I Bell's circuit beginner's question: Sampling alters, - what's normal?

ndvcxk123
Messages
47
Reaction score
3
TL;DR Summary
Sampling one of the two split photons results in probability alteration toward spin of entangled photon, ok, but how can normal outcome be determined w.o. sampling ?
Yes, I should hit the books more, so forgive the basic question. I take it normality is known by observing unsplit photon spin ? But how can one then exclude that split photons in themselves might have different probability outcomes ? Thx much in advance. (Please pardon that only moderately-talented people outside physics cannot quickly learn bra-ket notation...)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I've no clue what you are talking about. You should clearly describe your problem. Maybe you then even get a clue about the answer yourself!
 
  • Like
Likes ndvcxk123, DrChinese and Demystifier
ndvcxk123 said:
Summary: Sampling one of the two split photons results in probability alteration toward spin of entangled photon, ok, but how can normal outcome be determined w.o. sampling ?

Yes, I should hit the books more, so forgive the basic question. I take it normality is known by observing unsplit photon spin ? But how can one then exclude that split photons in themselves might have different probability outcomes ? Thx much in advance. (Please pardon that only moderately-talented people outside physics cannot quickly learn bra-ket notation...)
Just to add to vanhees71's comment: you are using lingo that is not common, and therefore we can't understand your question.

Parametric down conversion (PDC or SPDC) can split a photon into a system of 2 entangled photons. We usually just talk about the system of 2 entangled photons rather than discussing how they became entangled (since there are a number of other ways to create entanglement). I am guessing you want to talk about entanglement, and not parametric down conversion (which is actually a completely different topic).

I don't know what you mean by "probability alteration" or "normal outcome without sampling" as these phrases are unique to you. Bell tests on entangled photon pairs produce statistical results which match the predictions of quantum mechanics (specifically the percentage of matches - HH or VV - relative to the angles the photons' polarization is measured). Phrases such as "normality" and "unsplit photon spin" are likewise unique to you.

If you could reformulate your questions in more common terminology, we could attempt to answer. You might try reading some existing PF threads to get a better idea of phrasing, or perhaps a few Wikipedia articles.
 
  • Like
Likes ndvcxk123 and vanhees71
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
I am reading WHAT IS A QUANTUM FIELD THEORY?" A First Introduction for Mathematicians. The author states (2.4 Finite versus Continuous Models) that the use of continuity causes the infinities in QFT: 'Mathematicians are trained to think of physical space as R3. But our continuous model of physical space as R3 is of course an idealization, both at the scale of the very large and at the scale of the very small. This idealization has proved to be very powerful, but in the case of Quantum...

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
3K
Back
Top