Recent content by eloheim

That "Evolution of the deceleration parameter" figure really caught my eye. The new calculation suggests a universe with accelerating expansion between 2 and 7 bya. Anyone know if this can this be the product of a very weak (constant) cosmological constant that was only able to overwhelm...

Sorry if my use of "anticorrelated" was confusing, I just meant |R>|L> pairs (DrChinese explained it better than I anyway). And in general (as far as I understand) we're talking about creating a bell state by making 2 photons indistinguishable with something like the Hong-Ou-Mandel effect as in...

So I'm assuming @Morbert that the mockup Ma-X graph is for ##\ket{\phi^-}_{2,3}## results (like the version from Ma's paper is) correct? I ask because that's not strictly synonymous with Ma-X not getting any ##\ket{\phi^+}_{2,3}## results (in the specific setup we're all talking about). Would...

Sorry I may have underspecified for sake of brevity. Can we just say we create unentangled photon pairs of one |L> and one |R>, so everybody knows the prepared basis, and if Alice or Bob measure |R> then we know photons 2+3 both started in |L>. Also the bell measurement of 2+3 is done in the H/V...

Okay this really has to be at the root of this all: We do an Ma-X experiment run. It's the same as the real Ma setup but each initial pair of photons (1+2 and 3+4) are anticorrelated in accordance with |Ψ-> but NOT entangled. At the current time Alice and Bob have measured and both got |R>...

There is a very clear difference of opinion here that should be incredibly easy to solve: We're doing a single run of Ma's experiment. Alice and Bob have measured and gotten |R> and |R> for their results. Victor has yet to take any action. If Victor does a BSM on photons 2 and 3, what result...

Sorry to be back at this again but now I'm again curious. My thought process was: the reason they have to use entangled photons is because they have to account for Alice and Bob changing their measurement angles, at will. In order for Photons 3+4 to get the proper bell states photons 2 and 3...

I believe it is the point being discussed right now though. You can put 2+3 into a bell state whether they come from entangled pairs or not, and the question is whether the results are the same as the real experiment. I think we all agree that if Alice and Bob are allowed to measure on a...

So in the Ma-X version, even if Alice and Bob "measure" in the prepared basis (if we already know their photons are L and L there's no point in measuring, right?) the result of Victor putting 2 and 3 into a bell state by making them indistinguishable will produce different results than the...

Do you believe a local hidden-variable model can reproduce DCES (e.g. Ma et al)? Because say photons 1 and 4 have hidden values of Photon1: |R>,|+> and Photon2:|L>,|->. If Alice and Bob both measure in the R/L basis then Victor's bsm should give Φ+, and if they instead measured in +/- Victor...

In the abstract of Mjelva's paper he says: To me that sounds like he's saying you still need regular spacelike entanglement (and non-locality?) to explain the experiments. Then at the projection postulate preliminary conclusions section (4.1.3) he says (my emphasis): So he's saying...

Yes you are right. Treating bell-type experiments as a special case of selection effect is brought up mostly as an aside but it seemed like something others might make use of.

Yes I do believe this is the heart of the matter. Some of us want a more intuitive explanation as to why the DCES experiments (and their variations) behave the way they do. In a traditional EPR scenario (your #1, with just 1 photon pair) you can count the number of ways their measurement...

Hello! I've been following along with the previous thread and would also enjoy any discussion of Mjelva's work. Reading through it, I would point out that Mjelva is proposing to explain all these entanglement swapping phenomena via regular non-local space-like entanglement (as opposed to...

Yes this is the idea (and I think Demystifier did understand correctly too). The point being that the super-classical correlations only become apparent when the two results have been brought back into contact and compared, so until that happens the possibilities can sort of ride along in their...