Quantum entanglement -> retro/FTL communication?

[Mise]

I'm guessing you've answered your own question? Talking about a Gaussian as in a Gaussian function?

Yeah, a Gaussian has the form e^(-(x^2)); sinc has the form sin(x)/x, which can be expressed in complex exponential form to make it look similar to a gaussian when squared (what we see is sinc^2, since it's the intensity, not the amplitude, that is measured).

Mathematically you are looking at a wave function collapse yes? Or are you trying to establish that a wave function mathematically is a real picture of what is happening "visibly", which we know it is not?

I'm trying to construct what would be observed on a white screen in the fourier plane of the lens (i.e. the typical interference pattern).

The thin green line

Nope, it's a typical interference pattern

To me though if you look at the yellow line it's equivalent numerically to the green line as an integral, but I maybe wrong here?

The yellow line is missing data points, that's why it goes up and down like that. With more data points it would look like the green line (only obviously shifted up a lot more).

It certainly doesn't look like an interference pattern.

It won't do, until the other information is added.


I hope I'm right this time...... *crosses fingers*

 

[Sidhe]

Yeah, a Gaussian has the form e^(-(x^2)); sinc has the form sin(x)/x, which can be expressed in complex exponential form to make it look similar to a gaussian when squared (what we see is sinc^2, since it's the intensity, not the amplitude, that is measured).

I'm trying to construct what would be observed on a white screen in the fourier plane of the lens (i.e. the typical interference pattern).

Nope, it's a typical interference pattern

The yellow line is missing data points, that's why it goes up and down like that. With more data points it would look like the green line (only obviously shifted up a lot more).

It won't do, until the other information is added.


I hope I'm right this time...... *crosses fingers*

Well good luck because you'll need it go to

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=158413 and debate the issue there, your at a higher level than I. And unless you go through your exact integrational interpritation, which I probably wont understand anyway, I think you aren't going to get much out of me. Sorry to say. But I'm not the man you should be talking too although I am interested.

I'll follow your progress, but if your that sure that science is wrong, you should take it to the experts, and believe me on that site they are more than expert, they are the bees knees. A few professors and PhD students there, to say the least.

 

[Mise]

No no, science is right . The results from this experiment match with the typical two slit experiment, and the conclusion is that the which-path information in the two slit experiment is always there, but with no way of extracting it.

 

[plarq]

Isn't quantum beautiful?