Recent content by Ian J Miller

I am afraid we disagree again. Physical states may be represented mathematically as rays in Hilbert space, but the photons, in my opinion, remain in standard three-dimensional space, or if you wish, 4-dimensional spacetime. In the Aspect experiment, both photons have the same polarization as...

1. What I meant was entangled photons polarized along a specific plane. I apologize if it did not come out that way. I don't understand your alternative, but since you say it is impossible, and I didn't mean it, no need to go further. 2. I am not sure I know what you are saying here. Are you...

Which is impossible why? I do not know whether that can be done now, but I am very skeptical of assertions that something is technically impossible without some very strong proof. Consider a down converter. The crystal acts occasionally to produce two photons with half frequency and opposite...

It means I do not wish to continue

I was hoping to end the discussion.

I thought I put that up earlier, however, if this is a repeat, forgive me. There is no experiment as far as I know because nobody has tried it, but: Assume a source that provides entangled photons, all of which are polarized in one plane. Align the A+ detector with this plane, and, as with...

If simply rotating the detectors against a rotationally invariant background generates the two new variables then you have provided your answer to the original question. Thank you.

Of course I realize the sock model obeys the inequality, and the QM model does not, BUT the QM model only disobeys the inequality because the rotation of the polarizers in a set configuration when the source is rotationally invariant is allowed to introduce two new variables, when the only frame...

Now I am more confused. Bertlmann's socks were washed at three different temperatures. The degrees are degrees C, or K, not angles. As far as theoretical models go, I was under the impression that the observed counts at the detectors, i.e. the count at detector 1, and the count at detector 2...

The socks is a hidden variable model? What is the hidden variable? The number of socks is clearly defined, the temperatures are measured, the length of the socks, say is measured. All is explicit. You may not know why the socks shrink, but that is not a hidden variable - it is an unexplored...

When you say, what is that thing? what do you think the above discussion is about? As an aside, I am not saying they are wrong; I am asking you why you and others think they are right. I have explained my problem to the best of my ability. So far, nobody seems to understand the question I am...

Let me ask you this, then. If you did an experiment on one end of the bench and translated it to the other end, can you call that a new set of results, or are you reproducing the first result?

The Bertlmann socks does not use the sin squared because there are no waves involved. You say the QM model is not equivalent to the Malus law, but it counts joint probabilities with the same function. I never said the sin squared was involved in deriving the inequality; I said that it was not...

The model involves the sin squared relationship. It is equivalent in this circumstance to the Malus law, which applies to a polarized wave. The sin squared 22.5 and 45 degrees was used by Bell in the second equation of p 10. I explained my reason for multiple values. Take C-. If you ran C+...

For an entangled pair, where one photon gives a click on the first detector, the sin squared function surely represents the probability that the partner photon will give a click on its detector, the term θ being the difference between rotations of the two detectors from the initial position...