# 3 polarizers -- correlations of correlations

• I
Leo1233783

## Main Question or Discussion Point

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.

Related Quantum Physics News on Phys.org
DrClaude
Mentor
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.
I don't understand the setup you have in mind. Could you clarify?

Leo1233783
Could you clarify?
Run the first experiment with recorded random rotations for A and B ( as usual for analysis ).
For the 2nd experiment, use the recorded rotations for B and for the other C , get and use new random rotations
Then, match 2 randoms sets ( A and C ) with the same another random set of rotations ( B) and compare with cos²(A-C) the outcomes of A-B and B-C correlations, not A-C outcomes.

I hope to be clear.

Edit : I missed something important. While the random rotations of A and C are in general in a small set of values, ( 2 , 4 or 8 ) , the polarizer B must use random rotations from the entire set [ 0 , pi [.

Last edited by a moderator: