View Single Post
ZapperZ
ZapperZ is offline
#8
Apr13-05, 07:43 AM
Mentor
ZapperZ's Avatar
P: 28,837
Quote Quote by nightlight
Being a "subscriber" is irrelevant. ANYONE can write a rebuttal to ANY paper in any journal.

Well, if I write I would like to see it, and see the replies, etc.
OK, so now YOU are the one offering a very weak excuse. I'll make a deal with you. If you write it, and it gets published, *I* will personally make sure you get a copy. Deal?

However, what I can gather from what you wrote, and what have been published, is that including everything doesn't change the results but may change the degree of the standard deviation that they obtained.

It changes quite a bit. The semi-classical model works perfectly here, when one models the subtractions as well (Marshall & Santos wrote about it way back when Grangier et al published their version in 1986). The problem with this AJP paper is that they claim nearly perfect "quantum" g2, without any subtractions (of accidental coincidences and of unpaired DG triggers, which lowers substantially g2, via eq (2) where N(G) would drop from 100,000 c/s to 8000 c/s) . If true, it would imply genuine physical collapse at spacelike region. If they had it for real, you would be looking at a Nobel prize work. But, it just happens to be contrary to the facts, experimental or theorietical.
There appears to be something self-contradictory here, caroline. You first do not believe their results, and then you said look, it also works well when explained using semi classical model. Now either you discard it completely and don't use it, or you buy it and deal with the fact that two different descriptions, at best, can explain it.

If you claim that the result DOES change, then put your money where your mouth is and send a rebuttal. If not, this goes into oblivion.

Zz.