Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help

Reason McLucus: on 8/15/07 at 19:50pm UTC, wrote I'm not sure it is loophole free. There is a potential major problem...

December 6, 2022

ARTICLE: Kwiat’s Kwest: Settling – Once and For All – Einstein’s Final Frontier [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Reason McLucus wrote on Aug. 15, 2007 @ 19:50 GMT
I'm not sure it is loophole free. There is a potential major problem using photons. If I think a photon will go through gate "A" it will go through gate "A". If I think it will go through gate "B" it will go through gate "B". I wouldn't make the following criticism, but I suspect someone else might. Depending upon the outcome the criticism would be "the photons became entangled because the experimenter thought they were;: or "the photons didn't become entangled because the experimenter wasn't thinking clearly."

It might be possible to prove entanglement by using something relatively large like a pea for example. Unfortunately the failure to show entanglement between two peas would only indicate that entanglement of larger objects was not possible, but entanglement of individual particles might be.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.