I am glad we are having this conversation JosephPalazzo because you are the first person willing to discuss the actual evidence and it's conclusions with me. We disagree but that is fine, let's come to an agreement based on this experiment:

Here is what you get on the detectors:

You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login

It doesn't matter if a conscious being looks at the detectors or not, the detectors will show those patterns.

To explain the data:

The interference occurs at D_{1} and D_{2}, these are the paths in which we don't know if the photon comes from A or B. This is the same as a double-slit experiment, where we are not trying to know where the photon went through.

However for D_{3}, the photon went through the beam splitter BS_{a} making an angle, while for D_{1}, it went right through - follow the diagram carefully. This is the same as adding a detector in a double-slit experiment to figure out which slit the photon went through. By gaining this knowledge with an additional interaction, the interference disappears. Ditto for D_{4}.

All of this is correct as I understand it but you have omitted the key part of it.

Before any particle arrives at either (D1 and D2) or (D3 and D4), D0 detects, scans, and registers either an interference or a particle pattern.

**D0 makes a measurement of particle or wave-like behavior before D1, D2, D3, D4 ever do anything.**Now if the photon arrives at (D1 and D2), since we do not have which path information, we get an interference pattern at both of these detecters as you rightly said,

**but what you omitted was that we ***also* get an interference pattern from D0 with this scenerio as well. If the photon arrives at (D3 and D4), because we do have which-path information, we get no interference pattern at both of these detecters as you rightly said,

**but what you omitted was that we ***also* get no interference pattern from D0 with this scenerio as well.The Coincidence Counter correlates the arrival of a signal photon at detector D0 with the arrival of its twin at D1, D2, D3, or D4. If the correlation is with an idler arriving at D3 or D4, then we know (after-the-fact) the which-path information of the signal photon that arrived earlier at D0. If the correlation is with an idler arriving at D1 or D2, then we have no which-path information for the signal photon that arrived earlier at D0.

QM predicts that if which-path information is not available "at the time of measurement", the pattern will be an interference pattern.

**This is the case at detector D0 at all times. **QM also predicts that if which-path information is available "at the time of measurement", there will be a particle pattern and no interference pattern.

**Therefore, based on the results of this experiment we can only conclude that, "the time of measurement," is after the correlation of the joint detections, which takes place at the Coincidence Counter.** However, the count of photon hits that will be displayed, just as your pictures show, represents hits at D0 registered earlier. Proving that a measuring device's "observation" does not cause collapse simply by "interfering with the particle", but rather the cause of collapse is the availability of which-path information "at the time of measurement." Period.

You say, "It doesn't matter if a conscious being looks at the detectors or not, the detectors will show those patterns." But this is not a testable hypothesis. The only way you can ever know "the detectors will show those patterns" is if a conscious being looks.

Question: Do agree you that "the time of measurement" is at the Coincidence Counter?