sci.physics.research

Jim Black wrote:

> I agree that if you calculate P+- with the polarizers aligned using the
> authors' model, you get 1/8. But if you do the experiment, you find that
> P+- is (within experimental error) zero.

Have you actually done such an experiment?
I think one can read from Aspect,

> Physical Review Letters 49, 91 (1982),
> The measured quantities were thus only the coincidence rates in +1 channels: R++(a;b). Several difficulties then arise as a result of the very low efficiency of the detection system (the photo multipliers have low quantum efficiencies and the angular acceptance is small). The measurements of polarization are inherently incomplete: When a pair has been emitted, if no count is obtained at one of the photomultipliers, there is no way to know whether it has been missed by the (low efficiency) detector or whether it has been blocked by the polarizer (only the latter case would be a real polarization measurement). Thus, coincidence counting rates such as R+-(a;b) or R--(a;b) cannot be measured directly.

Has this, what Aspect wrote here, changed?

You seem to say that Aspect is wrong too, since he writes in his famous
experiment:

> Physical Review Letters 49, 91 (1982),
> Thus, coincidence counting rates such as R+-(a;b) or R--(a;b) cannot be measured directly.