3 polarizers -- correlations of correlations

[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.

 

[DrClaude]

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 [.