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
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
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...

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
3K
Back
Top