Recent content by Kyle-DFW

I assume that the field to which you are referring is an electromagnetic field and that at this point we are describing photons as waves passing through the electromagnetic field? If so, then yes, I think I'm following you. Are you or are you not in agreement with the idea that even a single...

Joseph14: Your perception that I have a "tendency to ignore" is wrong. I want the truth. With regard to the Figure 3 issue, I had not read the whole paper at that time. I was skimming it and looking at the parts I wanted to discuss. I'm happy to learn that the ambiguity was addressed later in...

As for my education... I am not a scientist. I am simply a lay person who is very interested in these matters and I have done much reading and tried very hard to understand this experiment in particular because I believe it is key to understanding the very nature of reality. I think the study of...

I appreciate exchanging ideas with you since, after all, that's what science is all about. However, much of what you have said does not make sense to me and you haven't really provided any references to support your claims. I'm going to respond to your last round of comments, but, in the...

The documentation is a little ambiguous in that section, but I'm inclined to think that Figure 3 is showing the QWPs being added after the polarizer is already in place as shown in Figure 1. Whether or not the QWPs do or do not show an interference pattern in the complete absense of the...

I'll concede now that the detectors are both small and that a lot of photons are lost at A. I'll further concede to an earlier post that the experiment done by these scientists only records at B when there is a coincidence at A. However, I'm still of the opinion that this doesn't matter because...

I don't believe this specific scenario was tested by these particular scientists, but everything I've read leads me to believe you would get interference in this scenario because no which-path information is available without the polarizer.

I have to disagree. Why would Detector A need to be a small area detector? Everything I've seen indicates that A is a bucket detector. If there is something in the PDF to the contrary, please quote it. I didn't see it. Even if some photons were not seen at A for some sort of positional reason...

I don't believe the polarizer at A "forces" anything. It either passes the incoming photon or doesn't, based on the photon's incoming polarization. This merely enables you to know the which-path information and should not logically have any effect on the photon behavior or results at B...

If coherency was destroyed by the polarization process (which I have read nothing to suggest it would be), then you would not be able to restore the intereference pattern simply by modifying the detector A configuration. In this case, everything is the same on the detector B side, including the...

I've been re-reading and giving a lot of thought to this document: http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/ My current belief (for today anyway lol) is that we are really not even dealing with an issue of subsamples here. If I understand correctly, when a polarizer is present at...

When I first read this thread, I tended to agree with the comments from vanesch that the interference pattern was an artifact of looking only at a subsample of photons which are detected at B after a corresponding photon is detected at A. This would seem to make the experiment not seem so...

Vanesch: I agree with your "subsample" comments. Since you've earned credit in my book as someone who is well-versed on the details, I'm wondering if you have a theory or explanation for why an interference pattern is observed in the simple double-slit experiment where regular (non-entangled)...