Hi Ed,

interesting idea. I'm open for discussion. On reddit I've posted

In the simulation we do the following steps: set alpha counter ac = 0 set coincidence counter cc = 0 For any value of lambda between -1 and +1 take initial photon1 having polarization 0° calculate by eq (6) if it hits PA at alpha then update counter ac = ac+1 if yes, calculate if peer photon2 with polarization alpha+pi/2 hits PB at beta using eq. (3) (use B instead of A) if yes, update cc=cc+1 Do the same with with initial photon1 having polarization 90°. The conditional probability (eq. 10) is cc/ac. Calculate expectation values by eq. (12)

best regards,

Eugen

Hi yes, I understand the detection calculations at eq 3 and 6, but I am not sure how you set the polarization of the initial photon that is to be split. I was thinking of generating a whole bunch photons with a random polarization angle, then splitting and shooting a them at the detectors. I would use your calculations to check for detection and coincidences.

I am not sure this is what you have in mind. Would you mind expanding on how you see the original photons being generated and what their polarization would be?

I am not sure if you use skype, but I would be very happy to communicate in that manner if you like that. If not, here or email is good for me.

Regards, Ed

The initial photons come with polarization 0°/90° or 90°/0°. See figure 1. At the beams 1 and 2 the two light cones intersect thus generating the entangled state.

Prior to an animation, I will want to produce a still for each of the sections of an actual experiment, probably about 5 or 6 pictures/stills. The stills would basically follow Figure1 and Figure2 of your paper. Each still would have noted the highlights of that stage of the experiment:

ie. the first still is a picture of photons coming out of a laser, notes for the first still would be things like - what is their polarization? is it random or have they already been run through a polarizer or waveplate? do we include a wavelength? photon state?

the second still would be a picture of the photons after being split. Again the notes would show things like what is the wavelength? what is the state?

My question is about the first 2 stills. In the first run of the experiment (maybe all the runs?) what to use for the polarization of the laser beam at the start of fig1? Then following fig1, I assume all photons in the upper region would measure vertical and all photons in the lower region would measure horizontal. Grabbing photons from the middle at the end of fig1, is giving us basically a randomly orientated photon.

Not sure you thoughts on this, but appreciate knowing if this is headed in the right direction.

Regards, Ed

In fig. 1 there are two cone shells. The ordinary photons with polarization 0° and the extraordinary photons with 90°.

At the intersection of the cone shells- beam 1 and beam 2 the polarization is undefined. That does not mean random. There is no random polarization. Beam 1 and beam 2 comprise the singlet state. With these beams the polarization is changed by selection.

In an experiment similar to your configuration, https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0205/0205171v1.pdf they use polarizer and waveplates to prepare the laser beam in a particular manner prior to hitting the BBO crystals. Just wondering if you consider the laser light (before hitting the crystals) to be in a particular state or polarization or does it even matter?

Their figure 2 shows the situation. But they produce concentric cones whereas for instance Zeilinger and many others produce intersecting cone shells as described in fig. 1 of my paper. Only with intersecting cone shells the singlet state can be created namely at the intersection of the cone shells.

Thanks. On wiki they show quite a few of Zeilinger experiments, do you have one in mind the would most closely relate to your setup and analysis?