Recent content by LsT

Ok, so the "spooky action" of the entangled pair (the polarization correlation) "stops" when the H/V angle phase of the photons is ##\pi/2##. And, I suppose that the zero and ##\pi## phase difference between Horizontal and Vertical modes of polarization cannot exist but in the sense of...

Thats interesting, but I am not sure I get it right. It means when you go from circular to more and more elliptical polarization you start to get no more non-classical effects? How you can know this angle? From the properties of the crystal that creates the entangled pair? Can this angle be...

That's not an interpretation? Anyway I have no argument against what the expected result should be, my only remaining question is now whether this expected result is just expected, or it is also experimental fact. Thinking about the typical quantum eraser experiment, for example, despite the...

I agree with you. The thing is not that I don't get at all malus law, I just try to see how are you sure that this will happen also in the case of entangled photons. I am not sure I get your point, so I made a sketch of the setup, with separate polarisers and detectors: My question is what...

Ok then I guess there is consensus that in such a setup, polariser "Aa" determines correlation. So the hypothetical case in which perfect anti-correlation between Alice/Victor and Bob is preserved is against QM?

Thanks zonde, I think they have made pulses entangled http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.2073 but anyway that's beyond me and not my point, so I'll try to reform the example to hopefully make it realistic for photons: Typical ideal setup for polarization entangled photon pair experiment. Alice with...

The experiment I am thinking of is simple: - A typical (ideal) photon polarization quantum entanglement setup with Alice and Bob. - Alice and Bob detectors are constant at 90 deg. angle difference (such as they allways get perfect corelation with different result) Plus: - Between Alice and...

I, as a layman, can confirm that the fact that photoelectric effect is presented as if it is obvious that it prooves the quantization of light, has done no good for me. In my mind I was envisioning for some time now, if it is possible to "bounce out" losely fitted balls from a wall by resonance...

Sorry, my fault, get it now.

Forget also about this. That cannot be the case, because implies an opposing direction of the photons allways at detectors, which is not the case of course. So the one that remains is that the "plane universe" of each photon "follows" independently its direction by remaining perpendicular to it...

I don't get this. Lets' suppose I hold a long pipe and I turn it with my hand in the "long" axis. Does not the "information" from my hand is transferred to the other end of the pipe faster than light?

@Nugatory Of course you are right, that was a stupid thing to say about light cones, I now understand that they are independent from the frames. So for conclusion you are saying to me that these 3 facts: 1. From rest frame a, when a reaches detector b has not reached yet 2. From rest frame b...

There I need some help understanding it, because the event of either proton reaching a detector is placed in the future light cone of the other (?). Is not that the definition of casuality violation between the frames? How is this interpreted? I agree with this. EPR uses massive particles...

The correct thing to say was that just photon entaglement can be explained. I don't say I can do that for massive particles, but If they are massive I am curious about the answer in the lines of my first post question. Point to me a proof. Otherwise I canno't see why it is meaningless. For me...

If I can consider this the reality for the photon, there is nothing more to say. Because if a photon lives in a 2d univesrse with zero width at its direction, then entaglement is explained by SR, as I think of it.