- 24,488
- 15,057
To be able to "put them in buckets according to the ##P_i##", however, you have to perform the corresponding measurement on BC. If you ignore BC completely you just look at the full ensemble.
akvadrako said:1. Are you saying it changes the overall statistics? That cannot be true since it would allow signaling.
2. In the delayed choice version, the measurement results are already determined. Nothing about the statistics can change.
1. No it never allows signaling. There is a random element introduced, and you need to know all the results from locations A, B *and* C to decode anything. Not much in the way of FTL possibilities there.2. That's completely wrong, and you (@akvadrako) are not addressing my example. If the "measurement results are already determined" (your words), then dropping a single criteria for indistinguishability (Alt-BSM scenario) will detect all 245 entangled A/B events (found in the actual experiment, CHSH/S=2.42) plus X additional that won't be entangled (S<=2, presumably S=0). QM actually predicts there will be the same 245 but they will not be entangled (S<=2) in the distinguishable case.Nullstein said:3. The issue is very simple and @vanhees71 is completely right that entanglement swapping is perfectly consistent with locality.
...
4. (One misconception of @DrChinese is to confuse the full ensemble ##\rho_{ABCD,\text{after}}## with the subensemble ##\frac{P_i\rho_{ABCD,\text{before}}P_i}{\mathrm{Tr}(P_i\rho_{ABCD,\text{before}}P_i)}#
5. I just wanted to demonstrate that the full ensemble contains 4 entangled subensembles even if no measurement is performed at BC. @DrChinese and @PeterDonis denied this earlier.
Yes.akvadrako said:Are you saying it changes the overall statistics?
No, it doesn't, because you need to have all the data in order to do the statistics that show the entanglement, and you don't have that until all of the measurement events are in your past light cone. There's no way to signal FTL. This is a feature of any set of measurements on entangled (or possibly entangled) particles.akvadrako said:That cannot be true since it would allow signaling.
It's simple:vanhees71 said:Can you provide the corresponding calculation that the statistics of measurements on the photons 1 and 4 change for the full enemble only by measuring photons 2 and 3? I don't see, how this can be.
Partially tracing the overall state of all four photons, yes. But this overall state is different if you don't do the BSM at all (which is the state you are evaluating here), vs. if you do the BSM but don't look at its result (because you now have a mixture of the two possible results of the BSM).vanhees71 said:The state of photons 1 and 4 is given by partially tracing the state over photons 2 and 3
If you mean by "do the BSM" to include also the projection to the corresponding subensemble, we agree. If you do the measurement without selecting the subensemble, the full ensemble is still the same. That's why you get entangled 1&4-pairs only for a part of the prepared four-photon states in the entanglement-swapping protocol.PeterDonis said:Partially tracing the overall state of all four photons, yes. But this overall state is different if you don't do the BSM at all (which is the state you are evaluating here), vs. if you do the BSM but don't look at its result (because you now have a mixture of the two possible results of the BSM).
Your basis for the latter statement appears to be that there are four entangled subensembles, one for each of the four Bell states, and the correlations between them cancel out if all four are combined. But in the experiment as described in the paper, there is only one Bell state of photons 1 and 4 that is produced by the BSM (on the runs where the BSM gives an "event ready" signal). See p. 3 of the paper referenced in the OP, the second paragraph in the right column.vanhees71 said:If you do the measurement without selecting the subensemble, the full ensemble is still the same.
There is no "prepared four-photon state". There are 2 biphotons, and like any 2 independently prepared quantum objects, their overall state is a Product state.vanhees71 said:If you mean by "do the BSM" to include also the projection to the corresponding subensemble, we agree. If you do the measurement without selecting the subensemble, the full ensemble is still the same. That's why you get entangled 1&4-pairs only for a part of the prepared four-photon states in the entanglement-swapping protocol.
In an effort to dig further into this (since the discussion in the paper referenced in the OP is very sketchy), I have looked up two further references, from those given in the paper.PeterDonis said:in the experiment as described in the paper, there is only one Bell state of photons 1 and 4 that is produced by the BSM (on the runs where the BSM gives an "event ready" signal). See p. 3 of the paper referenced in the OP, the second paragraph in the right column.
In the paper referenced in the OP, it is not made very clear what happens on those runs of the experiment where "the observation of one early and one late photon in different output ports" does not occur. In the two further references I gave in post #62, and in other entangement swapping experiments where two pairs of photons are used instead of two photon-electron pairs, such as this one, it seems clear that on runs where the BSM at C (or its equivalent) does not produce a photon in different output ports, this could be due to either of two things: (1) the photons didn't arrive at all within the required time window, and the BSM did nothing; or (2) the photons were projected into one of the other three possible Bell states (one of the "triplet" states as opposed to the "singlet" state), which would mean that the particles at A and B would also be projected into some other entangled state. In other words, on some fraction of runs where no "event ready" signal was observed, there would still be entanglement swapping--just entanglement swapping that the experimenters chose not to try to detect.DrChinese said:"The two photons are then sent to location C, where they are overlapped on a beam-splitter and subsequently detected. If the photons are indistinguishable in all degrees of freedom, the observation of one early and one late photon in different output ports projects the spins at A and B into the maximally entangled state |ψ −| ..."
By overall statistics I meant of the full 1&4 ensemble. The thing one can do is use the results of the BSM operation on 2&3 to select a sub-ensemble of 1&4, then perform a Bell test on that sub-ensemble and see that it violates the Bell inequalities, indicating that sub-ensemble was entangled. Without selecting that sub-ensemble, no statistical changes can be detected due to the operation on 2&3.PeterDonis said:No, it doesn't, because you need to have all the data in order to do the statistics that show the entanglement, and you don't have that until all of the measurement events are in your past light cone. There's no way to signal FTL. This is a feature of any set of measurements on entangled (or possibly entangled) particles.
Yes, you need the results of C to select a sub-ensemble of AB to see any new statistics.DrChinese said:1. No it never allows signaling. There is a random element introduced, and you need to know all the results from locations A, B *and* C to decode anything. Not much in the way of FTL possibilities there.
2. That's completely wrong, and you (@akvadrako) are not addressing my example. If the "measurement results are already determined" (your words), then dropping a single criteria for indistinguishability (Alt-BSM scenario) will detect all 245 entangled A/B events (found in the actual experiment, CHSH/S=2.42) plus X additional that won't be entangled (S<=2, presumably S=0). QM actually predicts there will be the same 245 but they will not be entangled (S<=2) in the distinguishable case.
Your view is practically ignoring everything Bell has taught us anyway. It's a Bell test! The results cannot be predetermined unless there are FTL influences!! Remember the part about ruling out local realism?
If you mean, not do the 2&3 operation at all, no, this is not correct.akvadrako said:there exist sub-ensembles of 1&4 which violates Bell inequalities even if you throw away 2&3.
Please give a reference to an actual experiment that does this.akvadrako said:You can see this by just doing the Bell test on 1&4 and using the results to select the sub-ensemble.
akvadrako said:1. By overall statistics I meant of the full 1&4 ensemble.2. The thing one can do is use the results of the BSM operation on 2&3 to select a sub-ensemble of 1&4, then perform a Bell test on that sub-ensemble and see that it violates the Bell inequalities, indicating that sub-ensemble was entangled. Without selecting that sub-ensemble, no statistical changes can be detected due to the operation on 2&3.
1. Just so you know: In the Hensen et al swapping experiment, there were 19,762,613 pairs in the full 1 & 4 dataset (labeled as A/B pairs in that paper). Only 245 qualified for the swap. So that's the kind of ratio we are looking at, there are only a few successes compared to the total number of attempts.akvadrako said:3. But there exist sub-ensembles of 1&4 which violates Bell inequalities even if you throw away 2&3. You can see this by just doing the Bell test on 1&4 and using the results to select the sub-ensemble.
4. This is always possible and can even be done to select super-quantum correlations, though it can't be used to create usable entanglement.
5. So how do you know that your operation on 2&3 is not just doing selection? That is strongly suggested in the post-selection version where the measurements on 1&4 have already been done.
PeterDonis said:If you mean, not do the 2&3 operation at all, no, this is not correct.Please give a reference to an actual experiment that does this.
On its face, it seems obviously false. After the initial preparation in the experiment, without any operation done on 2&3 afterwards, 1&4 are not entangled. That means the results of measurements done on them under those conditions will show no correlations and will not violate the Bell inequalities. No amount of jiggering with subensembles can change that, because there are no subensembles. There is nothing that picks out any subset of the runs, because nothing is done to any of the particles other than the initial preparation and the 1&4 measurement.
The way you phrase it, it is not true. The statistics of 1&4 does not change because the density matrix does not change. This is exactly the same as in the usuall Alice and Bob scenario. The measurements of A do not change the statistics of B.PeterDonis said:Doing the 2&3 measurement changes the correlations between 1&4; you now have subensembles, picked out by the measurement results at 2&3, and you can do statistics on the subensembles to show that, at least, the one corresponding to the "event ready" result at 2&3 violates the Bell inequalities. But this change cannot be detected until you know the measurement results from 2&3 so you can pick out the subensembles. That is why no FTL signaling is possible. But "no FTL signaling" is not the same as "no change in the statistics of the 1&4 measurement results". The latter is what you are claiming, and it is wrong.
This is an interpretation dependent statement. Just as in the usual Bell case whether one measurment cast the other subsystem into a certain state depends on the interpretation you choose.DrChinese said:2. That's true, except it's more than just selecting. The selection casts the associated 1/4 pairs into an entangled state.
PeterDonis said:Please give a reference to an actual experiment that does this.
On its face, it seems obviously false. After the initial preparation in the experiment, without any operation done on 2&3 afterwards, 1&4 are not entangled. That means the results of measurements done on them under those conditions will show no correlations and will not violate the Bell inequalities. No amount of jiggering with subensembles can change that, because there are no subensembles. There is nothing that picks out any subset of the runs, because nothing is done to any of the particles other than the initial preparation and the 1&4 measurement.
DrChinese said:And in fact there are literally no subsets of that same full dataset that would show any Bell inequality is violated unless you hand select the dataset to have that attribute. I could demonstrate entanglement of random pairs of cars in London using that technique.
4. I am scared to ask but... what do "super-quantum correlations" have to do with this discussion? I am not sure they even exist.
Here is a paper that refutes @DrChinese claims https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-021-00511-3#Sec21PeterDonis said:The way to investigate this question is for you to read the literature and see if you can find papers supporting what you say. If you can, by all means post references to them here. Writing your own personal code is not doing that; as I have said, it is personal theory and is off limits here.
Now we are back at this fruitless discussion about what "non-locality" means. As we realized some time ago, it's not a uniquely defined term. In the HEP community we call our relativistic QFTs "local", including that all interactions are "local". This is implemented as a clearly defined mathematical property of the field operators that represent local observables, i.e., the microcausality condition, and this condition excludes faster-than-light causal influences, i.e., in this sense standard relativistic local QFT has no "spooky actions at a distance". In this sense of the term entanglement doesn't describe any non-local interactions but just correlations between far-distant parts of quantum systems prepared in the corresponding entangled states. It's rather what Einstein called "inseparability" than "non-locality".PeterDonis said:What you personally would call it is immaterial. In the QM literature, the "nonlocal" effects which some have called "spooky action at a distance" and which others have called "acausal" (not just @DrChinese, the term appears in multiple papers in the literature, some of which have been referenced in other threads--for example see some of the posts by @RUTA), are the basis for the violation of the Bell inequalities by QM.
Remember that PF does not allow discussion of personal theories. Your claims about your code amount to a personal theory. That means they are off limits for discussion here. Do not post further about them or you will receive a warning.
That's not a valid way of selecting a subensemble. It would be like me claiming I had a biased coin by flipping it a thousand times and then selecting the "subensemble" of all the flips that came up heads.martinbn said:you can simply do the measurments on 1&4 and based on the outcomes select a subset with desired corelations.
Yes, vague ordinary language isn't really suitable here. The density matrix of 1 alone or of 4 alone does not change if the 2&3 BSM is done, but the correlations between 1 and 4 do change--there are subensembles selected by the 2&3 BSM results that violate the Bell inequalities, that aren't there if the 2&3 BSM is not done. Both of those things could be referred to by the word "statistics", so it's good to be clear about exactly what doesn't change and what does.martinbn said:The statistics of 1&4 does not change because the density matrix does not change.
No, it isn't. Mathematically, if you want to correctly predict the correlations between 1&4, you have to use the appropriate state based on the result of the 2&3 measurement. That's true no matter what interpretation you adopt.martinbn said:This is an interpretation dependent statement.
That's the wrong definition. See the first part of my post #73.akvadrako said:My definition of sub-ensemble is just a subset of a full ensemble,
This paper does not mean what you think it means. It is making the same error that I described in the first part of post #73.akvadrako said:it's also spelled out clearly in this paper, which I brought up last time this was discussed:
Bell Inequality Violation and Relativity of Pre- and Postselection
This makes no sense. You can't pick out "the same results" in two physically different experiments.akvadrako said:The BSM operation might even select the same sub-ensemble that was selected by just looking at the results.
This isn't a refutation of anything. It's a proposed claim about a new "loophole" in such experiments. Such claims are ubiquitous in the literature, but they always boil down to one thing: claiming that if an experiment is done that closes the claimed loophole, the predictions of quantum mechanics will be violated. In other words, such claims are made by people who don't want to accept that the QM predictions are correct.kurt101 said:Here is a paper that refutes @DrChinese claims https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-021-00511-3#Sec21
From the Conclusions section in this paper:
"Under conventional assumptions—i.e., excluding retrocausality
"Nonlocality" is just a word. The people who use that word in ways you don't like make it perfectly clear what it refers to in the actual math. If you prefer to call that thing in the math "inseparability", that's fine as far as it goes, but unless and until you have convinced everyone else in the QM community that uses the word "nonlocality" for that thing, to use the word "inseparabilty" instead, it's pointless to complain about it.vanhees71 said:Now we are back at this fruitless discussion about what "non-locality" means.
LOL. They start by assuming that which they seek to prove. You can't exclude retrocausality by assumption because that is part of the question they seek to answer. One of the authors, Huw Price, has been arguing against retrocausality for over 25 years. Now please keep in mind that I am agnostic on the issue of retrocausality itself. All I assert is that quantum nonlocality violates strict Einsteinian locality, by creating a context that spans spacetime. I think a better term than "retrocausal" is "acausal". (They sometimes use the word "noncausal".)kurt101 said:Here is a paper that refutes @DrChinese claims https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-021-00511-3#Sec21
From the Conclusions section in this paper:
"Under conventional assumptions—i.e., excluding retrocausality—the sensitivity of such experiments to this Collider Loophole depends on the temporal relation between the entanglement-swapping measurement C and the measurements A and B. CL a threat if the C is in the future of A and B, but not if it is in the past."