So you're saying they would have to have information from Victor in order to make sense of their data? This doesn't ring true to me, not because I'm doubting your education, but for logical reasons:And my response is similarly not complicated: if Alice and Bob look at all their collected data in this experiment, they don't see any nonlocal correlations, regardless of what Victor does. Your thought experiment is perfectly clear, but it is also based on a misunderstanding of the experiment that was actually performed, due to the rather misleading way the article you cited describes it.
Please bear in mind I'm not getting my information by gleaning stuff out of the article you linked to or what people are saying about it. I actually have prior experience with this type of experiment and the theory behind it (I did a theoretical analysis of a similar entanglement swapping experiment a couple of years ago), and I looked up the actual research paper for some of the specific details.
Scenario 1: Alice and Bob compare data. They then ask Victor if that data should be correlated and he says yes. "Ahh! It IS correlated!!" they exclaim.
Scenario 2: Alice and Bob compare the same set of data. This time, Victor says that their photons should not be correlated because he took no action. "Ahh! The data is perfectly random just as we should expect!!" they exclaim.
I hope you can understand my doubt here. You're asking me to question the article linked to, which is fine, but I want to know where the confusion lies. You know me well enough to know that I can't just "let it go"...Scenario 2: Alice and Bob compare the same set of data. This time, Victor says that their photons should not be correlated because he took no action. "Ahh! The data is perfectly random just as we should expect!!" they exclaim.
Last edited: