Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted

[DrChinese]

Very well, but just because he is not ''well-respected'' means nothing in the archives of physics... there have been those after all who thought the world was flat at one point and was very well-respected.

Sadly, this is a essentially a circular argument which basically leads one to assert that all opinions are equally correct.

Moot here, since that is not PF policy. Only mainstream science is allowed in the Quantum Physics section. So go elsewhere to trumpet Sarfatti, I don't see how he did anyone any favors with his views on entanglement and Bell. (Please keep in mind I criticize myself for the same kind of behavior, so I am not being hypocritical.)

 

[Meselwulf]

Mais non! Quantum non-locality, an established concept, is not the same as superluminal signaling (which is not).

Do not presume sir, to think you know what QM is... in totality. QM has many hidden truths which far outweigh what we ''think'' we so audaciously believe we know... there could be a superluminal transaction... as I said... the Transactional Interpretation, a real working theory, may answer it all.

 

[DrChinese]

Let's understand something first... I don't believe any physical system moves faster than light. There is however another loophole, called the Transactional Interpretation... waves which can move at superluminal speeds which do not require energy to travel faster than light.

There are a number of interpretations which are out there, and I do not speak for one and against another. If you want to call such interpretations "loopholes" I guess I could see your point with that word - although interpretation is widely held to mean something else. However, not all such interpretations are considered mainstream science. Please do not confuse the word "interpretation" with "opinion" or "hypothesis" because they are not the same. And Sarfatti's "interpretation" or whatever you want to call it is not in the same league, and stretching the meaning of words will not put it there.

 

[Meselwulf]

There are a number of interpretations which are out there, and I do not speak for one and against another.

If you don't disagree with over another, then explain one fact to me... why the idea of a superluminal transfer of information... is... forbidden enough for you to threaten me with a moderator action?

I wish to talk about this, in a civilized debating way not in a way which resolves itself in a confrontational way.

 

[Meselwulf]

If you want to call such interpretations "loopholes" I guess I could see your point with that word - although interpretation is widely held to mean something else.

Well, ironic, because QM is not fully understood so what we have to deal with is interpretations, not absolutions.

 

[DrChinese]

Do not presume sir, to think you know what QM is... in totality. QM has many hidden truths which far outweigh what we ''think'' we so audaciously believe we know... there could be a superluminal transaction... as I said... the Transactional Interpretation, a real working theory, may answer it all.

I probably missed the part where I stated that I know what QM is.

And you apparently missed the part where I chose NOT to argue against the Transactional Interpretation, which I have no beef with at all. In fact, I would expect anyone familiar with it to embrace the paper which started this thread (as providing experimental support for it).

And I definitely missed any connection between Sarfatti and the Transactional Interpretation, which has nothing whatsoever to do with him. That is usually attributed to Cramer.

 

[DrChinese]

If you don't disagree with over another, then explain one fact to me... why the idea of a superluminal transfer of information... is... forbidden enough for you to threaten me with a moderator action?

Simple: there are no accepted interpretations supporting superluminal signaling. Asserting otherwise runs afoul of forum rules. TQM is an accepted interpretation precisely because it is functionally equivalent to sQM.

 

[DrChinese]

Well, ironic, because QM is not fully understood so what we have to deal with is interpretations, not absolutions.

I quite agree. But within very strict bounds. Those have been best framed by Bell.

 

[Meselwulf]

I probably missed the part where I stated that I know what QM is.

And you apparently missed the part where I chose NOT to argue against the Transactional Interpretation, which I have no beef with at all.

Very well.


... ;)

 

[Meselwulf]

I quite agree. But within very strict bounds. Those have been best framed by Bell.

ty... however... Since the remarkable man known as Bell... physics has known a great much more things...

 

[Ilja]

Simple: there are no accepted interpretations supporting superluminal signaling. Asserting otherwise runs afoul of forum rules.

Small correction: de Broglie-Bohm theory, which is an interpretation of sQM in the case of quantum equlibrium, allows superluminal signaling outside this equilibrium.

 

[San K]

good reference/paper DrChinese.

This means that photon 4 is now entangled with photon 1, even though photon 1 no longer exists!

Experimental realization of that setup shows that photons 1 and 4 violate a Bell Inequality, demonstrating their entanglement.

how is the Bell Inequality shown (experimentally) when photons 1 and 4 don't even exist?

how is an (Bell's) experiment performed on particles that no longer exist?

 

[DrChinese]

good reference/paper DrChinese.



how is the Bell Inequality shown (experimentally) when photons 1 and 4 don't even exist?

how is an (Bell's) experiment performed on particles that no longer exist?

They are measured as per usual and then a post-selection process is executed. A difficulty is to synchonize the photon arrival times so that the correct 4 are considered (since a coincidence time window must be created).

"We chose the delay length
to be the time between eight consecutive laser pulses, in
order not to lose signal due to the dead-time of the single-
photon detectors (Perkin Elmer SPCM-AQ4C), and to
provide enough time for the measurement of the first pho-
ton before the second pair is created. The delayed photon
of the first pair and the non-delayed photon of the second
pair are projected onto a Bell state by combining them
at the projecting polarizing beam-splitter (PBS) (see Fig.
2) [5]. We post-select the cases where each photon exits
this PBS at a different port. We ensure that the pho-
tons are indistinguishable, i.e., no information is available
as to whether both were transmitted or both were re-
flected."

 

[San K]

A future context affects the past (since the decision to entangle 1 and 4 is made after 4 is detected) !

http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.4191

Not sure about "Future context effecting the past" -

because (maybe)

The post selection criteria/process is such that is seems that way...but its not so.

Namely - only those photons get post selected that make it seem as if...future is effecting the past.

This is the same argument as used in Delayed choice quantum eraser.

In two words... its a "filtering trick"

 

[RUTA]

Not sure about "Future context effecting the past" -

because (maybe)

The post selection criteria/process is such that is seems that way...but its not so.

Namely - only those photons get post selected that make it seem as if...future is effecting the past.

This is the same argument as used in Delayed choice quantum eraser.

In two words... its a "filtering trick"

The experiment agrees with quantum theory on this possibility, so are you claiming quantum theory is wrong? Or, do you believe such experiments *are* possible, but this experiment simply has flaws?

 

[DennisN]

The experiment agrees with quantum theory on this possibility, so are you claiming quantum theory is wrong? Or, do you believe such experiments *are* possible, but this experiment simply has flaws?

FYI: You replied to an almost one year old post (not that it matters to me, but I just wanted to let you know).

 

[RUTA]

FYI: You replied to an almost one year old post (not that it matters to me, but I just wanted to let you know).

The post that I responded to just arrived in my email this morning. I noticed it had a date from last Oct, but it said "Edited" so I guessed that it was changed last night, since I was only this morning notified.

 

[mfb]

There was another new post that got deleted.
I think this thread is done.