by gill1109 » Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:55 am
minkwe wrote:gill1109 wrote:Using pre-agreed time slots is *not* the same as using time-tagging and a coincidence window after the fact. The latter (time-tagging and a coincidence window) allows local realistic models to mimic quantum correlations (the coincidence loophole, which is even more severe than the detection loophole). The former (pre-agreed time slots) prevents it. That’s why the former is used in so-called loophole-free Bell tests.
Handwaving. No content. See pubpeer discussion.
The content:
1) you know well yourself that time-tagging and a coincidence window allows one to mimic quantum correlations using a local realistic model.
2) Pre-agreed time slots with random binary settings and binary outcomes prevent that. If you disbelieve me, or cannot read my papers, please come up with your own simulation of the 2015 type experiments, sticking to the rules put down by Bell and adopted by the 2015 experimenters. Nobody has done it yet ... because it is impossible. Here are the references you should consult:
Bell's "Bertlmann's socks", see experimental design described in Figure 7 and text describing the figure. This experimental design was adopted by the four groups of experimenters in 2015. "No-conspiracy" is enforced by providing fresh and completely random binary settings for each time slot.
The maths: martingale results obtained by me in 2001 and used (and refined) by the 2015 experimenters.
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0110137Accardi contra Bell (cum mundi): The Impossible Coupling
Richard D. Gill
An experimentally observed violation of Bell's inequality is supposed to show the failure of local realism to deal with quantum reality. However, finite statistics and the time sequential nature of real experiments still allow a loophole for local realism, known as the memory loophole. We show that the randomized design of the Aspect experiment closes this loophole. Our main tool is van de Geer's (2000) supermartingale version of the classical Bernstein (1924) inequality guaranteeing, at the root n scale, a not-heavier-than-Gaussian tail of the distribution of a sum of bounded supermartingale differences. The results are used to specify a protocol for a public bet between the author and L. Accardi, who in recent papers (Accardi and Regoli, 2000a,b, 2001; Accardi, Imafuku and Regoli, 2002) has claimed to have produced a suite of computer programmes, to be run on a network of computers, which will simulate a violation of Bell's inequalites. At a sample size of thirty thousand, both error probabilities are guaranteed smaller than one in a million, provided we adhere to the sequential randomized design. The results also show that Hess and Philipp's (2001a,b) recent claims are mistaken that Bell's theorem fails because of time phenomena supposedly neglected by Bell.
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0301059Time, Finite Statistics, and Bell's Fifth Position
Richard D. Gill
I discuss three issues connected to Bell's theorem and Bell-CHSH-type experiments: time and the memory loophole, finite statistics (how wide are the error bars Under Local Realism), and the question of whether a loophole-free experiment is feasible, a surprising omission on Bell's list of four positions to hold in the light of his results. Levy's (1935) theory of martingales, and Fisher's (1935) theory of randomization in experimental design, take care of time and of finite statistics. I exploit a (classical) computer network metaphor for local realism to argue that Bell's conclusions are independent of how one likes to interpret probability, and give a critique of some recent anti-Bellist literature.
The 2015 experiments used a really beautiful refinement and simplification of my 2001 martingale inequalities. I describe it in the appendix to this recent paper:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9380450Comment on “Dr. Bertlmann’s Socks in a Quaternionic World of Ambidextral Reality”
I point out critical errors in the article “Dr. Bertlmann’s Socks in a Quaternionic World of Ambidextral Reality” by J. Christian, published in IEEE ACCESS. Christian’s model does not generate the singlet correlations but in fact simply reproduces the Bertlmann effect. John Bell’s colleague Reinhold Bertlmann of CERN, in his younger days, always wore one pink and one blue sock, at random. The moment you saw his left foot, you knew what colour sock would be on his right foot. Action at a distance? As John Bell liked to explain, quantum entanglement cannot be explained away in such an easy way. Yet Christian’s model assigns the two particles of the EPR-B experiment an equal and opposite spin at the source, the choice being determined by a fair coin toss. However they are measured, these spins are recovered. Christian’s computer simulation works by not actually simulating his model at all but by almost directly tracing the negative cosine built into his computer algebra package. Bell’s theorem has not been disproved. Debate as to what it means for the foundations of physics as well as for quantum information engineering (quantum communication, computation) is more lively today than ever before. A possible role for Geometric Algebra is still wide open and deserves further investigation, informed by a proper understanding of the mathematical content of Bell’s theorem.
[quote="minkwe"][quote="gill1109"]
Using pre-agreed time slots is *not* the same as using time-tagging and a coincidence window after the fact. The latter (time-tagging and a coincidence window) allows local realistic models to mimic quantum correlations (the coincidence loophole, which is even more severe than the detection loophole). The former (pre-agreed time slots) prevents it. That’s why the former is used in so-called loophole-free Bell tests.
[/quote]
Handwaving. No content. See pubpeer discussion.[/quote]
The content:
1) you know well yourself that time-tagging and a coincidence window allows one to mimic quantum correlations using a local realistic model.
2) Pre-agreed time slots with random binary settings and binary outcomes prevent that. If you disbelieve me, or cannot read my papers, please come up with your own simulation of the 2015 type experiments, sticking to the rules put down by Bell and adopted by the 2015 experimenters. Nobody has done it yet ... because it is impossible. Here are the references you should consult:
Bell's "Bertlmann's socks", see experimental design described in Figure 7 and text describing the figure. This experimental design was adopted by the four groups of experimenters in 2015. "No-conspiracy" is enforced by providing fresh and completely random binary settings for each time slot.
The maths: martingale results obtained by me in 2001 and used (and refined) by the 2015 experimenters.
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0110137
Accardi contra Bell (cum mundi): The Impossible Coupling
Richard D. Gill
An experimentally observed violation of Bell's inequality is supposed to show the failure of local realism to deal with quantum reality. However, finite statistics and the time sequential nature of real experiments still allow a loophole for local realism, known as the memory loophole. We show that the randomized design of the Aspect experiment closes this loophole. Our main tool is van de Geer's (2000) supermartingale version of the classical Bernstein (1924) inequality guaranteeing, at the root n scale, a not-heavier-than-Gaussian tail of the distribution of a sum of bounded supermartingale differences. The results are used to specify a protocol for a public bet between the author and L. Accardi, who in recent papers (Accardi and Regoli, 2000a,b, 2001; Accardi, Imafuku and Regoli, 2002) has claimed to have produced a suite of computer programmes, to be run on a network of computers, which will simulate a violation of Bell's inequalites. At a sample size of thirty thousand, both error probabilities are guaranteed smaller than one in a million, provided we adhere to the sequential randomized design. The results also show that Hess and Philipp's (2001a,b) recent claims are mistaken that Bell's theorem fails because of time phenomena supposedly neglected by Bell.
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0301059
Time, Finite Statistics, and Bell's Fifth Position
Richard D. Gill
I discuss three issues connected to Bell's theorem and Bell-CHSH-type experiments: time and the memory loophole, finite statistics (how wide are the error bars Under Local Realism), and the question of whether a loophole-free experiment is feasible, a surprising omission on Bell's list of four positions to hold in the light of his results. Levy's (1935) theory of martingales, and Fisher's (1935) theory of randomization in experimental design, take care of time and of finite statistics. I exploit a (classical) computer network metaphor for local realism to argue that Bell's conclusions are independent of how one likes to interpret probability, and give a critique of some recent anti-Bellist literature.
The 2015 experiments used a really beautiful refinement and simplification of my 2001 martingale inequalities. I describe it in the appendix to this recent paper:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9380450
Comment on “Dr. Bertlmann’s Socks in a Quaternionic World of Ambidextral Reality”
I point out critical errors in the article “Dr. Bertlmann’s Socks in a Quaternionic World of Ambidextral Reality” by J. Christian, published in IEEE ACCESS. Christian’s model does not generate the singlet correlations but in fact simply reproduces the Bertlmann effect. John Bell’s colleague Reinhold Bertlmann of CERN, in his younger days, always wore one pink and one blue sock, at random. The moment you saw his left foot, you knew what colour sock would be on his right foot. Action at a distance? As John Bell liked to explain, quantum entanglement cannot be explained away in such an easy way. Yet Christian’s model assigns the two particles of the EPR-B experiment an equal and opposite spin at the source, the choice being determined by a fair coin toss. However they are measured, these spins are recovered. Christian’s computer simulation works by not actually simulating his model at all but by almost directly tracing the negative cosine built into his computer algebra package. Bell’s theorem has not been disproved. Debate as to what it means for the foundations of physics as well as for quantum information engineering (quantum communication, computation) is more lively today than ever before. A possible role for Geometric Algebra is still wide open and deserves further investigation, informed by a proper understanding of the mathematical content of Bell’s theorem.
