 Quote by lugita15
There is no experimental procedure called "coincidence detection" ...
|
Sure there is. There's circuitry that matches detection attributes which operates according to calculations based on the photon emission source and the distance between the polarizers.
Quote by lugita15
... so the term "rate of coincidence detection" is highly misleading. Coincidences aren't "detected" experimentally, they are a consequence of individual detections.
|
They're a consequence of matching individual detection attributes wrt calculated
coincidence intervals.
Whether coincidental detections are counted 'on the fly' by circuitry built into the experimental design, or after the fact via time stamps, the fact is that the basic datum of entanglement setups (eg., Bell tests) is called
coincidental detection, and the
rate of coincidental detection varies as a function of θ, the angular difference between the polarizer settings.
So, given that the rate of individual detection doesn't vary as a function of polarizer setting, then what can you infer from this?
Quote by lugita15
They are both entirely determined by the same thing ...
|
No. Incorrect inference. This doesn't follow from the known experimental results.