Talk:Delayed-choice quantum eraser

Technology Applications

Are there any technology applications that could be placed at the article Noting these are photons could you do radiography of a mineral sample through one path, then reobserve to cause the radiographic photon to travel a different path producing a different radiographic image sample This could be used to identify minerals or amplify the efficacy of computed tomography scanners providing fresh views with the same amount of photons

similarly could a hypercube be constructed Each vertice of the hypercube is a DeChQuEr Each vertice is made from quantum linked photons similar to the quantum camera described at new scientist magazine. physically motionizing the sides of the physics apparatus would change the spatial relation of the vertices to each other, which would effect the observed alternate precausal pathway to be longer thus creating a thing which described chronological moments at variable previousToobservation lengths That could be verified with quantifying the effects of motioing the physics apparatus. once it is noted that quantum linked photons at a DeChQuer actually traverse differnt areas of chronology with motioning a physical cube or slider rectangle Then things could be placed near the vertices or between them to find out if they effected the adjustable chronoprecausal lengths

Notably researchers have produced DeChQuEr with quantum linked photons Entanglement-enabled delayed choice experiment arXiv ... arxiv.org/pdf/1206.4348 arXiv by F Kaiser - ‎2012 - ‎Cited by 85 - ‎Related articles Jun 19, 2012 - Entanglement-enabled delayed choice experiment. Florian Kaiser,1 Thomas Coudreau,2 Perola Milman,2,3. Daniel B. Ostrowsky,1

Thus the geometries of those quantum linked photons with precausal have a technology basis

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Delayed choice quantum eraser/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 05:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Reviewing. But this is likely to be a quick fail unless the "this section requires expansion" tag is dealt with, either by expanding the section or by determining that the tag is inappropriate. Also the title of the primary reference is listed incorrectly. How carefully did you check this before nominating? It is a bit troubling that the nominator has never edited the article in question and (per his self-description on his user page) does not seem to have the physics expertise needed to edit the technical parts of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh sorry. I must have misunderstood nomination. I just saw that it seemed significantly better than before. Is it usually supposed to be editors that nominate? TheKing44 (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be, but the process usually involves some back-and-forth, editing to fix the problems that the review turns up, so you have to be willing and able to edit the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do.TheKing44 (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Still nothing, so I'm closing this for now as a quick fail. If you have time to address the cleanup tags and make a proper copyediting pass on the article, you can always nominate it again. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)