New simulations of detection and coincidence loophole models

[gill1109]

I study your model, not your implementation thereof. I have some wonderful new things to tell the world. Thanks for making your programs "open source" so anyone can study the model.

I have derived interesting performance bounds on your model. I changed nothing. The results are interesting for anyone who wants to create this kind of simulation program. You can call it computer science or computational physics if you don't want to call it physics. However there are also implications for experimenters. Which are the appropriate bounds to look at, what are the most effective ways to analyse the data from such experiments?

[minkwe]

I study your model, not your implementation thereof.

Your implementation is not my model. If you want to study my model, study my model. You have the code why did you choose to redo it your way unless it is something else you want to study. My code produces all the results as readable files, you didn't just analyze the results. You rewrote the code leaving out important bits.

I have some wonderful new things to tell the world. Thanks for making your programs "open source" so anyone can study the model.

Good for you that you learned something you did not know before.

I have derived interesting performance bounds on your model. I changed nothing.

Again, unless you are analyzing the data produced by my programs, without modifying them in any way, it is not my model that you are studying. Again I ask. Why did you have to rewrite it in order to study it, when you have the code and all the data files it produces?

However there are also implications for experimenters. Which are the appropriate bounds to look at, what are the most effective ways to analyse the data from such experiments?

You probably forgot what I've been telling you right from the beginning, that NOTHING WHATSOEVER can violate the APPROPRIATE BOUND, not even my simulations. That apparent violations by QM and Experiments are only because the wrong inequality is being used for comparison. That the reason my simulation appears to violate the bounds is the same reason Experiments appear to violate the bounds, and the same reason QM appears to violate the bounds -- The bounds are inappropriate for the experiment. That is why I have insisted to you many times that data from my experiments be analyzed in exactly the same way as data from actual experiments. Do you remember this? Check your e-mail, the very first communication I had with you before joining this forum even. Is this what you have now discovered and ready to tell the world in your talk?

[gill1109]

Please take a look at http://rpubs.com/gill1109/epr-clocked-full and http://rpubs.com/gill1109/epr-simple and please tell me if I left out any "important bits".

My simulations of the mathematical models which are implicitly described in https://github.com/minkwe/epr-clocked and https://github.com/minkwe/epr-simple do indeed not violate the appropriate bounds. Which are rather different bounds from what Michel Fodje calls "the appropriate bound".

The "usual bound" is not appropriate to models with a detection loophole or a coincidence loophole. We know this since Pearle (1970).

There are further interesting results in http://rpubs.com/gill1109/epr-clocked-core. Here, I left out some of the bits of Michel's model which he calls essential, keeping just the core (generation of outcomes and delay times). It turned out that the results of http://rpubs.com/gill1109/epr-clocked-core and of http://rpubs.com/gill1109/epr-clocked-full are identical.

[minkwe]

Please take a look at http://rpubs.com/gill1109/epr-clocked-full and http://rpubs.com/gill1109/epr-simple and please tell me if I left out any "important bits".

Your implementation is not my model. If you want to study my model, study my model. You have the code why did you choose to redo it your way unless it is something else you want to study. My code produces all the results as readable files, you can simply analyze the results if you really want to study my model. If you want me to be interested in your code, and if you want to say anything meaningful about my simulation, write your own analysis code which uses the data produced from MY programs (not yours). And post your analysis code and results. Then you will have my interest. Then I will run your analysis code against Weih's data, and other datasets from other experiments and we will compare the results with each other and with QM.

I am going to talk about your simulations at Växjö next week, I'll be meeting Adenier and de Raedt and Larsson and Khrennikov and others.

No mention of it in your talks. Had a change of mind?

[gill1109]

Your implementation is not my model. If you want to study my model, study my model. You have the code why did you choose to redo it your way unless it is something else you want to study.
...
No mention of it in your talks. Had a change of mind?

I can't code in Python, you refused to help me. So I read your code, "extracted" the mathematical components, and coded them in R. Now I could do the experiments myself, which I would have liked to have done with you. Too bad. Now you have a fine excuse to take no notice of them.

Why I decided not to talk about my simulations of my interpretation of your model: there were a number of fantastic talks by others about the coincidence loophole, both theoretical and with respect to experiment. I only had 30 minutes. However actually a number of the slides of the talk do actually apply to your simulation models, but that is no longer explicit.

[minkwe]

I can't code in Python, you refused to help me.

You don't need to know how to code in python to be able to analyze the files produced by my simulation. Again, if you want to analyze my model, you have the data files it produces and you can analyze them using any language of your choice. What you can not do is rewrite what you claim is my model and claim to be testing it. You do not need to rewrite anything. Simply analyze the data produced by my code, not yours.

/Michel.

[gill1109]

I can't code in Python, you refused to help me.

You don't need to know how to code in python to be able to analyze the files produced by my simulation. Again, if you want to analyze my model, you have the data files it produces and you can analyze them using any language of your choice. What you can not do is rewrite what you claim is my model and claim to be testing it. You do not need to rewrite anything. Simply analyze the data produced by my code, not yours.

I can claim that I am analysing your model, and you can claim that I am mistaken. Anyone can study my code and your code and decide for themselves whether or not "my model" is the same as "your model". You can't forbid me from doing what I did, and you can't forbid me from saying that I think I have done what I think I have done. You refused again and again to help me adapt your code to the experimental protocol I wanted to run (namely a standard CHSH experiment). You forced me to rewrite in R, and I'm glad of it. I learnt some cool stuff, discovered some cool stuff, and I'm not dependent on anyone else. I can easily do any crazy experiment I like. If you're not interested in "my models" then don't contribute to this topic.

[minkwe]

I can claim that I am analysing your model, and you can claim that I am mistaken. ...

You refused again and again to help me adapt your code to the experimental protocol I wanted to run (namely a standard CHSH experiment).

Bingo, I refused to help you change my model to what you want so you changed it yourself and yet you continue to claim that what you now have is my model. I can't make you stop doing that, but I'm free to call it dishonest. If you wanted to analyse my model you would have simply analyzed the output files which the model produced, but that is not what you want, you wanted to analyze something else which does not make physical sense, I refuse to change my code into something meaningless. You are free to do what you want but any one reading this thread now knows from your admission above that you have "adapted it to the experimental protocol you want to run".

If you continue to claim that you are analyzing my model, then you have an honesty issue and that is your problem not mine.

You forced me to rewrite in R, and I'm glad of it.

Not true, I have forced you to do nothing. You chose to do what you wanted to do, you are a free agent. I can't force you to tell the truth about what you are actually doing, let alone force you to write a program in R.

If you're not interested in "my models" then don't contribute to this topic.

I will continue to contribute as long as you keep mentioning falsely that you are analyzing my models, you are not.

[gill1109]

You wanted to analyze something else which does not make physical sense, I refuse to change my code into something meaningless.

You had better look at my simulations. I do not do anything "meaningless". I did not change anything. I just translated (more precisely: I tried to translate as truthfully as possible). I selected settings at random - Alice from {0, 90} and Bob from {45, 135}. I left out all the plots. I did different things with the experimental data. If you're not interested, you're not interested. Too bad. Anyone can check that "my model" and "your model" are mathematically the same. One is implemented in Python and one in R.

[minkwe]

You had better look at my simulations.

I will do no such thing. My simulation is open-source, you can download it and run it as many times as you like. It saves output files, you can analyze them as you like. You don't need to rewrite it in order to test MY simulation. If you rewrite it, I'm not going to give you my blessing that what you have is my model. Sorry it is not. Besides you have stated many times what your intentions were and I can quote you:

I fixed this defect myself.

.

Actually first I improved the detectors in his model

You do not like my model so you pretended it was an error or a defect and you changed it. Even though I told you everything in my model was part of the model and no defect. You simply ignored me and continued your tricks:

One person's feature is another person's bug! And vice versa.

So you have now explained that when you say 100% detection, you mean that all particles which you intended to be emitted are indeed detected too. But you have told us that 0.01% of the particles do not come in pairs. So your source is imperfect.

I made it perfect

No you did not. My source is already perfect. It behaves the way it is meant to behave. You don't have to like it, but that is the model. You changed the model. You are free to have your own standards of how a source should behave but results you compute according to those assumptions will not tell you anything about my simulation , or the real world experiments it attempts to model.

Anyone following this can review our prior discussion about your escapades here: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=23&start=23

Nobody should trust your claims that you are testing my model. You are not. Had you intended to test my model, you would simply have analyzed the output from my programs. But no, you rewrote everything to fulfill your wishes contrary to my warnings and now you want me to bless your work so that you may use it to discredit my work. Sorry, If you want to say anything about my model with a straight-face, you will simply analyze the data from my model not your caricatures of it.

You have admitted already in this thread that your intentions were to "ADAPT" my model to suit what you wanted to do. Those were your words. I've told you already such "ADAPTATIONS" changes the model. Anyone can read the README file included in the model as well as our discussion about it from several months ago in which you kept trying to change my model and I resisted it.

Let me remind you of a section of the License for my programs:

Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain
that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free
software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we
want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so
that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original
authors' reputations.

It is common decency that when you modify somebody's work, you do not go around claiming that what you got was their work. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

[gill1109]

Nobody should believe anyone's claims.

Please distinguish "model" (or more precisely maths of the model) from "program". You yourself wrote (about epr-simple)

The maths of the model can be summarized as:

λ = {e, p, s}, e ∈ [0..2π), s = {1/2, 1}
p = ½ sin²t, t ∈ [0..π/2)
e' = e + 2πs
A(a,λ) = sign(-1ⁿ cos n(a − e)) if |cos n(a − e)| > p, 0 otherwise
B(b,λ) = sign(-1ⁿ cos n(b − e')) if |cos n(b − e')| > p, 0 otherwise
where n = 2s

Alternatively, p = tᵏ, t ∈ [0..π/4), k=π/2 also works well.

I honestly believe that I correctly implemented in R code the maths of your models. Take a look at

http://rpubs.com/gill1109/epr-simple
http://rpubs.com/gill1109/epr-clocked-full
http://rpubs.com/gill1109/epr-clocked-core

Notice the comments at the head of each script.

If you think my implementation was incorrect please let me know.

Perhaps you just object to the *names* of the scripts. I could change them, if that is what is bothering you. I could add "-caricature" to each name, if you like.

However we would actually make some progress if you would simply study them and think about the results.

[minkwe]

You had better look at my simulations.

I will do no such thing. My simulation is open-source, you can download it and run it as many times as you like. It saves output files, you can analyze them as you like. You don't need to rewrite it in order to test MY simulation. If you rewrite it, I'm not going to give you my blessing that what you have is my model. Sorry it is not. Besides you have stated many times what your intentions were and I can quote you:

I fixed this defect myself.

.

Actually first I improved the detectors in his model

You do not like my model so you pretended it was an error or a defect and you changed it. Even though I told you everything in my model was part of the model and no defect. You simply ignored me and continued your tricks:

One person's feature is another person's bug! And vice versa.

So you have now explained that when you say 100% detection, you mean that all particles which you intended to be emitted are indeed detected too. But you have told us that 0.01% of the particles do not come in pairs. So your source is imperfect.

I made it perfect

No you did not. My source is already perfect. It behaves the way it is meant to behave. You don't have to like it, but that is the model. You changed the model. You are free to have your own standards of how a source should behave but results you compute according to those assumptions will not tell you anything about my simulation , or the real world experiments it attempts to model.

Anyone following this can review our prior discussion about your escapades here: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=23&start=23

Nobody should trust your claims that you are testing my model. You are not. Had you intended to test my model, you would simply have analyzed the output from my programs. But no, you rewrote everything to fulfill your wishes contrary to my warnings and now you want me to bless your work so that you may use it to discredit my work. Sorry, If you want to say anything about my model with a straight-face, you will simply analyze the data from my model not your caricatures of it.

You have admitted already in this thread that your intentions were to "ADAPT" my model to suit what you wanted to do. Those were your words. I've told you already such "ADAPTATIONS" changes the model. Anyone can read the README file included in the model as well as our discussion about it from several months ago in which you kept trying to change my model and I resisted it.

Let me remind you of a section of the License for my programs:

Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain
that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free
software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we
want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so
that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original
authors' reputations.

It is common decency that when you modify somebody's work, you do not go around claiming that what you got was their work. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

[gill1109]

I'm afraid Michel that this way you are not going to learn anything new. You are not going to learn that things are not always what they seem.

[minkwe]

I'm afraid Michel that this way you are not going to learn anything new. You are not going to learn that things are not always what they seem.

You are not my teacher. I will learn whatever I will learn. Don't concern yourself with my learning. Rather, follow common decency and do not attribute your modifications of my work to me.

[gill1109]

I'm afraid Michel that this way you are not going to learn anything new. You are not going to learn that things are not always what they seem.

You are not my teacher. I will learn whatever I will learn. Don't concern yourself with my learning. Rather, follow common decency and do not attribute your modifications of my work to me.

I do not attribute my modifications of your work to you. In fact, I have not modified your work in any way.

I have studied your model. I have not modified your model in any way whatsoever.

I am not your teacher. If you want not to learn from me, you surely won't. Live well, good luck. I hope you will find other teachers because I believe there are a lot of important things you do not know.

[minkwe]

I do not attribute my modifications of your work to you. In fact, I have not modified your work in any way.

I have studied your model. I have not modified your model in any way whatsoever.

Obviously false, as anyone who reads this thread and all our communications about my models in the other thread will clearly find. Your intentions are clear. Your motives are obvious. If wanted to study my model, you would have analyzed the output files MY programs produced. You have been analyzing simulations written in R, I never wrote anything in R so your claim that you have not modified anything is false. You wrote all the R code. On your own I made no contribution to it. I have never reviewed your code, I have never given you any blessing that what you have is my model, because you have stated from the beginning that your intention was to ADAPT my model in ways I disagreed with, you stated that rewrite them in R to suit your "experimental protocol". You can not now claim that whatever you have is my model, as that will be dishonest. So go ahead and analyze your programs to your hearts content. Leave my name out of it.

It is common decency that when you modify somebody's work, you do not go around claiming that what you got was their work. Why is this so hard for you to understand? First learn some common decency before you can purport to tell others what they know or might not know. If I want to learn something, I will learn it from someone who is honest and respectful of others, and does not misrepresent people based on hidden agendas.

[gill1109]

I do not attribute my modifications of your work to you. In fact, I have not modified your work in any way.

I have studied your model. I have not modified your model in any way whatsoever.

Obviously false, as anyone who reads this thread and all our communications about my models in the other thread will clearly find. Your intentions are clear. Your motives are obvious. If wanted to study my model, you would have analyzed the output files MY programs produced. You have been analyzing simulations written in R, I never wrote anything in R so your claim that you have not modified anything is false. You wrote all the R code. On your own I made no contribution to it. I have never reviewed your code, I have never given you any blessing that what you have is my model, because you have stated from the beginning that your intention was to ADAPT my model in ways I disagreed with, you stated that rewrite them in R to suit your "experimental protocol". You can not now claim that whatever you have is my model, as that will be dishonest. So go ahead and analyze your programs to your hearts content. Leave my name out of it.

It is common decency that when you modify somebody's work, you do not go around claiming that what you got was their work. Why is this so hard for you to understand? First learn some common decency before you can purport to tell others what they know or might not know. If I want to learn something, I will learn it from someone who is honest and respectful of others, and does not misrepresent people based on hidden agendas.

Maybe you misunderstand me! And maybe I changed my mind!?

Maybe today I no longer have the same plans as I had two months ago?

Today I am not the same person as I was several months ago.

I did not modify your work. I did some experiments with your model. If you claim that it is not your model, you had better look at my R code and tell me where I went wrong. If you are not interested in learning from experience, then make sure that you never get any experience.

Did you read "Bertlmann's socks" yet?

[minkwe]

Maybe you misunderstand me! And maybe I changed my mind!?

Maybe today I no longer have the same plans as I had two months ago?

Today I am not the same person as I was several months ago.

Maybe. But based on your stated intentions, and your actions today, you can not be trusted when you claim to be analyzing my model.

I did not modify your work. I did some experiments with your model. If you claim that it is not your model, you had better look at my R code and tell me where I went wrong.

You did not modify my work, yet somehow it magically translated itself to R. I will never bless any R-code from you purporting to be my model.

Did you read "Bertlmann's socks" yet?

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? These kinds of loaded questions have no place here.

[gill1109]

Have you read "Bertlmann's socks" recently?

I have read and re-read it many times. I always find new things in it.

I studied your code, understood it, and rewrote it in R. It works just fine. Same violation of same inequalities etc etc. I have no need of anyone's blessing. The models which you implemented in Python stand on their own. Anyone can read my code and look at the experiments which I did with it. I acknowledge that I learnt those models by studying your code. No dishonesty.

Imagine a brilliant engineer invents a new, better, photodetector. He publishes the principles of the photodetector, explicitly allowing anyone to use and modify these plans as they like, as long as they acknowledge the source and publish their own modification under the same license.

Another scientist then builds a photodector according to these principles and uses it to perform a loophole-free Bell-type experiment. He publishes his own specifications and acknowledges their source. The engineer complains because he believes in local realism. "His photodector" is not to be used for such experiments.

[minkwe]

Have you read "Bertlmann's socks" recently?

I have read and re-read it many times. I always find new things in it.

I have read it many times. What new thing have you found that is relevant to all the discussions we've been having? Start a new thread or post it here and you might have my interest, if not mine, I'm sure there will be many others on these forums interested. I have never found anything in Bertlmann's socks that even attempts to rescue Bell from his fatal mixing of strongly objective and weakly objective concepts.

I studied your code, understood it, and rewrote it in R. It works just fine.

According to you. But even one of your own friends, another Bell-believer told you you had left important bits out, but you simply brushed him aside and called it a flaw in the original model. You can not be trusted to represent my work correctly. There is ample evidence in these forums to make that judgement.

The models which you implemented in Python stand on their own.

So then answer this simple question if you can, honestly. Why oh why are you unable to make your point by analysing the output data from MY PROGRAMS. Why is it necessary for you to rewrite the program in order to analyse it?