Paulsrocket Posted January 13 Author Share Posted January 13 1 hour ago, swansont said: You’d probably send the light through an optical fiber, which can be coiled up, and the measurement takes much less than a second. Because you entangled the photons. As you’ve been told, if it’s just a random photon there’s no way to tell if it’s entangled Again, as you’ve been told, you need multiple photons to do this. You really need to read the replies in the thread. How are photons selected for entanglement, and how are they differentiated for measuring from surrounding photons? What was the thickness of the polarizer that you used? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 Just now, Paulsrocket said: How are photons selected for entanglement We usually go with the light ones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulsrocket Posted January 13 Author Share Posted January 13 1 minute ago, iNow said: We usually go with the light ones I suppose that I would do that as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Hanke Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 12 hours ago, Paulsrocket said: THE END OF SPACETIME. Be sure to let him know what you disagree with It seems to be you who’s disagreeing with standard textbook stuff, such as spin, not me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joigus Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 15 hours ago, swansont said: to add to this: measuring one photon doesn’t even tell you it’s entangled 15 hours ago, swansont said: It could possibly rule out entanglement, since the correlation could come out wrong. But that’s it Absolutely agree with the first point. About the second point, I was thinking... How can you tell it's not noise? But then, if it's environmental noise that made them correlate the wrong way, there you go. They're definitely not entangled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 9 hours ago, Paulsrocket said: How are photons selected for entanglement, and how are they differentiated for measuring from surrounding photons? Depends on the experiment, but you know where the photons are coming from and the wavelengths, so it’s not difficult to do. 9 hours ago, Paulsrocket said: What was the thickness of the polarizer that you used? It’s a cube, 1/2” or 1” on a side. 1 hour ago, joigus said: About the second point, I was thinking... How can you tell it's not noise? But then, if it's environmental noise that made them correlate the wrong way, there you go. They're definitely not entangled. Exactly. And that’s why you need statistics of several photons, as you pointed out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulsrocket Posted January 13 Author Share Posted January 13 4 hours ago, swansont said: Depends on the experiment, but you know where the photons are coming from and the wavelengths, so it’s not difficult to do. It’s a cube, 1/2” or 1” on a side. Exactly. And that’s why you need statistics of several photons, as you pointed out. Which still leaves the question as to how a photon that is only in the 3mm space of a polarizer for 0.000000000010007 of a second can be detected and have its spin measured in the time allotted. This would require a detector and measurement unit that works at light speed or better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 9 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: Which still leaves the question as to how a photon that is only in the 3mm space of a polarizer for 0.000000000010007 of a second can be detected and have its spin measured in the time allotted. This would require a detector and measurement unit that works at light speed or better. Or perhaps you just don’t know how any of this works. It doesn’t fit with your mental model of what’s going on, but it’s your model that’s wrong, not the experiment. (iow this is argument from incredulity, which is a fallacy; things aren’t wrong simply because you don’t undertand) The light passes through the cube. Straight through for one polarization, at 90 degrees for the other. Which path it takes tells you the polarization. All you have to do is put a photodetector at each path to tell you where the photon went. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulsrocket Posted January 13 Author Share Posted January 13 18 minutes ago, swansont said: Or perhaps you just don’t know how any of this works. It doesn’t fit with your mental model of what’s going on, but it’s your model that’s wrong, not the experiment. (iow this is argument from incredulity, which is a fallacy; things aren’t wrong simply because you don’t undertand) The light passes through the cube. Straight through for one polarization, at 90 degrees for the other. Which path it takes tells you the polarization. All you have to do is put a photodetector at each path to tell you where the photon went. Except that a single photon is not visible and you have no idea which one is the entangled one in the bunch so your odds would never be more than 50/50 which means that knowing is impossible. -4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bufofrog Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 13 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: Except that a single photon is not visible and you have no idea which one is the entangled one in the bunch so your odds would never be more than 50/50 which means that knowing is impossible. That and other comments simply sounds like anti-science trolling. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 32 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: Except that a single photon is not visible and you have no idea which one is the entangled one in the bunch so your odds would never be more than 50/50 which means that knowing is impossible. Again, your idea of what’s going on isn’t how the experiment is run. It’s done under controlled conditions so there’s virtually no other candidate photons, and you do coincidence measurement to screen out extraneous signals. If you do e.g. spontaneous parametric down-conversion, the entangled pairs are emitted in a particular direction. The bottom line is the folks doing these experiments understand what’s going on, as opposed to some hecklers in the peanut gallery. Declaring that “this can’t work” and the insinuation that you know more than the scientist who have performed the experiments isn’t a good look in light of the fact that this does work. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulsrocket Posted January 13 Author Share Posted January 13 (edited) 23 minutes ago, swansont said: Again, your idea of what’s going on isn’t how the experiment is run. It’s done under controlled conditions so there’s virtually no other candidate photons, and you do coincidence measurement to screen out extraneous signals. If you do e.g. spontaneous parametric down-conversion, the entangled pairs are emitted in a particular direction. The bottom line is the folks doing these experiments understand what’s going on, as opposed to some hecklers in the peanut gallery. Declaring that “this can’t work” and the insinuation that you know more than the scientist who have performed the experiments isn’t a good look in light of the fact that this does work. What is the process of separating 1 photon moving at light speed from the trillions around it? Edited January 13 by Paulsrocket Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 4 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: What is the process of separating 1 photon moving at light speed from the trillions around it? What is a person who doesn’t know that answer doing challenging every correction from people who quite clearly know better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulsrocket Posted January 13 Author Share Posted January 13 51 minutes ago, Bufofrog said: That and other comments simply sounds like anti-science trolling. What you just said is that I am a troll because you do not know the answer. You are correct that I question things, as did Galileo who was jailed for not agreeing with the establishment. Has anything changed? 1 minute ago, iNow said: What is a person who doesn’t know that answer doing challenging every correction from people who quite clearly know better? Asking for the answer to the question. What is the process of separating 1 photon moving at light speed from the trillions around it? Is this a crime? -5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bufofrog Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: What you just said is that I am a troll because you do not know the answer. No it's your bad faith arguing that leads me to that conclusion. 6 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: You are correct that I question things, as did Galileo who was jailed for not agreeing with the establishment. Has anything changed? Is that what you think is going on here, your genius is not being recognized? Edited January 13 by Bufofrog 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulsrocket Posted January 13 Author Share Posted January 13 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Bufofrog said: No it's your bad faith arguing that leads me to that conclusion. Is that what you think is going on here, your genius is not being recognized? I have made no argument; I have posed questions. No I am not a genius, but I did make some favorable investments that allowed for an early retirement, and my son is a software engineer with a top secret clearance working for Lockheed Martin. Edited January 13 by Paulsrocket Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 51 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: my son is a software engineer with a top secret clearance working for Lockheed Martin. People who share things like this are probably lying, and when they’re not they’re clearly: 51 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: not a genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulsrocket Posted January 13 Author Share Posted January 13 10 minutes ago, iNow said: People who share things like this are probably lying, and when they’re not they’re clearly: Before working as a software engineer at Lockheed Martin my son was a radio operator on a nuclear sub, whose job was to decrypt messages meaning that he would know what the ship's new orders were before the ship's captain. Now he is doing something with the Aegis combat radar program. I could tell you more but, well you know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 1 hour ago, Paulsrocket said: What you just said is that I am a troll because you do not know the answer. You are correct that I question things, as did Galileo who was jailed for not agreeing with the establishment. Has anything changed? Asking for the answer to the question. What is the process of separating 1 photon moving at light speed from the trillions around it? Is this a crime? BINGO! The Galileo Gambit! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulsrocket Posted January 13 Author Share Posted January 13 19 minutes ago, exchemist said: BINGO! The Galileo Gambit! Is that your final answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 2 hours ago, Paulsrocket said: What is the process of separating 1 photon moving at light speed from the trillions around it? Why do you need to separate the photon? How does this relate to the scenario under discussion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulsrocket Posted January 13 Author Share Posted January 13 (edited) 3 hours ago, swansont said: Again, your idea of what’s going on isn’t how the experiment is run. It’s done under controlled conditions so there’s virtually no other candidate photons, and you do coincidence measurement to screen out extraneous signals. If you do e.g. spontaneous parametric down-conversion, the entangled pairs are emitted in a particular direction. The bottom line is the folks doing these experiments understand what’s going on, as opposed to some hecklers in the peanut gallery. Declaring that “this can’t work” and the insinuation that you know more than the scientist who have performed the experiments isn’t a good look in light of the fact that this does work. I do not need to separate a photon, you need to explain how you separated a photon or eliminated trillions of non-candidate photons. I responded to this post to remind you of what you said, and seriously the answer is important to me in my search for the right stock in 2024. Edited January 13 by Paulsrocket Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 1 hour ago, Paulsrocket said: Before working as a software engineer at Lockheed Martin my son was a radio operator on a nuclear sub, I used to teach the folks running the reactor. 1 hour ago, Paulsrocket said: whose job was to decrypt messages meaning that he would know what the ship's new orders were before the ship's captain. Now he is doing something with the Aegis combat radar program. I could tell you more but, well you know If you actually knew more your son would be in violation of national security laws for having divulged classified material to you, and he’d lose his clearance, and probably his job and pension. 1 minute ago, Paulsrocket said: I do not need to separate a photon, you need to explain how you separated a photon or eliminated trillions of non-candidate photons You don’t need to separate them; most are irrelevant. They would be thermal photons that don’t trigger the photodetectors. If these are near-visible or visible wavelength photons being entangled and you’re worried about contamination, there are wavelength filters and also the very technologically sophisticated step of turning the room lights off during the experiment. There’s also the coincidence measurement I mentioned, which is a filter in the time domain. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulsrocket Posted January 13 Author Share Posted January 13 (edited) 18 minutes ago, swansont said: I used to teach the folks running the reactor. If you actually knew more your son would be in violation of national security laws for having divulged classified material to you, and he’d lose his clearance, and probably his job and pension. Nope because everything that i mentioned is on the internet already. https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/aegis-combat-system.html https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2023/artificial-intelligence-and-aegis-the-future-is-here.html Besides Aegis is 50 years old at this point, as those in the know, know. LOL at one point I asked my son about the subs radio buoy and his astonished response was, how do you know about that? They told him that this was top secret and he believed them when I saw this in a movie years ago, even though he does know more. They wanted him to take the reactor ASVAB test, I told him to let some other genius glow in the dark. All he wanted to do was to build computers anyway, something that he clearly inherited from me. Edited January 13 by Paulsrocket Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 It’s like interacting with an addict in withdrawal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts