detector which clicks). The
two experimental devices (screen or detectors) are of course mutually exclusive because it is not
possible to detect the photon without destroying it. That is a perfect illustration of complementarity
and the initial explanation given by Bohr many years ago is that the disappearance of the interference
pattern when it is observed which slit the photon passes through must be attributed to the disturbance
caused to the photon by this very observation through the uncertainty principle. This led Wheeler
(16) to propose a set of so called “delayed choice” experiments to try to analyze when exactly the
photon “decides” which behavior it is going to adopt. The choice of the experimental device that is
used is decided at the very last moment before the measurement. If, as seems to indicate the previous
presentation, the photon is able to choose which behavior it is going to adopt depending on the whole
experimental setup that is in place (which is already strange enough) then in case of a delayed
choice, it is even stranger since it seems that changing the experimental device at the very last
moment has an effect on what the photon decided well before, requiring a sort of backward in time
communication! Many objections can be done against this presentation and against Bohr’s
explanation. First, as we will see, the behavior that we have supposed the photon adopts immediately
after the slits (gone through both slits in case of interference or only through one if one detector
clicks) is a misleading interpretation. Second, new experiments in which it is possible to know which
slit the photon passes through without in any way disturbing the photon [17,18,19,20,21] show that
Bohr’s explanation is not satisfying. But this kind of experiments involves more than one particle
and that shows that Feynman was wrong thinking that the only mystery of quantum mechanics lies

3
in complementarity. One probably even more puzzling feature of quantum mechanics is
entanglement. Experiments where entangled particles are concerned raise more difficult questions
than experiments where only one particle exhibits a complementary behavior. In order to clarify
these points I will successively analyze different experiments by order of complexity depending on
the fact that they involve only one single particle or two entangled ones and that delayed choice is
considered or not. First, I will analyze the double-slit experiment and the Mach-Zender
interferometer without delayed choice, then with delayed choice. Second, I will switch to experiments
with entangled particles such as the delayed choice quantum eraser. For sure, a great many
explanations given to these experiments involve the question of measurement and of wave packet
reduction or collapse. The apparently instantaneous collapse is often presented as creating a tension
with Relativity and can even in the EPR situation seem to raise problems of causality. In case of
delayed choice, the tension is more drastic since some authors see there a possibility to have a
backward in time causality (22) or to require advanced waves (23). So a proper analysis of these
experiments demands to be very clear on what a measurement is and when a collapse occurs
(provided a collapse occurs …). I will expose how, using the Convivial Solipsism
interpretation(24,25,26) and the solution to the measurement problem that I proposed in a recent
paper (26), it is possible to avoid these difficulties and to understand the EPR paradox and the
delayed choice quantum eraser experiments which can be seen as a generalization of the EPR
situation.

The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser

The setup employed by Kim et al. uses double slit interference of photons and raisesa conceptual
problem, which, according to Wheeler, allegedly implies that therewas a change in the behavior from
`acting like a particle' to `acting like a wave’, or vice versa, well after the particle entered the double
slit.In the old days of quantum mechanics, it was believed that the loss of interference
in double slit experiments were due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, for nomeasurementdevice
could be so fancy as not to perturb the system observed anddestroy coherence. Such a perturbation
leads to so-called `which-path information'that `collapses the wavefunction', making interference
effects disappear. That said,in the delayed choice case the which-path information of the photon is
obtained byentanglement without disturbing the wavefunction (cf. Einstein's move in the
EPRexperiment [Einstein et al., 1935, p. 779]). Significantly, the which-path information
can be `erased' long after the photon encounters the double slit. This was deemedinconceivable in
the old picture. The interference pattern, as a result, reappears. However what is truly remarkable
about thisis that decision of whether or not to erase information in the two detectors can be made
after the particles have already landed on the cloth behind two holes.by deciding to erase the
information in the two detectors the striped pattern on the cloth can be recovered , even though the
pattern on the cloth was already formed before the decision of erasing the detectors was made. Does
this mean that the quantum eraser is sending information back in time and affecting the pattern
on the cloth that was formed before the quantum eraser was activated?
For the quantum eraser to work properly it must destroy all the evidence (anywhere in the universe)
of which of the two holes the particle passed through. This means the quantum eraser will not work
if we have looked at the detectors prior to erasing the measurement since the evidence of which hole
the particle passed through will still be remaining in our brains. If we activate the quantum eraser
before we observed the detectors, it will erase the measurement of which of the two holes the particle
4
passed through. But in doing so the quantum eraser will produce a new measurement. Which in our
particular example can be of two values. We can look at this measurement but it will not tell us which
hole the particle passed through. For each particle passing through the holes we have four scenarios.
• 1stscenario:The quantum eraser is activated and only one strip ( imagine them to be have
some specific colour) will be observed
• 2nd scenario: The quantum eraser is activated and one strip (different than the previous
colour) will be observed.
• 3rd scenario: The quantum eraser was never activated and the particle passed through the
left hole
• 4th scenario:The quantum eraser was never activated and the particle passed through the
right hole.
Each of the four scenarios creates a pattern on the cloth behind the two holes. The actual pattern that
is formed on the cloth is the sum of all four scenarios. The two scenarios where the quantum eraser
was activated creates an interference pattern. However, these two patterns from the two scenarios
are offset from each other. So, when the two interference patterns are added together the stripes
disappear. Therefore, the total pattern that is formed on the cloth is actually is the same as it would
have been had the quantum eraser never existed. For this reason, it can be argued that the quantum
eraser is not sending message back in time.It could be argued that the location where the particle
hits the cloth behind the two slits is determined first and this will determine which of the two
measurements the quantum eraser will produce if we choose to activate it in the future. However,
there is still one very profound philosophical consequence of the quantum eraserexperiment that it
seems no one can argue against. This is what the particle still hasn’t made up its mind about which
of the two holes it went through. Even after it has passed through the two detectors. Another way of
saying this is that, the act of passing through the detectors is not what collapses the wave function.
There is a fuzzy space between creation and detection where no real well-defined particle has its
existence. Copenhagen interpretation says in this space particle can exist as a wave function. A wave
function describes the probability of where the we will see the particle when we look at it. In order
for the interference patternto form on the cloth, a wave must travel through both holes
simultaneously. So as to create two new waves which will interfere with one another. If a particle
knows which hole it passed throughthen this means the particle has passed through one of the two
holes and interference pattern will never be formed. The quantum eraser allows to recover the
interference pattern even with a detector present. But an interference pattern can only be recovered,
if the wave passed through both holes, this means the wave function passed through the both holes
even with the detector present. The detectors alter the wave function so that the two new waves ae
no longer able to interact with one another, until the quantum eraser is activated. If the quantum
eraser is activated the waves can interact and interference pattern is recovered. What this seems to
mean is that just as the position of particle is only a probability until it is observed. The readings of
the detectors are themselves also only a probability until they are observed. In other words, it seems
even the detectors themselves don’t know what they are reading until we choose to look at them.
Before we look at the detectors. The particle has passed through both holes, due to the fact
interference pattern is formed. After we look at the detectors the particle has passed through only
one of the two holes not both simultaneously. So if the detectors are observed its impossible to erase
the information and furthermore recovering the interference pattern becomes impossible too.

But what does it actually mean to erase the information from the detectors?
One of the ways to accomplish this involves the use of a beam splitter.A beam splitter is an optical
device that splits a beam of light in two. (It is a crucial part of many optical experimental and

5
measurement systems, such as interferometers, also finding widespread application in fibre optic
telecommunications). When a photon strikes at a beam splitter it has a probability of being reflected
( action like a mirror). It also has a probability of passing straight through. Suppose we create an
experiment where a photon can strike the beam splitter from one of these two direction. After the
photon leaves the beam splitter there are two directions photon can go in. Both of these directions
that the photon can go in are possible regardless of which of the two directions the photon came
from.

Fig-1 (photon reflecting on the beam splitter)

Fig- 2 (photon passing straight through the beam splitter)

These phenomena can be used to erase the information about which of the two holes the photon
passed through. Suppose the two detectors consist of special type of crystal (Barium Borate or BBO).
Each time a photon passes through one of the crystals, the crystal emits a photon. The crystal doesn’t
leave any other evidence that a particle has passed through other than this photon that is emitted. If
we measure the evidence of which hole the photon has passed through the interference pattern will
disappear. The pattern will disappear regardless of the particles land on the cloth before or after we
measure the photons emitted by the crystals.

6
 Fig- 3 (photon detectors with one beam splitter and four mirrors)

However, suppose that instead of measuring the photons we use mirror to guide the two possible
paths of the photons towards a beam splitter.

Fig – 4 (photon detectors with beam splitter with four mirrors to guide the photons)

After the photons leaves the beam splitter it will no longer be possible to tell which of the two holes
the photons came from. Therefore, we have now erased all evidence which of the two holes the
particle passed through. By correlating this measurement with where the particle landed on the cloth
behind the two detectors the interference pattern can be restored. We have now constructed a
quantum eraser. By deciding whether or not to insert the mirror, sending the photon paths towards
the beam splitter. This decision can be made before or after the particle lands on the cloth behind the
two slits. This decision of whether or not to activate the quantum eraser can also be randomized by
adding two new beam splitters in place where the mirrors could have been.

Fig – 5 (photon detectors with two more beam splitters replacing to mirrors)

7
So we now have four possible locations where we can measure the photon. In two of these cases it
will be possible to tell which hole the particle passed through (Fig- 6 and 7).

Fig – 6 Fig – 7

In the other cases it will never be possible which slits the particle passed through (Fig – 8,9,10,11)

Fig – 8 Fig – 9

Fig – 10 Fig – 11

If it is not possible to tell which slit the photon passed through, the interference pattern can be
recovered.

8
 Fig – 12 (recovered interference pattern by activating quantum eraser)

This means that, the wave describing the probability of where the photon is located always passes
through both holes, even with the detector present. Therefore, passing through the detector is not
what causes the photon to decide, which hole it went through. This is due to the fact that the detector,
along with all the objects that the photon interacts with, are themselves also made out of particles
that are described by a wave of probability until they are observed,

Delayed Choice in Collapse Interpretation

Fig – 13 (The Delayed Choice Experiment)

9
The first significant point that I found not emphasized in the analyses of [Kim et al., 1999]and others,
is that there never appears an interference pattern at D0. without conditioning on whether we choose
which-path information to be available or erased.Technically, by conditioning we mean to constrain
the measurement results to thesubset of coincidence detections of the signal photon with the idler
photon in a chosendetector D1- D4. Moreover, it is key to the analysis that the two
interferencepatterns from the joint detection events of D0and D1or D2, respectively, obtaina relative
phase shift of 𝜋and cancel when added together. The analysis of thisfeature is often left out in the
literature (cf. [Kim et al., 1999]).I shall give an analysis of the experiment proposed by Kim et al. by
usingstandard quantum mechanics. My analysis involves wavefunctions described by
theSchrodinger equation, which strictly speaking only applies to massive particles. Fora rigorous
treatment with photons we would need to avail ourselves of quantum field theory. Nevertheless, we
can straightforwardly replace photons with electronsfor the sake of a Gedankenexperiment. The
interference phenomena qualitativelyremain the same.The incoming laser beam can be described as
a plain wave

𝜓 = 𝑒 𝑖𝑘𝑥 𝑥 (1)
Impinging on the double slit, where kx is the wave vector (normalized). After the slits the wave
functions can be decomposed into two interfering parts as,
1
𝜓= (𝜓1 + 𝜓2 ) (2)
√2

Wave function 𝜓1 belongs to the part of the wave function emerging from the upper slit and 𝜓2 is
the part of the wave function emerging from the lower slit. We may assume the waves of the form

𝜓 ℮𝑖𝑘𝑡 (3)
𝑖=
𝑟𝑖

Where ri is the distance from the slit ‘i’ . These give the well-known two slit interference fringes.
The crystal then creates an entangled pair of photons with opposite momenta in the y-direction. Such
that,
1
𝜓= (𝜓1 ⊗ 𝜓1′ + 𝜓2 ⊗ 𝜓2′ ) (4)
√2

Where unprimed wave functions correspond to the signal photon and the primed photons are the
idler photon. The signal photon send to the detector Do is now entangled with the idler photon. This
affects the probability amplitude at D0 . and the interference between 𝜓1 &𝜓2 vanishes since the
𝜓1 ⊗ 𝜓1′ and 𝜓2 ⊗ 𝜓2′ are orthogonal states. The primed state of each wave functions arenon-
overlapping and thereby, their inner product vanishes. More clearly, the squared norm of the wave
function yields,
1
|𝜓|2 = (|𝜓1 |2 𝜓1′ |2 + |𝜓2 |2 |𝜓2′ |2 ) (5)
2

Assuming the signal has not yet reached D0 . If the idler photon gets reflected into the detector D3
the wave function would collapse to 𝜓2 ⊗ 𝜓2′ and if reflected to D4 it would collapse to, 𝜓1 ⊗ 𝜓1′

10
In case the idler photon encounters the quantum eraser, the wave function undergoes another unitary
evolution. The eraser puts the idler photon in a superposition of being transmitted to one detector or
reflected to the other at each reflection at a beam splitter or mirror the wavefunction picks up a phase
𝑖𝜋
𝜋
of 2 ( a multiplication of the wavefunction by 𝑒 2 = 𝑖 ) such that,

𝜓1 → 𝑖𝜓𝐷1 − 𝜓𝐷2
𝜓2′ → 𝜓𝐷1 + 𝑖𝜓𝐷2 (6)

The joint wave function then turns into,

1
𝜓= (𝜓 ⊗ (𝑖𝜓𝐷1 − 𝜓𝐷2 ) + 𝜓2 ⊗ (−𝜓𝐷1 − 𝑖𝜓𝐷2 ))
2 1
1
= 2 ((𝑖𝜓1 − 𝜓2 ) ⊗ 𝜓𝐷1 + (−𝜓1 + 𝑖𝜓2 ) ⊗ 𝜓𝐷2 (7)
Once the idler photon has passed the quantum eraser, indices in 𝜓𝐷1 and 𝜓𝐷2 refer to which
detector the part of the wave function is reflected into. In this form state (7) makes it clear
thatwhen detector D1 clicks, the wave function of the signal proton collapses to (𝑖𝜓1 − 𝜓2 )
yielding a probability distribution of interference fringes.

|𝜓𝐷0,𝐷1 |2 = (𝑖𝜓1 − 𝜓2 )(𝑖𝜓̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅

1 − 𝜓2 )
2 2
=|𝜓1 | + |𝜓2 | − 2 Im(𝜓 ̅̅̅1̅, 𝜓2 ) (8)

In case where D2 clicksthe wave, function collapses to, (−𝜓1 + 𝑖𝜓2 ) and yields a distribution
showing anti fringes.

|𝜓𝐷0,𝐷2 |2 = (−𝜓1 + 𝑖𝜓2 )(−𝜓 ̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅

1 + 𝑖𝜓2 )
= 1 + 2 − 2 Im(𝜓̅2 𝜓1 )
|𝜓 | 2 |𝜓 | 2

=|𝜓1 |2 + |𝜓2 |2 + 2 Im(𝜓̅1 𝜓2 ) (9)

In either case of detection, when travelling on one of the paths, the idler photon is reflected twice
and only once when travelling on the other.

The experiment is designed such that, the choice whether the wave function collapses to one which
produces interference fringes or a clump patternhappens after the signal photon has been detected
at D0 . We therefore say the choice is delayed.

Circularly at D0 there never appears an interference pattern, regardless of the idler photon reaches
the quantum eraser or not. This can rea readily be seen by adding up the distributions,
|𝜓𝐷0,𝐷1 |2 + |𝜓𝐷0,𝐷2 |2 = |𝜓1 |2 + |𝜓2 |2 (10)

The interference terms cancel out when added together which effectively leads to clump pattern.
Each sub-case shows an interference pattern, but the overall statistics adds up to two clumps. Note
that there is no way to avoid the phase differencein the interference fringes since any additional
devicewould act symmetrically in both paths. Incidentally the fact that at detector D0 interference
fringes never occur guarantees consistency with no signaling between D0 and the other detectors.
That is to say, it is not possible to decide what distribution (interference or clump) appears at the
11
detector D0 by choice of whether the idler photon will trigger the which path detectors D3 andD4
andthis communicate information. As I noted above this choice can be realized by replacing the
former two beam splitter by mirrors which can be inserted by the experimenter.

Explanation of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment

In the language of the collapse interpretations the apparent retroactive action vanishes if a click in
D0 is regarded to collapse the overall wavefunction, not only a click in the detectors D1 – D4. In the
standard explanation, if the detection of the idler photon happens before the detection of signal
photon at D0 , the detectors D1 -D4 determine what state the wavefunction collapses to. But similarly
in the case, when signal photon at a moment in time preceding the observation of the idler photon,
the view that the detected position of the idler photon collapses the wave functionof the idler photon
to triggerone of the detectors D1 -D4 is just as accurate. However, in this case observation of where
the photons land on the screen - a measurement in the production basis – does not tell which state
the overall wavefunction collapsed to. Technically speaking, a detection of the signal photon in fact
produces a mixed state since 𝜓1 and 𝜓2 are not completely orthogonal . Thus, the state of the signal
photon is of the form 𝜌 = 𝛼|𝜓1 >< 𝜓1 | + 𝛽|𝜓2 > (non-selective Von Neumann measurement).
This is not a threat to the analysis since we can tell the same ontological story for each outcome of
state 𝜌.

One faces a confusion if one is to stubbornly stick to the notation that a measurement of the idler
photon determines the probability distribution D0 for the signal photon. In fact, observation of
individual subsystems of entangled pairs never determines or changes the probability distribution of
the remote particle. The which-path information can be present anywhere in the universe and its
irrelevant whether a future observer decides to acquire it. As soon as the signal photon gets entangled,
the photon state loses its coherence. What this tells us that thequantum eraser experiment doesn’t
influence the past of the signal photon; rather it reveals the correlation of an entangled photon
pair in just another way.

Entangled Weirdness and The contrasting Bohm’s Quantum

mechanics
According to quantum theory, the wave function tells us everything we can possibly know about the
state. The two particles are behaving as a single entity. Until we record a measurement, we know
nothing more about the individual spins than that they will always turn out to be opposites. The
particles are said to be entangled. Discussions of the strange features of entanglement usually begin
with reference to EPR, the famous 1935 paper by Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen. This
study analyzed the paradoxical predictions of quantum mechanics when applied to pairs of correlated
particles. At stake was Einstein’s naturalistic concept of local realism, the belief that objects have
properties that are independent of whether or not they are observed, and that an action at one location

12
cannot affect a process at a distant location, unless a signal, or some form of energy, passes between
them. Entanglement would challenge local realism. Entanglement had been recognized much earlier,
but its consequences were not widely discussed. Erwin Schrodinger coined the term and wrote
extensively on the problem of entanglement from 1927, in German, through to a highly readable
account in English in 1935 at Cambridge. In the views of Einstein, Podolosky and Rosen the
wavefunction, did not provide a completedescription of reality. Something was missing; there were
elements of reality that had no counterpart in the theory, which thereforemust be viewed as
incomplete.

Position and momentum, for example are non-commuting variables. If we measure. The momentum
of a particle precisely, its position becomes completely unknown, a manifestation of Heisenberg’s
uncertainty principle. The measurement caused the momentum to become what EPR called “An
element of reality,” while it became impossible to determine the position and the momentum
couldnot be considered real. And since the particles are correlated by their entanglement, what we
do to the first particle determines the state of the second. The reality of the second particle’s
momentum or position is contingent upon action taken at a distant location on a different particle.
Such effects are decisively non-local. EPR conclude: “No reasonable definition of reality could be
expected to permit this.” In the 1950’s , the American-born British theoretical physic , David Bohm,
brought focus to the EPR problem through his work on a new formulation of quantum theory. In
sharp contrast to the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation, Bohm’s new theorygave particles precise
trajectories, specified by Hidden Variables, whose inaccessibility to measurement was merely a
practical limitation. These ideas pointed the way towards an experimental test which mightconfirm
or refute EPR’s criticism of quantum mechanics, .EPR had implied that quantum theory should be
supplemented by additional variables to restore, causality and locality. Bohm’s hidden variables
theory was strictly causal, never violating cause and effect relationships. But it retained the
correlations between distant measurements. Despite strict causality, Bohm’s quantum mechanics
remained definitively non-local. It was a non-locality of these different versions of quantum
mechanics which intrigued the Irish theoretical physicist, John Stewart Bell, driving him to ponder
deeply upon the foundations of the theory and ultimately leading him to a revolutionary insight. He
concluded that for a theory to match all the results of quantum mechanics, it must be non-local. Bell’s
work was the key to practical experiments. It gave numerical values for the correlation between
measurements on pairs of entangled particles, distinguishing sharply between local realism and the
non-locality specified by quantum theory. Refinements of Bell -EPR experiments over the last three
decades have progressively shut out loopholes in the interpretation. There is no longer any room for
doubt. Nature works the way quantum mechanics predicts. Einstein had he lived to see it, would
have found the out come profoundly disappointing. In the end there’s no doubt that quantum
mechanics introduces a third possibility. Entanglement links events in a way that is too strong to be
attributed to information carried by the particles as they diverge from their common origin or
previous interaction. The events are inseparable, the manifestation of a single quantum state, despite
spatial separation that has no apparent limit. Schrodinger described entanglement as , “ the
characteristic trait of quantum mechanics, the one that enforces its entire departure from classical
lines of thought.”

13
Conclusion
Henceforth, we can consistently derive the probabilities for different measurement outcomes in the
delayed choice quantum eraser experiment from standard quantum mechanics. The results of the
delayed choice quantum eraser experiment are, at first glance, counter-intuitive and striking. When
the idler photon is manipulated in a way that provides which-path information about the signal
photon. Detector D0doesnot show interference, even if conditioned on the idler photon’s specific
measurement results. On the other hand, if the idler photon is detected such that the measurement
irrevocably erases which-path information about the signal photon, then too the interference patterns
reappear. Those distributions are complementary in the sense that they add up to a clump pattern.
Further, only conditioned on the detector outcomes of the idler photon can the patterns be extracted.

Significantly, the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment resembles a Bell-type experiment and
thus is not more mysterious than that. If an interpretation of quantum mechanics is adopted, there is
no need to invoke a notion such as, ‘the present action determines the past’. Whether under any other
interpretation retro-causality is similarly avoided would need further investigation.

List of Figures

14
Fig-1 Photon reflecting on the beam splitter
Fig-2 Photon passing straight through the beam splitter
Fig-3 Photon detectors with one beam splitter and four mirrors
Fig-4 Photon detectors with beam splitter with four mirrors to guide the photons

Fig-5 Probable path of idler photon 1

Fig-6 Probable path of idler photon 2
Fig-7 Probable path of idler photon 3
Fig-8 Probable path of idler photon 4
Fig-9 Probable path of idler photon 5
Fig-10 Probable path of idler photon 6
Fig-11 Probable path of idler photon 7
Fig-12 Recovered interference pattern by activating quantum eraser
Fig-13 The Delayed Choice Experiment

15
Reference
• (1)- [Wheeler, 1978] Wheeler, J. A. (1978) . The ‘past’ and ‘delayed-choice’ double-slit
experiment.
• (2)- [von Weizsacker, 1941] von Weizsacker, C.F. (1941) . Zur deutung der
Quantenmechanik . Zeitschrift für phsik. 118(7-8) : 489-509.
• (3)- [Bohr, 1996] Bohr, N. 1996. Discussion with Einstein on epistemological problems
in atomic physics. In Neils Bohr collected works. Volume 7,pages 339-389 Elsevier.
• (4)- [Eichmann et al., 1993] Eichmann, U,. Bergquist, J.C., Bollinger, J.J.,Gilligan, J.M.,
Itano, W.M.,Wineland, D.J.,Raizen, M.G.,(1993) . Young's interference experiment with
light scattered from two atoms. Physical Review Letter, 70(16) :2359
• (5)- [Englert and Bergou, 2000] Englert B.-G., and Bergou, J.A. , (2000).Quantitative
Quantum Erasure.Optics Communications 179(1): 337-355.
• (6) - [Englert et al., 1999] Englert B.-G., Scully, M.O., and Walther, H. (1999). Quantum
Erasure in double-slit interferometers with which-way detectors. American Journals on
Physics. 67(4):325-329.
• (7) - [Mohrhoff, 1999] Mohrhoff, U.(1999).Objectivity, retrocausation and the
experiment of Englert,Scully and Walther. American Journals on Physics. 67(4):330-335
• (8) - [Kim et al., 1999], Kim, W.-H., Yu. R.. Kulik, S.P., Scully, M.O., Shih, Y.H., (1999).A
delayed choice quantum erasure.pages 1-4.
• (9) - [Walborn et al., 2002] Walbarn, S.P., Cunha, M.O.T., Padua, S., and Monken,
C.H.(2002). Double-slit quantum erasure.Physical Review A,65(3):33818.
• (10) - [Kwiat and Englert, 2004] Kwiat, P.G., Englert, B.G.,(2004) Science and Ultimate
Reality: quantum theory,cosmology and complexity
• (11) - [Aharonov and Zubairy, 2005] Aharonov, Y., Zubairy, M.S., (2005). Time and the
quantum : erasing the past and impacting the future.Science, 307(5711):875-879.
• (12) - [Peres, 2000] Peres, A., (2000). Delayed Choice for entanglement swapping.
Journal on Modern Optics. 47(2-3):139-143
• (13) - [Egg, 2013] Egg, M., (2013).Delayed-Choice Experiments and the Metaphysics of
Entanglement.
• (14) - [Scully and Druhl, 1982] Scully, M.O., Druhl, K., (1982).Quantum Erasure:A
proposed photon correlation experiment concerning observation and “delayed-choice”
in Quantum Mechanics. Physical Review A,25(4):2208.
• (15) - Feynman, R. P.,
Leighton, R. B., Sands, M. L.: The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. 3,
Addison-Wesley (1965)
• (16) - Wheeler, J. A.: The past and the delayed-choice double slit experiment, in
Marlow, A. R.,Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Theory, Academic Press (1978).
Reprinted in Quantum Theory and Measurement, Wheeler, J. A., Zurek, W. H., edit,
Princeton University Press (1983)
• (17) - Scully, M. O., Drühl, K.: Phys. Rev. A 25, 2208-2213 (1982)
• (18) - Kim, Y. H., Yu, R., Kulik, S. P., Shih, Y., Scully, M. O.: A Delayed Choice
Quantum Eraser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 001 (2000)
• (19) - Walborn, S. P., Terra Cunha, M. O., Pádua, S., Monken, C. H.: A Double Slit
Quantum Eraser, Phys. Rev. A 65 (2002)

16
 • (20) - Scarcelli, G., Zhou, Y., Shih, Y.: Random Delayed-Choice Quantum Eraser via
Two-Photon Imaging, Eur. Phys. J. D 44, 167-173 (2007). Preprint arXiv:0512207
(2007)
• (21) - Siddiqui, M., A., Qureshi, T.: A Nonlocal Wave-Particle Duality, Quantum Stud.:
Math. Found. (2016). Preprint arXiv: 1406.1682 (2016)
• (22) - Werbos, P. J., Dolmatova, L.: The Backward-Time Interpretation of Quantum
Mechanics – Revisited with Experiments, Preprint arXiv:0008036 (2000)
• (23) - Fearn, H.: A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Explained by the Transactional
Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Found. Phys. 46, 44 (2016)
• (24) - Zwirn, H.: Les limites de la connaissance. Odile Jacob (2000)
• (25) - Zwirn, H.: Decoherence and the Measurement Problem. In: Proceedings of
“Frontiers of Fundamental Physics 14”, PoS(FFP14) 223 (2015)
• (26) - Zwirn, H.: The Measurement Problem: Decoherence and Convivial Solipsism,
Found. Phys. 46, 635 (2016). Preprint arXiv:1505.05029 (2015)

_______________________

17