FrediFizzx wrote:Blah, Blah, Blah! Let's see your freakin' calculation to make the standard QM calculation non-local. Put up or shut up!
This thread is about calculations. Everyone, show your math or just shut the f... up!
.
QM calculations in 3D space are done by Igor Volovich in https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0012010 , https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0012010.pdf . He actually shows that the wave functions will be so spread out that there will be an unavoidable detector-inefficiency, so large that a loophole-free experiment is impossible. I think this needs to be redone with essentially 1D propagation of the wave packages. I would be surprised if no-one has done it before. The guys in quantum optics who do the experiments have surely worked through this, before. I am asking a few. Here’s a first question-answer pair. No calculation yet, Fred, sorry. You should be able to do such a calculation better than me! I’m a statistician, not a physicist.
RDG. Q: I suppose that if two photons leave a source in a Bell state of polarisation, then each of them will have experienced a unitary transformation of state due to time of travel before they reach a detector. The paths are not equally long, either. So when they reach the detectors, the directions in which they should be measured to get a Bell violation need to be discovered anew by some calibration process. Ie you won’t see the negative cosine (or whatever) but a shifted cosine. In good experiments the hard work is keeping the shift constant, as time goes by, and things warm up, vibrate, or whatever.
Expert. A: From what I know the story is correct. There are often several variations, day-night for example, but depending on setup the variation can be fast. One experiment I saw had the optical fibre spun along a powerline that was suspended in air, this is a common setup over long distances. Then there was a 100Hz period too, probably from vibrations induced from the powerline frequency 50 Hz. Stabilization can be hard.