From: gts (gts@optexinc.com)
Date: Fri Sep 20 2002 - 02:03:54 MDT
Emlyn O'regan wrote:
>> and 2) the rule for determining if the relative intervals should
>> be recorded as 1 or a 0 is reversed each time, so that if there is a
bias due to
>> imperfections in the device, that bias will favor neither
>> 1's nor 0's.
>
> On point 2: This doesn't reduce the bias at all! If you take
> the output of the device, reversing every second bit, you'll get
> the biased sequence back.
Let me be more clear:
There are two possible outcomes for any given comparison of decay
intervals:
long-short
or
short-long
On measurement A, a long-short measurement would be recorded as a 1 and
a short-long measurement would be recorded as a 0.
Then on measurement A+1, the rule is reversed: a long-short measurement
is recorded as a 0 and a short-long measurement is recorded as a 1.
There is thus no way that biases in the measuring device can favor
either 1's or 0's.
For example, let us presume that due to bias in the device, it tends to
give determinations of long-short more so than short-long. This would be
a problem because QM predicts an inherent equality of the probabilities
of long-short vs short-long measurements. However by reversing the rule
on each successive measurement as to whether long-short measurements
should equal 1 or 0, the supposed bias is tilted just as much in favor
of 1's as it is to 0's, such that there is no actual bias in the final
recorded sequence.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:11 MST