Begin forwarded message:
From: Suda Martin <Martin.Suda.email@example.com>
Subject: AW: The end of the problem, hopefully
Date: June 3, 2013 11:10:24 AM PDT
To: John Howell <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Demetrios Kalamidas <email@example.com>
Cc: nick herbert <firstname.lastname@example.org>, JACK SARFATTI <email@example.com>, Ruth Elinor Kastner <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Romano email@example.com [MATH]" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, David Kaiser <email@example.com>, S-P Sirag <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Brian Josephson <email@example.com>, Fred Wolf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Thanks, John, for "Full calculation, no approximation". Somewhere the phase exp(i Phi) is missing in Eq.(2)? And you forgot perhaps the different adjustments of 1,0 and 0,1 in Eq.(2)? But I am sure the results are the same as in Eqs.(3) and (4). Great!
Von: John Howell [email@example.com]
Gesendet: Montag, 3. Juni 2013 19:43
An: Demetrios Kalamidas
Cc: nick herbert; ghirardi; JACK SARFATTI; CHRISTOPHER GERRY; John Howell; Suda Martin; Ruth Elinor Kastner; Romano firstname.lastname@example.org [MATH]; David Kaiser; S-P Sirag; Brian Josephson; Fred Wolf
Betreff: The end of the problem, hopefully
I just have a few comments
1) I think we should respect Giancarlo's and Chris's desire to decouple
from this conversation. So, I think they should not be copied in on
2) I have done the full calculation without any approximations, expansions
etc. for the PACS and DFS, and as expected, there is no interference. I
have already shown the DFS, so the PACS is Attached.
3) The second order cross correlation for the evolution of the field
operators vs the Suda state evolution yield different results. I need to
double check my answers (long calculation).
4) I like Chris's approach, which is basically to consider a binomially
distributed photon number outcome interfering with a photon from the other
port. That will take me a while, but it should corroborate the Suda's
state evolution paper.