eom

She supports the wave function that's transferring money to those who already have it.

It looks like the universe is conspiring to keep us from using entanglement to transmit information, although I, perhaps foolishly, hope to find a way around it.

The greatest scientific discoveries have always been made by solitary people thinking deeply about something for a long time and having a startling, profound insight: Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Bohr, deBroglie, Heisenberg, Dirac....

I'm just some dude with a BBO, a couple of detectors, and a certain level of insanity.

Mad props for that!

What's the major malfunction? As an engineering type it seem like it should work provided the entanglement isn't, for lack of a better term, consumed.

That should create an interference pattern. If, however, the other stream with the entangled pairs is measured in such a way as to "preserve the momentum information," it's akin to observing which slit the initial photons went through and destroys the interference. Birgit Dopfer did this in 1998.

A wrinkle in the experiment is that she useda coincidence detector (basically an AND gate) to filter out all the non-entangled photons. A guy, Dr. John Cramer, was working on developing a system that didn't need that coincidence detector, and what he found was that there is a kind of anti-signal which fills in the spaces in between the interference fringes and masks out the signal. I'm quite confused by this: how does it exactly mask it out, and if the coincidence detector filters the anti-signal out, how is it that the anti-signal responds to the measurement on the other stream? My conclusion was that I just had to build the damn thing and find out.

It seems to me like there should be some way around this problem, and I wonder whether there's some sort of pattern between entangled photons vs. non-entangled, anti-signal photons. Maybe there's a timing relationship? It seems highly likely that Cramer explored this fully, but I just can't let it go. Maybe it would be possible to train a neural network to detect some sort of difference that us humans don't otherwise see.

Yet, the appearance of a particle stream under observation is uncanny.

Props for following the principle postulation posted.

appreciates this reference, along with a few of us science nerds on DU.

Maybe it was just me.






http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251657234#post96

^repost^

Star Member arcane1 (33,667 posts)

Response to Kokonoe (Reply #93)Thu Oct 8, 2015, 05:35 PM

96. Schrodinger's Candidate?




http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251657234#post152

^repost^

Motown_Johnny (18,825 posts)

Response to arcane1 (Reply #96)Thu Oct 8, 2015, 09:20 PM

152. Heisenberg's maybe.

No thing (that Hillary has stated) has a definite position, a definite trajectory, or a definite momentum.

Why is this ballot box full of cat hair?

spooky actions at a distance