Recent content by RandallB

Well I guess that is close enough for me. As I could not see how option 2 could be the case. And certainly under the option 1 (mine or as refined by you) it is clear the OP problem is not a issue for GR. The only part that I do not quite get is how a GR observer can assume a frame rotation...

Option one: As best as I can Tell GR requires that an Observer that observes rotations; can use any rotating frame of reference with themselves at the center of rotation they Like to simplify how something is observed. But cannot be required to hold such a selection as “the preferred”...

No - not close The Lenses in Dopfer are after the Slit locationS (both real and image slits). Cramer is using a Type II PDC; the only purpose of the lens here is to turn the diverging H & V beams onto the same vector (parallel) so that they can both go through the same beam splitting...

I edited "in" - post 44. Your example does not address the points I made in Posts # 30, 38 & 44. Using your turbine example the “point particle” location of an observer at of a turbine blade can define several “at rest frames of reference”: One of those “rest frames” could be a...

but they canot move in the frame they are in. (Edit; better to state “in” as used here; as the reference frame defined as the “rest Frame” for the observer’s “location”; location understood as a “point particle” location.) Do they have to be at the center of rotation in their frame?

Andreas Welcome to PF Peter will not be replying – when you see a line though a name, as on his, it means for whatever reason they are no longer a member here. No the Cramer set up is not the same as Dopfer, Cramer requires a Far Field set and Dopfer specifically explained the need for a...

But that does not clear up my question/point in post #30. Clearly you can have an accelerating (and therefore non-inertial) observer that does not rotate positioned at any coordinate in a non-rotating frame with rectilinear accelerations and “jerks” (accelerations of acceleration) frame...

Had to think about this one for awhile. Maybe I’m not understanding how GR is being applied. I do not see where extending accelerations to SR requires GR to use non- rectilinear frames and also use rotating frames and expect to retain the Postulates. I understand how SR can have “proper...

But obviously this experiment IS set up in the “Far Field” and I have no doubt that any Bell Test here and ASFIK all Bell tests are at a Far Field distance. To prove me wrong your just going to have to do a Bell Test to confirm a entangled beam remove one of the Bell detectors (and ignore the...

I don’t care how you spin what Zeilinger said – it comes down to agree with just what Dr C says in post #27. I understand he is an important guy, but proof by authority does not work for me but I had not been able to find a documented experiment that demonstrates the point. It an simple...

I was referring to his claim that a single beam from a entangled pair of baem sent to a Double Slit would fail to produce an interferance pattern. No detectors no counting just one beam in "Far Field" and a screen behinfd the two slits.

Remember you have novices on these forums. Understanding the double slit requires thin slits that produce dispersion NOT BARS is important and bars is misleading – the term Bars hurts rather than helps a new reader on the topic. Even the good example you linked to is “extreme” as the two...

Guess I missed updating this thread over the holidays. Your first link here shows that the Zeilinger claims in your second link are wrong. Zeilinger incorrectly uses the results from “Near Field” experiments. Reread the experimental results in your first link with attention to: -...

Good example, it shows the overlapping dispersion patterns I described, and how the inerferance pattern only appears in the area of overlap. And NOT the two bar result you described which would have required the interference pattern to display outside the two separate "bars" of light...

You have been around long enough to know this one, just repeating you error does not help. You are simply wrong. Refer us to one example that documents an interference pattern on a test screen that when some means of marking which slit is used produces "Two Bars". Or draw an example...