swansont Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 Lazarus: Hidden Variables is part and parcel of the Quantum Entanglement concept. If the experiments are not logically correct nothing is proved about Hidden Variables or anything else. This is the opposite of true. You really need to step back and study up on some basics. QM has no hidden variables. Bell tests are a way that was devised to show this. Swansont: Put another way, if QM is right, the answers depend only on the angle difference. If QM is wrong and some alternative theory is correct, the answers depend on something else (e.g. the actual angles used, and independent of the difference). You do the experiment and find out it relies on the angle difference. What do you conclude about the validity of the two theories? Lazarus: That implies that if the result depends of the polarizer settings and not the angle between them, then QM is wrong. Yes. Swansont: Your whole objection is that they did an experiment and it supported one model and excluded another, and you don't like that it was designed to figure out which one is valid. It's like telling Galileo that dropping two different mass balls off the tower and having them hit at the same time was rigged, because that's exactly what would happen if acceleration was independent of mass. Lazarus: It is ironic that you use Galileo in your defense of CHSH in the “Standard Model” that has been accepted for 50 years as Galileo got in big trouble for challenging the “Standard Model” of the Sun orbiting the earth that had been accepted for 100s of years by most groups in authority. The "standard model" you refer to was not science. Galileo challenged it with evidence. Are you going to present any? Swansont: Idiot's Convention? Either that or a meeting of the Society of Completely Missing the Point. Lazarus: The point that is being missed is the tests start out by assuming that BBO photons are indeterminate and ends by fudging the tests so that 3 of the 4 of them are really the same test. And yet you have been unable to show how the polarization can be determined in the experiment, so I'd say it's a pretty good assumption.
Lazarus Posted February 2, 2017 Author Posted February 2, 2017 Swansont: This is the opposite of true. You really need to step back and study up on some basics. QM has no hidden variables. Bell tests are a way that was devised to show this. Lazarus: Since the test involves Hidden Variables it doesn’t matter that the test is logically flawed. Swansont: Put another way, if QM is right, the answers depend only on the angle difference. If QM is wrong and some alternative theory is correct, the answers depend on something else (e.g. the actual angles used, and independent of the difference). You do the experiment and find out it relies on the angle difference. What do you conclude about the validity of the two theories? Lazarus: You should conclude that the CHSH test is wrong, because it doesn’t use the QM angles. xxxxxxxxxxx Previous Lazarus: That implies that if the result depends of the polarizer settings and not the angle between them, then QM is wrong. xxxxxxxxxx Swansont: Yes. Lazarus: That leaves you with 2 choices: 1. CHSH is correct in using the polarization settings as the Bell Inequality test, which implies QM is wrong. 2. QM is correct in the use of the angle between polarizers so 3 of the 4 tests the same, which implies CHSH is wrong. Swansont: The "standard model" you refer to was not science. Galileo challenged it with evidence. Are you going to present any? And yet you have been unable to show how the polarization can be determined in the experiment, so I'd say it's a pretty good assumption. Lazarus: All of the evidence needed is in the experiment. The evidence is not in question, the logic of the experiment is. As for determining the polarization with the CHSH equipment, that is being done when polarizer A is set to zero degrees. Detector A1 sees vertical photons coming from one BBO and they are counted. Detector A2 sees horizontal protons coming from the other BBO and they are counted.
Lazarus Posted February 5, 2017 Author Posted February 5, 2017 We are down to the nitty gritty. It is time to either answer my 2 questions about the validity of CHSH or concede that the logic of CHSH is seriously flawed so the CHSH experiments are worthless. 1. One BBO cannot produce Quantum Entangled photons. How can 2 BBO’s close together, with time spaced photons, change the photons from known to indeterminate? Here is a clue: They can’t. 2. How can 4 tests, with 3 of them the same test, be correlated with Bell’s Inequality test? The clue is: They can’t.
swansont Posted February 5, 2017 Posted February 5, 2017 We are down to the nitty gritty. It is time to either answer my 2 questions about the validity of CHSH or concede that the logic of CHSH is seriously flawed so the CHSH experiments are worthless. 1. One BBO cannot produce Quantum Entangled photons. How can 2 BBO’s close together, with time spaced photons, change the photons from known to indeterminate? Here is a clue: They can’t. I have asked you a number of times to explain how you measure the time difference. I have waited patiently for you to do so, but you never have. (You have, in your confusion, pointed to the coincidence measurement, which is not at all the same thing). I was waiting so that I could point out something you have obviously missed. Here's a clue: if you read through (and understand) the Geller lab, you will se why the photons are not time separated. we have introduced an overall phase difference between the two out-coming entangled polarization states, which occurs because incident horizontally polarized photons travel a larger distance in the BBO crystals than incident vertically polarized photons do before they are down-converted. To correct for this phase shift (phase angle, phi) , we use a quartz plate that be rotated along the horizontal and vertical axes. Our setup attempts to align the quartz plate such that (phase angle) = 0. So they compensate for the time delay. You can't distinguish between the photons owing to time. 2. How can 4 tests, with 3 of them the same test, be correlated with Bell’s Inequality test? The clue is: They can’t. They are not the same test. The angle correlation is true in QM, but not for hidden variables. You have to test both to see if you can exclude them from being correct. That's the whole point of doing the experiment, which obviously escapes you.
Lazarus Posted February 5, 2017 Author Posted February 5, 2017 Swansont: I have asked you a number of times to explain how you measure the time difference. Lazarus: And I have told you a number of times that the time separation is between pairs of photons which exceeds 25ns. Swansont: They are not the same test. The angle correlation is true in QM, but not for hidden variables. Lazarus: That is strange logic. The angle that affects the results of the physical experiment is different if you are thinking about QM or hidden variables. If the CHSH experiment is invalid, it is invalid no matter how you look at it. There NEVER has been a reasonable answer to the 2 questions. I have been accused of dodging questions but these questions have been dodged may times.
swansont Posted February 5, 2017 Posted February 5, 2017 Swansont: I have asked you a number of times to explain how you measure the time difference. Lazarus: And I have told you a number of times that the time separation is between pairs of photons which exceeds 25ns. How does that tell you which crystal the photons came from?
Lazarus Posted February 5, 2017 Author Posted February 5, 2017 Swansont: How does that tell you which crystal the photons came from? Lazarus: This is from post number 128. "Lazarus: All of the evidence needed is in the experiment. The evidence is not in question, the logic of the experiment is. As for determining the polarization with the CHSH equipment, that is being done when polarizer A is set to zero degrees. Detector A1 sees vertical photons coming from one BBO and they are counted. Detector A2 sees horizontal protons coming from the other BBO and they are counted."
Phi for All Posted February 5, 2017 Posted February 5, 2017 ! Moderator Note Lazarus, it's clear you're making leaps over elements of your idea you can't or won't explain, and ignoring their importance. You're ignoring questions that might help you. You mostly make assertions you don't support, causing them to be challenged. When you do ask questions, you ignore the answers, and later ask the same questions again. You've had a whole lot of posts to speculate, but you aren't really discussing your idea. Science discussion forum. Thread closed. Don't re-open this subject without checking with staff first, and don't check unless you have supportive evidence, and are willing to have a conversation instead of a sermon.
Recommended Posts