The Six Fallacies of the Quantum Eraser – A Logical Breakdown from Within

Abstract:

The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment is often celebrated as one of the most mysterious thought-provokers in quantum physics. While its experimental setup is mathematically consistent, its common interpretation suffers from hidden logical contradictions. This article presents six internal fallacies—based purely on the experiment's own reasoning, without proposing any new physics. The goal: clarity, not controversy.
 

Fallacy 1: Retrocausality via Future Information Access

The mainstream view implies that photon A’s behavior at detector D0 is influenced by whether its entangled twin, photon B, later experiences path erasure or not. This assumes the future dictates the past—a violation of causality. Either the event at D0 is fixed at detection time, or the system stays unresolved until a perception-based collapse. Both cannot be true.
 

Fallacy 2: Confusing Post-Selection with Physical Reality

The famous interference patterns only appear after sorting D0 data based on which idler photon detection occurs (i.e., coincidence counting). Without this post-filtering, there’s no pattern. Calling the filtered result a physical truth is like calling an edited movie scene the actual event.
 

Fallacy 3: Information Equals Definiteness

Standard interpretations assume “if which-path info is available in principle, collapse happens.” But potential availability isn’t perception. Probability isn’t knowledge. Until accessed, the system holds unresolved possibilities. An unread book isn’t the same as a known story.
 

Fallacy 4: Observer-Free Collapse via Observer Logic

The claim: “No observer needed.” The method: highly structured filtering, sorting, and labeling—processes mimicking perception. Whether human or AI, these require interpretation structures. Without them, no which-path decision, no interference outcome.
 

Fallacy 5: Denying Perception While Using It

Ironically, the framework rejects perception’s role—but uses its elements under new names:
- “Which-path info” = selection
- “Quantum eraser” = memory rewrite
- “Coincidence logic” = perception-triggered filtering
The structure mirrors a perceptual interface, even as it denies it exists.
 

Fallacy 6: Observer Neutrality Without Testing Observer Type

All observer-effect experiments vary distance or delay—but not the type of observer. No study yet compares collapse under human vs AI vs unconscious detector. Assuming observer-neutrality without this test is premature.
 

???? Closing Thoughts

The Quantum Eraser is fascinating—but its mystique comes from loose language, not magic. These six fallacies show internal inconsistency, even within the dominant narrative. We don’t need to add new physics. We just need to respect the logic of what’s already there.

(c) 2025 — Sharique Khan