Leo1233783
To show that some unclear conditions miss to get a predictive capacity of the theory.
You know the optical setting for an EPR experiment with 2 polarizers and their random rotations.
Let's do a 1st trial with not entangled photons ( ie coming from 2 distinct sources ), recording the rotations of each trials pair on the polarizers A and B. We will find a 50% correlations with a very low detection rate because the sources are not well correlated in time.
Now, let's do the same with polarizer B using the previous recorded rotations and the other , C , new random rotations. We will get again 50% of correlations.
1) What are now the theoretical correlations between the 2 outcome sets A-B and B-C ?
By chance, I found outcomes sets where the polarizers took their random sources in well identified films records with a well known algorithm. Since entanglement is not needed and that trials pairs order does not account, I rearranged some pairs data to fit exactly the above schema.
Suppose now we find that the last comparison violates the inequalities ( with 1%x1% detection rate ) thus that the "2 polarizers correlations sets are entangled when considering the rotations angles of A and C".
2) Would you see an explanation ?
In the above, entanglement means not more that the raw outcomes violate the CSCH inequalities for the choosen angles, as the experimentalists do.
You know the optical setting for an EPR experiment with 2 polarizers and their random rotations.
Let's do a 1st trial with not entangled photons ( ie coming from 2 distinct sources ), recording the rotations of each trials pair on the polarizers A and B. We will find a 50% correlations with a very low detection rate because the sources are not well correlated in time.
Now, let's do the same with polarizer B using the previous recorded rotations and the other , C , new random rotations. We will get again 50% of correlations.
1) What are now the theoretical correlations between the 2 outcome sets A-B and B-C ?
By chance, I found outcomes sets where the polarizers took their random sources in well identified films records with a well known algorithm. Since entanglement is not needed and that trials pairs order does not account, I rearranged some pairs data to fit exactly the above schema.
Suppose now we find that the last comparison violates the inequalities ( with 1%x1% detection rate ) thus that the "2 polarizers correlations sets are entangled when considering the rotations angles of A and C".
2) Would you see an explanation ?
In the above, entanglement means not more that the raw outcomes violate the CSCH inequalities for the choosen angles, as the experimentalists do.