Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

Is your argument that if light is involved in any step of the process, then it can't be physics? Do you believe in seeing things with your own eyes or not? Like how do you read forum posts? Seems like 'measuring light' to me.

The only property of light that was used for the experimental data in the measurement is brightness, so let's start there as a building block. Do you believe that light can have different intensities, or do you think it's impossible to know for sure?

I know this is what I get from not lurking this thread harder, but this experiment was actually really awesome so I thought I'd come by and see what was being said.

Furry_sl said:

My argument is that measuring light is measuring light. Your argument was that this experiment wasn't measuring light. Glad to see you're agreeing with me on that much at least now.

Now light can be measured, we'll agree there too, so you can stop with the silly questions about if we can measure light.

Click to expand...

So now Furry doesn't believe in QM, General Relativity, or light apparently.

Ok, so we've established we can measure light intensity. Now I have a system where there are two intensity levels, bright and dark. I can do a randomizing procedure where I can make it so there's a 50/50 chance of being bright or dark on the next measurement, no matter if it was previously bright or dark. The system otherwise remains bright/dark if it isn't randomized.

I take two of these systems, separate them by 1km. I do some procedure, when it works, I send a message to both locations. They decide whether to randomize or not-randomize, then measure brightness. We later compare the results. Whenever they both made the same choice, they got the same brightness level, whenever they didn't, they agreed only 50% of the time.

This isn't possible for two independent randomizations of pre-defined states. Either the locations are talking to each other (not possible by causality), I fucked up my statistics (fair sampling, experimental details), the 'free choices' I thought I was making on switching were pre-determined somehow, or the actual systems themselves do not exist in independent, pre-defined states. We are now down to the last two being possible.

Let me know which part you object to here and we can get through this.

Oh go oh god... he just pulled a, "I don't like what you're saying, so I'm not reading your post!"

That's Furry's thing. Declare he's not even going to read the experiment, say some irrelevant shit that shows he doesn't even understand what's going on, then claim he's so smart he's debunked it anyways.

He did it again!

Furry_sl said:

Obviously i meant im not reading his post after responding to it, and not the actual pdf which i've repeatedly said I won't read.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you think you can claim to be all about real science while at the same time debunking experiments you refuse to even read the details of

Furry_sl said:

How does the electron even come into play

Click to expand...

Whether the system is bright or dark depends on the electron spin state - the 'system' I talk about is an electron. If it is spin up lets say, it fluoresces intensely, while it is nearly perfectly dark when it is spin down. The system is 'randomized' by applying a rotation to the electron spin that puts it into a superposition w/50-50 chance of being measured bright or dark. Light is only involved in this step to measure the electron spin (as I was saying originally) because directly detecting a single spin with electronics is way, way noisier and more difficult than looking at spin-dependent fluorescence.

Fair sampling is closed because the spin state can be read out almost perfectly in this way, F ~ 97%. So, when entanglement is generated between the two electron spins, they are measured every time with an error/loss rate of only 3%. This is difficult in other experiments because it's hard to have single-photon detectors at telecom wavelengths that are this efficient, much less have the entire system reach this number.

I still don't understand why you object so strenuously to 'filtered light' in any case.

No, but that's Furry's thing and why nobody takes him seriously. That and him not knowing basically fundamental facts yet acts like he's an expert

Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 081301 (2015) - New Area Law in General Relativity

I'm just going to leave this here. I'm still digesting it, but it's pretty interesting (and even moreso if it ends up holding true).

Authorization required. Paste the good shit least.

Sorry, forgot I was on my school login.http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.07627