The Kim et al. (1999) Experiment: A Curious Twist

[grzegorzsz830402]

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. That’s not just a glitch; it’s a hint at something deeper.

 

I have used grok for fact checking and fine tuning of this post.

 

 

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:

Check detectors D3 and D4 (or R03 and R04 in their data)

!

Moderator Note

How? You don’t give a link to the experiment or even a proper citation.

 

 

Quote

If quantum mechanics holds, nothing changes—business as usual. But if those patterns vanish, it’s a crack in the facade. That’s not just a glitch; it’s a hint at something deeper.

Then do the experiment and write it up. Until then, there’s no actual science here. It’s just “what-if” conjecture.

[grzegorzsz830402]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser

 

Then go to:

The experiment of Kim et al. (1999)

 

I did not though it would be the problem I didn't thought it would be the problem? So easy to Google it.

 

 

32 minutes ago, swansont said:

It’s just “what-if” conjecture.

A little bit more than that, to be honest, and modest.

 

Quite strong correlation, and some facts that have been overlooked.

 

What can be already conclude based on mentioned above, you could debate. 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser

 

Then go to:

The experiment of Kim et al. (1999)

 

I did not though it would be the problem I didn't thought it would be the problem? So easy to Google it.

Lazy

You’re asking for other people to give you their time. Adding hurdles isn’t helpful, and the rules require that things for discussion be posted here. Besides, that link goes to a PRL which is paywalled.

You want to find the ArXiv version, which is not.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9903047

But does not show “leaning” fringes that you are making unsubstantiated claims about.

2 hours ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:

 

A little bit more than that, to be honest, and modest.

 

Quite strong correlation, and some facts that have been overlooked.

 

What can be already conclude based on mentioned above, you could debate. 

No, it’s claims based on no experiment, and unproven physics conjecture.

[KJW]

@grzegorzsz830402, what is your take on the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment?

 

[grzegorzsz830402]

38 minutes ago, swansont said:

Lazy

You’re asking for other people to give you their time. Adding hurdles isn’t helpful, and the rules require

Not really. I do not ask anyone to give me their time. If you do not know or understand this experiment then it is not for you. So maybe hurdles are here so I do not have to waste my time on someone who do not know what he is talking about.

 

41 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, it’s claims based on no experiment, and unproven physics conjecture.

Someone like you. Who have no idea what he is talking about.

If you for example can not comprehend that idler and signal side are only different by name. And what that actually means. 

Or you do not understand that those are observations based on data provided by experiment on question. 

You do not even attempt to ask good question. 

 

3 minutes ago, KJW said:

@grzegorzsz830402, what is your take on the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment?

 

Quite broad question. 

 

I will give it a go.

 

So maybe let's start with things we can agree on move one by one and see where we land.

 

Would you agree?

Signal and idler sides aren’t special—one’s as good as the other for interference. 

 

Meaning if interference is possible and it is because it is happening on signal side it is also possible for idler side. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:

Or you do not understand that those are observations based on data provided by experiment on question. 

Data that our rules require that you provide, and have not.

[grzegorzsz830402]

24 minutes ago, swansont said:

Data that our rules require that you provide, and have not.

I think you are mistakenly assuming that I am after convincing you or anyone. I personally find no value whatsoever in that.

 

I would find grate value in someone who disagrees with me and driven purely by dislike to me, decides to do that experiment, in a way where he will have to publish results. Just to prove me wrong.

 

Why ?

Because I am certain what result he would see.

 

I do not really want to discuss this with someone who have not done deep dive already, and do not understand this experimental setup well. 

 

 

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:

I do not really want to discuss this with someone who have not done deep dive already, and do not understand this experimental setup well. 

 

Perhaps you can explain why you think the Hong-Ou-Mandel effect has any relevance here.

You offer it as proof that aberrations happen, but it’s not evidence of any aberrations in this particular experiment. So it’s a red herring. And you haven’t really shown more knowledge here than you did about atomic clocks, or how science works. The chip-on-shoulder act isn’t going to work to bluff your way through this. You either follow our rules, or this gets locked.

[grzegorzsz830402]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

but it’s not evidence of any aberrations in this particular experiment.

Is is not evidence that interference at BSc is happening, driving suggested passing through only aberration, from both sides.

 

Yet it is evidence that such interference and such aberration can not be excluded.

 

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

You either follow our rules, or this gets locked.

I will reiterate.

 

I am not after convincing anyone to anything. 

 

I am not interested with you trying to convince me and arguing. 

 

Your question clearly shows that you have not even try to understand what I am suggesting or asserting. 

 

You just want to disagree.

 

I am only interested in conversation with someone who understands this experimental setup, took time to read carefully and understand my first post. 

 

And have genuine questions.

 

So If you consider that against the rules go ahead and lock this thread.

 

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:

So If you consider that against the rules go ahead and lock this thread.

That’s a strawman. You don’t seem interested in following the rules, or a discussion in good faith, and despite having been given ample opportunity to comply, you have not done so. That is why this is locked.