Leonhardt's wavenumber-resolution argument
The argument
Each wavenumber point in the 2016 analysis stands for a mode of finite width set by the finite imaging resolution and observation time, so a measured correlation or population is an average over neighbouring wavenumbers. Leonhardt holds that this finite resolution must be propagated as an uncertainty in the entanglement comparison. The published analysis did not propagate it. Carrying it as a horizontal uncertainty, with its size read from the experiment's own dispersion plot, makes the correlation and population data indistinguishable at two standard deviations, and the reported significance of nearly six standard deviations falls to about one. The stated uncertainties were therefore underestimated.
Does it work?
- Does it follow?
- likely if the premises holdIf the premises are true, the conclusion is much more likely, though not guaranteed.constitution →
- Do the premises hold?
- 1 not separately assessed
Suppose the finite wavenumber resolution genuinely has to be carried as an uncertainty, and the original analysis did not carry it. Then the stated uncertainties were incomplete and so underestimated. How large the reduction in significance is would still depend on the critique's modelling choices, such as how the window width varies with wavenumber. The argument therefore stands or falls with whether that resolution must be propagated, which remains unsettled.
Premises
- UnassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →The finite wavenumber resolution of the 2016 Technion Fourier analysis must be propagated as an uncertainty in the entanglement comparison.
Where it is made
Passages where sources make, criticize or mention this argument. They record where it appears, not how strong it is, and none has precedence over another.
No source is recorded as making it.