grzegorzsz830402
Registered Senior Member
The Kim et al. (1999) Experiment: A Curious Twist
Let’s talk about something you know well—the double-slit experiment, but with a twist from Kim et al. (1999). Normally, when you track “which way” a particle goes in a classic double-slit setup, you get two clean bands on the screen: left slit, left band; right slit, right band. Simple, right? But Kim’s setup throws a curveball, and it’s worth a closer look.
Here’s the deal: they’ve got a lens in play, redirecting trajectories inward so they cross over. Check detectors D3 and D4 (or R03 and R04 in their data). When “which way” is known, you don’t get two neat bands. Instead, you see two patterns overlapping in the middle—one skews more to the right, the other to the left. Here’s the kicker: the pattern leaning left ties to the right slit, and the one leaning right ties to the left slit. Weird, but explainable—lens crossover flips the layout. Fair enough, right?
Now, shift to D1 and D2 (R01 and R02). Same vibe: two patterns, overlapping in the middle, one more left, one more right. Quantum mechanics says no “which way” data here—random behavior at the beam splitter (BSc) should smear things out, no slit correlation. But hold on—those patterns match D3 and D4’s layout. Left-leaning from the right slit, right-leaning from the left. Coincidence? Hardly. It’s screaming slit correlation, even where quantum mechanics insists there’s none.
Why’s This Odd?
Quantum mechanics assumes BSc splits things 50/50—random reflection or transmission, no bias. To get slit-specific patterns at D1 and D2 and match D3/D4’s crossover shift, something’s fishy. You’d need BSc to ditch randomness and only let particles pass through—no reflection—from both sides. That’s an aberration quantum mechanics doesn’t predict. Is there precedent? Yep. Signal and idler sides aren’t special—one’s as good as the other for interference. Ever hear of the Hong-Ou-Mandel effect? It shows beam splitters can act weird—bunching photons instead of splitting them. Anti-Hong-Ou-Mandel flips it. Neither’s exactly our case, but they prove aberrations happen. Maybe BSc here is pulling a unique trick—favoring “pass through” over “reflect.”
Let’s Test It
Here’s a simple tweak to settle it: slap polarization filters—horizontal on one side, vertical on the other—right before BSc. Quantum mechanics says no interference at BSc, just random 50/50 splits, so filters shouldn’t change a thing—same patterns at D1 and D2. But if there’s interference driving a “pass-only” quirk, those filters will kill it. Mismatched polarizations break interference, restoring random behavior. Result? No more tidy patterns—D1 and D2 turn into overlapping blobs, no left-right skew. Clear setup, clear outcome.
Why Care?
If quantum mechanics holds, nothing changes—business as usual. But if those patterns vanish, it’s a crack in the facade—randomness isn’t king, and slit correlation sneaks through. That’s not just a glitch; it’s a hint at something deeper. (Want the full scoop from a new angle? There’s a detailed take tied to this model—happy to dig in if you’re curious.)
I have used grok for fact checking and fine tuning of this post.
Let’s talk about something you know well—the double-slit experiment, but with a twist from Kim et al. (1999). Normally, when you track “which way” a particle goes in a classic double-slit setup, you get two clean bands on the screen: left slit, left band; right slit, right band. Simple, right? But Kim’s setup throws a curveball, and it’s worth a closer look.
Here’s the deal: they’ve got a lens in play, redirecting trajectories inward so they cross over. Check detectors D3 and D4 (or R03 and R04 in their data). When “which way” is known, you don’t get two neat bands. Instead, you see two patterns overlapping in the middle—one skews more to the right, the other to the left. Here’s the kicker: the pattern leaning left ties to the right slit, and the one leaning right ties to the left slit. Weird, but explainable—lens crossover flips the layout. Fair enough, right?
Now, shift to D1 and D2 (R01 and R02). Same vibe: two patterns, overlapping in the middle, one more left, one more right. Quantum mechanics says no “which way” data here—random behavior at the beam splitter (BSc) should smear things out, no slit correlation. But hold on—those patterns match D3 and D4’s layout. Left-leaning from the right slit, right-leaning from the left. Coincidence? Hardly. It’s screaming slit correlation, even where quantum mechanics insists there’s none.
Why’s This Odd?
Quantum mechanics assumes BSc splits things 50/50—random reflection or transmission, no bias. To get slit-specific patterns at D1 and D2 and match D3/D4’s crossover shift, something’s fishy. You’d need BSc to ditch randomness and only let particles pass through—no reflection—from both sides. That’s an aberration quantum mechanics doesn’t predict. Is there precedent? Yep. Signal and idler sides aren’t special—one’s as good as the other for interference. Ever hear of the Hong-Ou-Mandel effect? It shows beam splitters can act weird—bunching photons instead of splitting them. Anti-Hong-Ou-Mandel flips it. Neither’s exactly our case, but they prove aberrations happen. Maybe BSc here is pulling a unique trick—favoring “pass through” over “reflect.”
Let’s Test It
Here’s a simple tweak to settle it: slap polarization filters—horizontal on one side, vertical on the other—right before BSc. Quantum mechanics says no interference at BSc, just random 50/50 splits, so filters shouldn’t change a thing—same patterns at D1 and D2. But if there’s interference driving a “pass-only” quirk, those filters will kill it. Mismatched polarizations break interference, restoring random behavior. Result? No more tidy patterns—D1 and D2 turn into overlapping blobs, no left-right skew. Clear setup, clear outcome.
Why Care?
If quantum mechanics holds, nothing changes—business as usual. But if those patterns vanish, it’s a crack in the facade—randomness isn’t king, and slit correlation sneaks through. That’s not just a glitch; it’s a hint at something deeper. (Want the full scoop from a new angle? There’s a detailed take tied to this model—happy to dig in if you’re curious.)
I have used grok for fact checking and fine tuning of this post.