Tom Trotter
Apr24-04, 11:15 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Bell\'s lambda includes the specific polarization\nof any/all photon pairs. But this specific polarization\nwould seem to be irrelevant in the determination of\ncoincidental detection.\n\nIt seems only necessary to assume that, whatever this\npolarization might be, it\'s the same for both photons of\nany given pair, and it\'s produced via emission.\n\nThis "sameness" of polarization of both photons of\na pair via emission process is the unvarying condition\nthat\'s required to produce predictable rates of\ncoincidental detection.\n\nIt\'s not a variable, and because it\'s requirement\ncan be deduced, it\'s not hidden either.\n\nSo far, we have a local picture with no hidden variables.\n\nThe rate of coincidental detection varies as some circular\nfunction of the angular difference between the transmission\naxes of the two separated polarizers.\n\nWe\'ve included a variable (unhidden) in the predictive\nformula, but it still looks like a local picture to me.\n\nComments?\n\nThomas Trotter\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Bell's \lambda includes the specific polarization
of any/all photon pairs. But this specific polarization
would seem to be irrelevant in the determination of
coincidental detection.
It seems only necessary to assume that, whatever this
polarization might be, it's the same for both photons of
any given pair, and it's produced via emission.
This "sameness" of polarization of both photons of
a pair via emission process is the unvarying condition
that's required to produce predictable rates of
coincidental detection.
It's not a variable, and because it's requirement
can be deduced, it's not hidden either.
So far, we have a local picture with no hidden variables.
The rate of coincidental detection varies as some circular
function of the angular difference between the transmission
axes of the two separated polarizers.
We've included a variable (unhidden) in the predictive
formula, but it still looks like a local picture to me.
Comments?
Thomas Trotter
of any/all photon pairs. But this specific polarization
would seem to be irrelevant in the determination of
coincidental detection.
It seems only necessary to assume that, whatever this
polarization might be, it's the same for both photons of
any given pair, and it's produced via emission.
This "sameness" of polarization of both photons of
a pair via emission process is the unvarying condition
that's required to produce predictable rates of
coincidental detection.
It's not a variable, and because it's requirement
can be deduced, it's not hidden either.
So far, we have a local picture with no hidden variables.
The rate of coincidental detection varies as some circular
function of the angular difference between the transmission
axes of the two separated polarizers.
We've included a variable (unhidden) in the predictive
formula, but it still looks like a local picture to me.
Comments?
Thomas Trotter