Recent content by tistemfnp

No you don't. You see statistical coincidence with the other photon of the pair, which is fixed. I am referring to Dopfer, because everyone with minimum optical expertise would immediately catch the situation (including te Walborn situation) looking at the referred figure. Answering these...

In SPDC every photon emitted at down conversion frequency is entangled, as this is the principle of SDPC. Photons with the higher frequencies are blocked. Any photon with no coincidence is still entangled, you just didn't catch its partner in the measurement setup. And entangled photons will not...

In my world, math does not contradict physics :oldbiggrin:. correct (or the other one, but only one of them all the time - too lazy to check which one) :headbang: This really hurts... H/V =::= A/D when you talk about a super position state. Advice: basic QM class, beginner level. The only...

Half of the truth. In this experiment a virtual interference pattern is measured by counting photon rates of a detector as a function of its position coincident with counts of another detector of which the position is fixed. And how would a photoplate be able to only register detections...

Quoting @DrChinese "Arrrghh". A photo detector photo screen per se is not able to fix the position of the other partner while a detector with a coincidence counter will do exactly that. You don't see a flaw as you obviously do not understand that fixing the other partner (x-position of DP )...

I don't get it. There is no screen in the Walborn experiment. Figure 1 shows the setup, no screen. All figures start with "coincidence", which is exactly doing what I told, relating the output to a prepared setup of the other detector. If you would count all clicks without coincidence, no...

Mhhh, I don't want to make you angry, but actually you can. Strictly, you will never be able to put a real (photo) screen and observe interference fringes. That's the statement of @DrChinese and it's valid to its full extent. If you talk of "interference fringes" related to mentioned...

In the work of Dopfer, the interference pattern only shows if the partner is fixed in location. If the partner is not prepared, no interference pattern. Same principle applies to the quantum eraser. In fact, nothing is erased and there is no retrospectivity in the experiment.

Somehow the other question of the original post got lost in the discussion. The video claims, a coherent state can be attenuated to a "arbitrarily low value", that could "penetrate polarizers only considering the cosine-law". So my current understanding, that a coherent state at least would...

Guys, the reason for not seeing interference from entangled photons is ultra short :oldbiggrin:: conservation of momentum.

What I of course didn‘t state. Not criticizing Hossenfelder would be the bible position ;-). My point was about lowering people per se, just because they try to reflect. Her stance on super-determinism isn‘t helpful. Personally I don‘t go along with it and think it‘s flawed.

This is just because she actively reflects what others assume to be carved in stone. And some do not appreciate others thinking and like it more to reflect theories like repititions in a bible, what preserves them from developping own thoughts. Of course this is the opposite of science, which...

https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0610241.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9903047.pdf

@article{jacques2007experimental, title={Experimental realization of Wheeler's delayed-choice gedanken experiment}, author={Jacques, Vincent and Wu, E and Grosshans, Fr{\'e}d{\'e}ric and Treussart, Fran{\c{c}}ois and Grangier, Philippe and Aspect, Alain and Roch, Jean-Fran{\c{c}}ois}...

Mhhh, just she uses the same argument (correlation) for the "interference pattern" (what it's actually not) that you just very used for explaining why there is no interference in entangled photons. What's wrong about her "opinion", may I ask? (Actually I just understood your argument as I...