Interpreting photon correlations from independent sources

[DrChinese]

@DrChinese As the holidays are now over for me I will have to reduce my posting frequency but over the next couple days I will read your post and formulate a reply. I suspect this statement by Ma will be relevant but I will know for sure in my response.

No problem on timing, take all the time you need

But please don’t over focus on the Ma quote. Don’t forget that the Megadish paper demonstrates the same results. But it’s mechanism for stopping a swap is such that the issues you have been raising are not a factor.

 

[DrChinese]

I ask to understand better, if "swap yes" or "swap no" affects the results, doesn't that mean that the swap is also a form of measurement that breaks the entanglement between (1&4)?

The swap doesn’t break the entanglement, it creates the entanglement between 1 & 4. The swamp breaks the entanglement between 1 & 2 though (and between 3 & 4)

 

[javisot20]

The swamp breaks the entanglement between 1 & 2 though (and between 3 & 4)

It breaks them to entangled 1&4 and 2&3 (not mutually), right?

 

[gentzen]

All: I think this deep dive into the statistics missed numerous important points ...

4). These are mutually unbiased bases, and any correlation would violate the Uncertainty principle. Because there is no such correlation, it is impossible to select* any subset of entangled 1 & 2 pairs and 3 & 4 pairs that would produce correlation between 1 & 4 - unless you select on the SAME basis.

*And of course I mean by some specific criteria, and not by hand. But I really didn't need to say this, did I?

I a post started with "All:"? Of course you need to say this! I would even go further: since the meaning of "by hand" is not obvious, you should specify a spacetime point (relative to each individual run) where the selection of the subsets is possible if a swap was performed, but impossible if not.
Alternatively, you could specify explicitly which information is allowed to be used for the selection of the subsets.

 

[DrChinese]

I a post started with "All:"? Of course you need to say this! I would even go further: since the meaning of "by hand" is not obvious, you should specify a spacetime point (relative to each individual run) where the selection of the subsets is possible if a swap was performed, but impossible if not.
Alternatively, you could specify explicitly which information is allowed to be used for the selection of the subsets.

What I am saying is simple: there is no such criteria. Suppose you execute/record a 4 hour run of 4 fold coincidences without executing a swap and look for a pattern in the data that indicates correlations. You won’t find one. It’s canonically impossible.

Do the same with physical overlap of the 2 & 3 photons, and voila: a pattern jumps out that did not appear previously. This is predicted by QM.

If there was correlation hidden in the data: why is it predicted not to exist when there is no swap? And why does it appear as predicted when there is a swap?

“Something” changed! How is this not obvious? We already agreed that to see the pattern when there is a swap, look for the HH/VV signatures. So if the swap does not change anything, where does this “impossible” pattern come from?

 

[DrChinese]

It breaks them to entangled 1&4 and 2&3 (not mutually), right?

Yes, the new pairs are in the same Bell state but there is no other relationship remaining.

 

[gentzen]

What I am saying is simple: there is no such criteria. Suppose you execute/record a 4 hour run of 4 fold coincidences without executing a swap and look for a pattern in the data that indicates correlations. You won’t find one. It’s canonically impossible.

It is only impossible from your point of view, because you interpret "by hand" in a specific way. But this is a losing battle for anyone trying to argue against you. Whichever counterexample to your claim they would present, you would just say that it doesn't count.

I am sorry, but I will not play this game with you. Feel free to give whoever tries to play this game with you his medicine:

And for the Nth time: Where is the slightest theoretical support for what you assert in opposition to peer reviewed published papers by top researchers?

I don't care who is right or wrong here. But I am out. I have said my thing now, will unwatch this thread, and ignore any reactions in this thread.

 

[DrChinese]

1. It is only impossible from your point of view, because you interpret "by hand" in a specific way.

I am sorry, but I will not play this game with you.

2. I don't care who is right or wrong here. But I am out. I have said my thing now, will unwatch this thread, and ignore any reactions in this thread.

1. I’m only asking for someone - who thinks there are correlations hidden in data when there are no swaps - to present ANY hidden pattern. Easy to make such claim, but again this is canonically impossible per QM.

And I'm not sure how "by hand" can be interpreted other than one way.


2. As always, you are the best judge of how to allocate your time.