Mordred

Ok I actually like the approach you have above. You have raised a very poorly understood aspect with several experiments. Including Bells. There is a key term you mentioned above that is vital to understand first. Correlation function. You may or may not recognize this term from statistic textbooks. However it is a function that tests if two datasets, graphs, charts etc will follow the same trends. (are you willing to discuss this first, then examine what this means with regards to Locality/non locality) ? I will be honest here as I believe this is extremely important to address first in order to properly address the non locality. ( ie with entangled particle pairs)

The reason for superposition is to make predictions of all Possible outcomes. It is what makes the model Robust. It is simply a mathematical (Statistical technique) which I was very clear in stating. That statistical method is also REQUIRED because of the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle itself. You cannot with absolute certainty know the position and momentum of a particle. Hence using statistics. (Which I did state before in your other locked thread) Even under Bohmian this is true as the equations included this statistical nature.

Yeesh didn't I explain how De-Broglie is involved in that quote ? It is literally involved to understand that passage. Man oh man Do you not understand the term Superposition? Once you determine a state there is no longer a superposition state. It is a determined state. Is that plain enough?

I'm trying to help you understand why superposition itself is involved. Hence needing to be clear about wave particle duality. The two are related. Doesn't the term interference not suggest wavefunction collapse to you? Or doesn't the difference between a probability wavefunction and a measured wavefunction not suggest two different wavefunction? Because quite frankly it is that simple to the distinction between "which path information" the information of the wavefunction given the "Specific type of wavefunction. In simplist possible descriptive. A determined wave function as opposed to a probablist wavefunction. Simple When you measure particles you measure interference patterns. Am I going too fast for you?

"the implication of single photon interference is that as experimenters we can only think of photons as particles when they arrive at specific points of interaction. As long as no measurement has been performed, light behaves as a wave, even at single photon intensity levels. In the Mach-Zehnder interferometer experiment, this fact can also be clearly observed" Once you identify the "Which path" you collapse the probability wavefunction. You have located the pointlike "De-Broglie" wavefunction from the Superposition wavefunction. Two distinctive waveforms. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave Here is a couple of key passages from that link. "This was a pivotal result in the development of quantum mechanics. Just as the photoelectric effect demonstrated the particle nature of light, the Davisson–Germer experiment showed the wave-nature of matter, and completed the theory of wave–particle duality. For physicists this idea was important because it meant that not only could any particle exhibit wave characteristics, but that one could use wave equations to describe phenomena in matter if one used the de Broglie wavelength" Further down on the same link it shows that even atoms involve the De-Broglie waveforms.

We have been trying all along using the simplist possible references we could find. Hence the student lectures. Which you continously demonstrated not understanding. Roflmao you really don't want to see the Beam splitter Unitary matrix for a lossless 50-50 beam splitter for transmition and reflective waves. None of these links particularly include this detail. You must understand wave-particle duality itself to do so. Which is precisely what this experiment and the links in this thread is telling you. In some regards Young's two slit may be a better stepping stone. You asked at one time how a particle can simultaneously go through two slits, well obviously a "bullet particle" cannot. A waveform however can easily do so. Wave particle duality specifically states " A particle will exhibit " wave-like and "point-like" characteristics. This is different than stating "particle and wave:" It may seem the same but under examination it isn't. The pointlike is defined by a wavefunction. (De-Broglie) hence the importance of constructive and destructive interference with regards to the 2 slit. Superposition itself is a probablistic (Stochastic) treatment. However with waveforms and such fundamentals such as harmonics this treatment only makes sense when dealing with waveforms. That is what these articles are trying to tell you. Here is a quote directly from your link.

Great so you agree then start showing the math involved for these experiments and not misinterpretated quotes and pictures. If you like some some help I will post a classical methodology to describe monochromatic light. Lets start there before we apply Snells law of refraction to the beam splitter.

No it isn't simplistic. It involves developing predictive models of measurable effects. Nothing simplistic about it. Science is pointless without being able to make predictive models. Maybe you should stick to metaphysics and not physics

So why have you refu Statements like this, and your refusal to even understand the math involved in previous threads. Nor accepting of any papers and references of any theory that disagrees with you. Both here and in your previously locked threads. What I call the finger in the ears approach. A good physicists studies All bodies of evidence under all math treatments before drawing conclusions.

No according to the forum rules if your interpretation is unorthodox it is your responsibility to prove it in a rigorous and testable manner. Which if you read those rules will most likely include the mathematics you don't believe in. See the pinned threads in this forum. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

So do I because I see absolutely no evidence here. Especially when you didn't even comprehend the high school lesson plan in the other thread. Nor recognize that the links in this thread are part of student lectures.

Really then explain why no one else disagrees with us and everyone is trying to get you to comrehend what your reading? All three links are the same lab experiment.

Yes now you prove that with this experiment. I have stuck to this experiment itself and not once mentioned Bells. That is your lack of reading comprehension once again.

Denial isn't a defense you utterly refuse any actual physics that isn't a defense of a physics argument. Would you like the formula for monochromatic light and how a beam splitter works under the math? We have tried every other technique to show your errors. I have not mentioned Bells experiment in this thread. Not once.

No I'm done wasting my time with your finger in ear attitude. I have better things to do. Chances are this thread will end up getting locked as well

And your not wasting ours. What was the Bold part in your OP. Shall I quote it for you? Well ? there is an example in all three papers showing otherwise.

Umm its not changing the topic, all three articles are literally the same lab assignment done through three different education institutions. They are precisely the same lab assignments. Please clarify why you see a difference in the two interpretations between Scariana and page 21. Is it that you don't know the Superposition of momochromatic light with regards to the seperation via the beam splitter?

I Don't know maybe some images will help supplement that article involving the identical setup. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www2.optics.rochester.edu/workgroups/lukishova/QuantumOpticsLab/2012/OPT_101/Quantum%20A%20Lab%20Presentation%202012-1.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiS7Latv43YAhUQymMKHd5HBVcQFgglMAI&usg=AOvVaw0dUVAG7xt09bxQFIPtopFN The explanation and subsequent questionare for the lab report including the "Which path" https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www2.optics.rochester.edu/workgroups/lukishova/QuantumOpticsLab/homepage/lab_2_manual_oct_08.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjg8Yb4xI3YAhUHHGMKHfaeBWoQFggmMAA&usg=AOvVaw2ZLwtQ2oVoEevoTOyues5P Hopefully this helps fill in some of the blanks from the reference you are having problems understanding.

It will have to be after work, unless someone else has time before then. However the clue is "What happens when you polarize light"

That article is very easy to understand. I'm positive Swansont has read it. So have I and we both agree your interpretation is wrong. In one case there is no "self interference" in the other case there is. Try to read the book and identify which case is which. The book is very clear on this.

He is explaining the correct meaning of those drawings. Which he is forced by you to repeat, by your not continuing to listen.

I certainly hope so. Have you never even looked at how Snells laws of refraction applies to the beam seperator of the interferometers you posted above? It is precisely the same thing if you take your fingers out of your ears.

That ranks right up there with one of the dumbest statements I have ever heard on any forum I've ever come across. Sorry but it is precisely the same thing. By the literal definition of the term superppsition.

Yeah long day at work lmao 14 hour work day. Anyways consider the following on refractive index which is involved. What happens when you pass light through a prism. Is this not an example of seperation of different wavelength frequencies of light? I'm still curious why you find Superposition problematic? In the Mach Zeeman device the beam splitters? Or even rainbows in nature splits light into its constituent frequencies. So I have a hard time understanding why you feel Superposition doesn't exist. We use this principle in thousands of everyday applications. Including electronic signals hence bandpass filters to remove unwanted frequencies in superposition of the desired frequency.

Edit forget the gates the drawings are mirrors so I retract my last. Misread the drawings lol