by gill1109 » Wed Sep 08, 2021 9:51 pm
minkwe wrote:gill1109 wrote:So answering my question does actually also cover Bell’s example.
I’m waiting for your answer, or otherwise requests for further clarification.
Incidentally, later researchers have noticed that Bell’s theorem remains true if one interprets A(a, u) not as the outcome itself, but as the expectation value of the +/-1 valued outcome. The idea is that independent (possibly biased) coin tosses take place in each detection apparatus, after the hidden variables from the source have arrived there, and those are the actual outcomes.
So one can just as well take the range to be [-1, +1], if you prefer to think about it that way.
Alternatively use three uniforms for each trial: one for the source, one for Alice’s detector, one for Bob’s detector.
You can also pull three independent uniforms out of one: expand in binary, then make three streams of bits out of one.
Sorry, don't hold your breath. Your tactics are not worth my effort. You claim to be "applying" Bell's theorem to computer simulations but you fashion the rules to exclude a solution I already provided to you. This is not the first time. I remember when you re-defined the term "clocked". You introduce restrictions that Bell himself never thought of. So I'll leave you to play in that beautiful sandbox you've created alone. Or invite some of your pals and Buddhists and high school students to celebrate how everything is connected through a mystical non-local "force". You should read Bell's Omni interview. He was also talking about Buddhists for some reason.
You're wrong, Michel.
I used the word "clocked" and when I used it, I explained what I meant by it. You seem to be good at missing crucial phrases and sentences in fairly complex text and mathematics. I'm sorry. Fortunately, other people can read and understand, and maybe they can explain to you using better words.
Bell himself in "Bertlmann's socks" introduced the restrictions which I put into my theorems and which experimenters put into their experiments. He explained it very well, I think, but some people think this paper is too long. Then they miss the crucial part.
You can't please them all!
You wrote two Bell simulations.
I proved theorems which apply to those two simulations.
Check out:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.00106Event based simulation of an EPR-B experiment by local hidden variables: epr-simple and epr-clocked
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202001.0045/v3Joy and Fred have written several simulations.
I proved theorems which apply to a number of those simulations.
Check out:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1505.04431Pearle's Hidden-Variable Model Revisited
Entropy 2020, 22(1), 1;
https://doi.org/10.3390/e22010001Bell's original theorem, seen as a piece of pure mathematics, applies to the simulation program which I presented in this thread.
It explains why, indeed, the Bell-CHSH bound is not exceeded (bar statistical fluctuations)
Check out:
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0110137Accardi contra Bell (cum mundi): The Impossible Coupling
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0301059Time, Finite Statistics, and Bell's Fifth Position
The results in these papers were further developed by several researchers and used (and cited) by the experimenters of the four 2015 "loophole-free" experiments.
[quote="minkwe"][quote="gill1109"]
So [b]answering my question does actually also cover Bell’s example[/b].
I’m waiting for your answer, or otherwise requests for further clarification.
Incidentally, later researchers have noticed that Bell’s theorem remains true if one interprets A(a, u) not as the outcome itself, but as the expectation value of the +/-1 valued outcome. The idea is that independent (possibly biased) coin tosses take place in each detection apparatus, after the hidden variables from the source have arrived there, and those are the actual outcomes.
So one can just as well take the range to be [-1, +1], if you prefer to think about it that way.
Alternatively use three uniforms for each trial: one for the source, one for Alice’s detector, one for Bob’s detector.
You can also pull three independent uniforms out of one: expand in binary, then make three streams of bits out of one.[/quote]
Sorry, don't hold your breath. Your tactics are not worth my effort. You claim to be "applying" Bell's theorem to computer simulations but you fashion the rules to exclude a solution I already provided to you. This is not the first time. I remember when you re-defined the term "clocked". You introduce restrictions that Bell himself never thought of. So I'll leave you to play in that beautiful sandbox you've created alone. Or invite some of your pals and Buddhists and high school students to celebrate how everything is connected through a mystical non-local "force". You should read Bell's Omni interview. He was also talking about Buddhists for some reason.[/quote]
You're wrong, Michel.
I used the word "clocked" and when I used it, I explained what I meant by it. You seem to be good at missing crucial phrases and sentences in fairly complex text and mathematics. I'm sorry. Fortunately, other people can read and understand, and maybe they can explain to you using better words.
Bell himself in "Bertlmann's socks" introduced the restrictions which I put into my theorems and which experimenters put into their experiments. He explained it very well, I think, but some people think this paper is too long. Then they miss the crucial part.
You can't please them all!
You wrote two Bell simulations.
I proved theorems which apply to those two simulations.
Check out:
[url]https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.00106[/url]
Event based simulation of an EPR-B experiment by local hidden variables: epr-simple and epr-clocked
[url]https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202001.0045/v3[/url]
Joy and Fred have written several simulations.
I proved theorems which apply to a number of those simulations.
Check out:
[url]https://arxiv.org/abs/1505.04431[/url]
Pearle's Hidden-Variable Model Revisited
Entropy 2020, 22(1), 1; [url]https://doi.org/10.3390/e22010001[/url]
Bell's original theorem, seen as a piece of pure mathematics, applies to the simulation program which I presented in this thread.
It explains why, indeed, the Bell-CHSH bound is not exceeded (bar statistical fluctuations)
Check out:
[url]https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0110137[/url]
Accardi contra Bell (cum mundi): The Impossible Coupling
[url]https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0301059[/url]
Time, Finite Statistics, and Bell's Fifth Position
The results in these papers were further developed by several researchers and used (and cited) by the experimenters of the four 2015 "loophole-free" experiments.