This fact is correct - ish.
This fact is correct - on average! - for a large number of photons, i.e. for an electromagnetic field traveling through a transparent medium. But I would like to see a proof of that fact/statement for a single photon colliding with a single electron in such a complex system as an atom. Plus, the authors ignore possible multi-photon events.
In the end, we need to assume that he process of absorption and reradiation may alternate the state of quantum coherence between different photons, and that option has not been considered among the ones which could, quote: “lead to corrupt choices of measurement settings within our experiment”.
The two specific examples reported in this piece demonstrate a very common situation when authors try to analyze the behavior of a microscopic system ignoring possible effects of the interaction between the system and the macroscopic measuring device (as the whole) beyond the effects the authors are looking for (beyond the possible states of the detectors). It is also a common case when authors apply properties of the interaction between a medium and a macroscopic number of microscopic particles to the interaction between a microscopic particle and a particle of the medium without having proved the possibility of this transition.
That proof should be based on the analysis of the evolution of a state-vector (wave-function) of a single photon (or two photons, to study the entanglement); the evolution is governed by a Hamiltonian; everything which may affect the photon (or photons) before it reaches a detector (before being measured, before wave-function gets "collapsed") must be a part of the
Hamiltonian; otherwise the theory does not describe the actual phenomenon.
Note: this post represents a formalization of one of the ideas discussed in my previous publications on the foundations of quantum mechanics, such as:
Dear Dr. Voroshilov,
Your manuscript has been considered. We regret to inform you that we have concluded that it is not suitable for publication in any APS journal.
Physical Review Letters
Celebrating 125 Years of the Physical Review
If you would like to see the referee reports for this article, they are now available by viewing the decision letter for this article in your referee centre at .
We are very grateful for your assessment of this paper and we look forward to working with you again in the future.
On behalf of the IOP peer-review team:
Jessica Thorn - Editor
Dr Stephanie White – Associate Editor
Lucy Joy – Editorial Assistant
and Iain Trotter – Associate Publisher
Temple Circus, Temple Way, Bristol
BS1 6HG, UK
3. The claim is correct and significant, but it has been already previously made, hence, not original.
If someone can skillfully manipulate by a sophisticated machine which makes complicated parts for a space shuttle, would we call that one "an engineer"? Doubtful. The one does not design the parts, doe not have a big picture of how different parts should work together. the one is a technician. There are also many "scientific technicians". Someone who can skillfully apply a sophisticate algorithm to generate some new data. But the algorithm was developed by someone else. And the data mined in the process do not relieve anything truly unexpected. Such a person, though, can be a very good manager, skillful organizer, and make decisions about scientific importance based on how close the ideas are to his own.
but especially, in
That fix may be trivial.
Or may not exist.
What I am curious about is who keeps it on hold?
New technologies allow reaching out to a wide audience bypassing established root. For example, in three says after the publication, this piece has reached 61 people.