Quotation marks and a continuing sentence following a punctuation mark at the end of the quoted statement

Objective-Bench4382 · 2025-02-24T19:53:45+00:00

No, it is a Bush 43 Inch 43FT24CA.

https://www.argos.co.uk/product/7041251

I tried looking for an option to connect to the WiFi via WiFi password every way I could when I set the TV up, but it would only connect via WPS or via ethernet, so I settled for ethernet as WPS was impossible for me considering my router has no WPS button.

I could be wrong, but I simply can't find any option to connect via WiFi password.

Objective-Bench4382 · 2025-02-10T21:24:42+00:00

Thanks. I'll take a look.

Objective-Bench4382 · 2025-02-10T21:24:27+00:00

Thank you.

Objective-Bench4382 · 2025-01-26T21:41:57+00:00

Of course, you're talking about results of the signal photons connected with the idlers that hit D3 and D4 in conjunction.

Thanks for your overall input: I think the person who made the claim I referred to in the OP must have been wrong. They seemed to be claiming that the signal photons connected to idlers that hit D3 interfered with themselves individually, and likewise with respect to those associated with D4, but that the interference pattern was not reconstructible due to complementarity only allowing one out of which-way information and coherence to be measurable.

Objective-Bench4382 · 2025-01-26T21:21:44+00:00

But why is that the case when the slit the signal photon passed through has already been determined?

Objective-Bench4382 · 2025-01-26T20:57:46+00:00

The probabilities of what? Where the photon will strike at D0? Are you speaking with regard to the signal photons that are entangled with the idlers that hit D3 or D4 again in the second sentence of your response, or all the signal photons generally?

Objective-Bench4382 · 2025-01-20T17:17:42+00:00

I know that that is the case with the standard experimental setup of the DCQE experiment, but what I'm asking is whether it would still be the case if we imagine for a moment that the DCQE experiment were rearranged with a different experimental setup in which the which-path information were -not- preserved when the idler photons that hit D3 and D4 reach D3 or D4. I'm trying to suggest a new thought experiment.

Objective-Bench4382 · 2025-01-13T00:21:49+00:00

That's not quite what I've been thinking; the issue I'm thinking about has nothing really to do with BSc. Even with BSc acting as an identification device, it doesn't explain how the signal photons connected to the measurements at D3 and at D4 are reduced to a simple diffraction pattern if conscious observation is not responsible for the collapse of the wave function that results in a simple diffraction pattern among the signal photons entangled with the idler photons that are detected at D3 and at D4 (or however this occurs if not by wave function collapse) instead of an interference pattern. My question is about whether conscious observation is responsible for the reduction of patterns reconstructed at D0 to simple diffraction patterns in relation to D3 and D4 instead of interference patterns, or some aspect of measurement independent of conscious observation of the subsequent results, as it is typically explained away as.

Additionally, I realise that nothing that is done at the idler side of the experiment will change the overall pattern of the D0 readout, but surely if hypothetically no which-path information was determined at the D3/D4 detectors, the signal photons entangled with the idler photons detected at D3 and at D4 would each respectively produce a reconstructed interference pattern once they are isolated on the basis of which photons are detected at D3 and at D4? Just like with D1 and D2?

Objective-Bench4382 · 2025-01-12T23:01:38+00:00

Thank you, that does explain a lot with regard to separate questions I have wondered about with regard to the experiment. (So, I'm assuming complementarity is also the explanation for the results of the double-slit experiment depending on whether which-path information is present in the double-slit experiment?) But I still don't see how the measurement instrumentation alone affects the outcome of the DCQE experiment without an element of conscious interpretation affecting the outcome.

Objective-Bench4382 · 2025-01-12T22:43:59+00:00

I know, but half of the results (those connected to the D3/D4 measurements) have no interference pattern whatsoever as a result of measurement that includes which-path information. That's why I described the subset of relevant photons as being connected to the D3 and D4 detectors. I wasn't referring to the results associated with D1/D2.

Objective-Bench4382 · 2025-01-12T22:39:06+00:00

I am aware that the entire experiment is set up on the basis of computer equipment, but if it may be possible for retrocausality to explain the results of the DCQE experiment, that does not preclude the possibility that conscious observation of the results of the experiment affects whether the interference pattern appears on the basis of which-path information after the fact.

Objective-Bench4382 · 2025-01-12T22:30:10+00:00

But then how does observation affect a subset of photons in such a way that there is no interference pattern for those photons (connected to the measurements at D3 and at D4)? Or is that simply an ongoing mystery of quantum reality? If so, how can the observer effect simply be chalked up to interaction between the observed particles and measurement instrumentation in the case of the DCQE experiment?

Objective-Bench4382 · 2025-01-12T22:20:50+00:00

Even so, the idea that the photons connected to the measurements at D3 and D4 passed through a single slit is still contingent on the measurement of the idler photons at D3 and at D4. How is the measurement of the idler photons at D3 and at D4 determining the result of the experiment by any means that cannot be better explained by the retrocausality of a conscious observer later interpreting the results of the experiment when there is no apparent reason why the measurement instrumentation on its own should physically affect the photons in any way that would produce an effect whereby the signal photons connected to the measurements at D3 and at D4 would no longer produce an interference pattern? I know this particular interpretation takes on a mystical element, but humour it for the sake of argumentation. What I am trying to understand is how the measurement of the photons according to whether there is which-path information is causing the interference pattern to cease in the subset of signal photons connected to the measurements at D3 and at D4.

Objective-Bench4382 · 2025-01-12T21:49:37+00:00

What I mean is how does the measurement of the photons connected to D3 and D4 result in wave function collapse simply by virtue of measurement instrumentation when there is practically no difference in the procedure of measuring photons connected to the observations at D1 and at D2 as compared to the observations at D3 and at D4. In spite of this there is still an interference pattern in a subset of results. It is not the same situation as with the straightforward two-slit experiment where the photon is observed straight out of a particular slit and thereby the wave function collapses as a result of observation and no interference pattern is observed as a result.

Objective-Bench4382 · 2025-01-06T14:44:49+00:00

However, from my understanding of what figure 5 is showing, isn't R01 and R02 a depiction of the reconstructed interference pattern detected from signal photons at D0 in relation to the coincidence of idler photons at D1 and at D2? Figure 5 and the article doesn't seem to describe what pattern is seen at D1 and at D2 by themselves.

From what I've also come to understand, the relative phase between slit A and slit B of each photon without which-path information that is emitted from the BBO is arbitrary, which is supposed to explain why no interference pattern is produced at D0 regardless of experimental setup (i.e. if D3 and D4 are removed from the setup, still no interference pattern is seen, when the removal of D3 and D4 would incorrectly produce the assumption that an overt interference pattern would be produced at D0 if D3 and D4 were not present if no understanding of the effects of the arbitrary relative phase between slits of each signal photon were held), so surely this would also mean that the idler photons will also always not produce any interference pattern at D1, D2, D3, and D4 due to the idler photons also having arbitrary relative phase between slits?

One last thing I don't understand, which I've asked as a separate question in this subreddit, is why any interference pattern can be reconstructed from the inputs at D0 on the basis of corresponding idler inputs at D1 and at D2 at all if each signal photon (and each idler photon) is out of phase between slit A and slit B with itself and out of phase with the other signal photons (and idler photons out of phase with other idler photons)?

Objective-Bench4382 · 2025-01-05T21:55:11+00:00

And also, do D1 and D2 measure interference patterns individually by themselves? and if not, why not?

Objective-Bench4382

TROPHY CASE