Recent content by DrChinese

Actually you would see the 2 outcomes as correlated, momentum conserved if they went in opposite directions. There would simply be no interference pattern formed as more and more were observed.

Imagine you send an entangled particle though a double slit. It simply will not produce the expected interference pattern. The reasons are a bit complicated, but entangled particles are not coherent. See figure 2 of the following, along with the related text. Written by one of the premier...

The simple answer has already been presented. Entangled particle pairs - whether electrons or photons- generally do not exhibit single particle self-interference. For them to do that, the entanglement must cease on the appropriate basis. I’m sure you realize that were that not true, FTL...

It's Mr. DrChinese. Note that I am not a doctor of any kind that involves a degree. My musician friends simply call me Doc, so that's good as well. We're all friends here. :smile: Oh, and I am not Chinese (according to 23 and me).

1. Agree, that's true in all swapping setups. The experiment consists of having another distant scientist who makes a decision to entangle - or not - the 1 & 4 photons. Of course, she must his report her results just as Alice and Bob do. I wouldn't call requiring the results of distant...

Not an answer to your question, but an interesting fact: those entangled photons need not be of identical wavelength. In fact, you can even use photons to entangle (via swapping) spins of 2 distant electrons. In principle, there is no requirement that the particle types even be the same...

1. Yes, it's true that the results of 3 distant observers must be brought together to demonstrate nonlocality. That would always be true in demonstrating quantum nonlocality*. So if that is your "out", it's circular reasoning. There is no meaningful filtering occurring, in the sense that some...

1. There are 2 subsets of 4 fold entangled coincidences that are relevant (all within the appropriate time window): ψ+ and ψ-. The only "filtering" is the requirement of 4 fold coincidences. Note that there are 4 Bell states, but only 2 of the 4 can be identified in most experiments. The other...

Sorry, the "filtering hypothesis" is theoretically and factually incorrect, and this has even been experimentally demonstrated as such. First, all 2 & 3 pairs that fit within the time window of the BSM lead to entanglement of 1 & 4 into one of the 4 Bell states. There is no filtering...

1. It's impossible to model a Bell State Measurement (BSM) with cards. Bell states are different. You can model an entangled deck with cards, at least for perfect EPR correlations. To model the ψ+ Bell state, you sort 2 decks into the same order. To model ψ- Bell state, you sort the 2nd deck...

1. You cannot model a Bell State Measurement via card decks, as I have said repeatedly. It is purely quantum, and the actual process is not well understood anyway*. That is an essential step in actual experiments, and creates a piece of information needed to decode whether you have ψ+ or ψ- as...

1. Chris has no communication from anyone about what N is, i.e. selecting the Nth card. That's because in a Bell State Measurement (BSM) on photons (card decks) 2 & 3, the angle settings are held constant and do not change from trial to trial. The information gained from the BSM indicates a ψ+...

I’ll repeat: Chris in Paris is performing the card trick equivalent of a swap. She has no idea what N is, that information is not communicated to Paris. There is thus no opportunity for Chris to look at the Nth cards in the first place. That’s why the trick cannot be accomplished as you...

I agreed that there is no assumption that the entire decks must be correlated. Just the one 1 & 4 pair being tested (the Nth card), which were not previously correlated. But they must be correlated for each and every trial. How is the trick accomplished? The issue here is that with EPR: They...

No, Chris does a different thing with the copy decks 2 & 3, simply picking a card from each deck - this is supposed to be the analog of performing a Bell State Measurement (BSM). That is a separate action and is not directly correlated to the polarization of the Alice & Bell angle settings. It...