New clocked EPR Simulation with 100% detection.

[minkwe]

Suppose I change "4.0" to "6.0". Is that a "completely different simulation"?

It doesn't matter, what you really want to do is to introduce the assumption that all particles are paired. So that you may analyse the data with that assumption in mind. Once you introduce that assumption, you now have a different simulation. There are many ways to introduce that assumption:

(1) you can modify the source file to remove the code which does that elimination.
(2) you can increase the number of sigmas and run a very short simulation
(3) you can post process the source files to remove unpaired particles before sending them to the station.

All of those accomplish the same thing.

[minkwe]

You need to add a whole lot more single particles to make your model realistic by current standards.

My model is 100% realistic and 100% local. This is easy to see.

[minkwe]

PS since my detectors are now 100% efficient and since Michel's data files maintain the order that the particles were generated in, I can easily pair *all* events. Now I get a perfect loophole free experiment ... but unfortunately it has CHSH <= 2, up to statistical error of course.

My detectors were already 100% perfect, so you are clearly wrong. I would suggest that you make the same assumption that all particles are paired in any real experiment of your choice, including the recent Giustina experiment which claims to have "closed the coincidence loophole". I suggest you use the same data analysis procedure and assumptions you just introduced, and post the results here. It will be revealing.

[gill1109]

PS since my detectors are now 100% efficient and since Michel's data files maintain the order that the particles were generated in, I can easily pair *all* events. Now I get a perfect loophole free experiment ... but unfortunately it has CHSH <= 2, up to statistical error of course.

My detectors were already 100% perfect, so you are clearly wrong. I would suggest that you make the same assumption that all particles are paired in any real experiment of your choice, including the recent Giustina experiment which claims to have "closed the coincidence loophole". I suggest you use the same data analysis procedure and assumptions you just introduced, and post the results here. It will be revealing.

Sure, your detectors were perfect, but your source was not perfect.

I did not change the data analysis procedure.

I am not making any assumption that *all* particles are paired in any real (quantum optics lab) experiment.

I am explaining how we can simulate such a situation with your program, provided of course we ignore your "warning" not to perfect the source.

[gill1109]

Suppose I change "4.0" to "6.0". Is that a "completely different simulation"?

It doesn't matter, what you really want to do is to introduce the assumption that all particles are paired. So that you may analyse the data with that assumption in mind.

I do not *want* to analyse the data with that assumption in mind. I do *not* analyse the data with that assumption in mind. I analyse the data with the algorithm which you took from Jan-Ake Larsson's program: compute all absolute differences between times of events left and right; order them; pick the first, pair the two corresponding events; remove these events from the lists of events on both sides; and repeat...

So are you telling me that I am allowed to change 4.0 to 6.0, but I am not allowed to change 4.0 to infinity?

[gill1109]

I made it perfect. Less realistic, I know. You need to add a whole lot more single particles to make your model realistic by current standards.

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.

Your source is not perfect, it also emits unpaired particles. Ask any experimenter which source they would prefer to have.
Regarding the fit to real world experiments: do you think that changing 0.01% of the observed data makes a huge difference to the results of *your* analysis of the data? If your model produces results which mimic closely real world data, then that remains the fact after 0.01 percent of events in the data are altered.

Your experiment generates data with the numbers of events on each side equal to one another to within 0.01 percent. I don't believe real world experiments often got such a perfection. However I am not complaining about this un-realistic aspect of your simulation model and I am not using a pairing of events simply by sequence number to analyse the data - I analyse the data using your algorithms which you took from Jan-Ake which he took to imitate standard laboratory practice.

[gill1109]

Let me remind you of the Larsson-Gill result: it is only possible to get CHSH approx equal to 2 sqrt 2 with a simulation like yours, with a coincidence rate below 87.87%.

In other words: it is not possible to get the coincidence rate to above 87.87%, *and* CHSH = 2.828

Both numbers refering to the limit as the experiment gets indefinitely large. There can obviously be chance fluctuations in both numbers in a finite experiment - you know the 1 over square root of N law, of course.

Your own simulation results confirm our predictions.

[minkwe]

Correlations are obtained on subsets of Λ, namely on

ΛAC′ , ΛAD′ , ΛBC′ , or ΛBD′ . (iv)

Then

E(AC′|ΛAC′ ) + E(AD′|ΛAD′ ) + E(BC′|ΛBC′ ) − E(BD′|ΛBD′ ) ≤ 4 − 2δ. (11)

Proof. The proof consists of two steps; the first part is similar to the proof of Theorem 1,
using the intersection ΛI = ΛAC′ ∩ ΛAD′ ∩ ΛBC′ ∩ ΛBD′ , (12)

on which coincidences occur for all relevant settings. This ensemble may be empty, but only
when δ = 0 and then the inequality is trivial, so δ > 0 can be assumed in the rest of the proof.

E(AC′|ΛI) + E(AD′|ΛI) +E(BC′|ΛI) − E(BD′|ΛI) ≤ 2. (13)

Now it is easy to see that the set is empty: None of the particle pairs in any of the 4 sets measured in any EPR-experiments ever performed or performable in the future is a member of any of the other sets. The sets used for calculating each of the terms is disjoint from all the others, therefore ΛI is a null set. Do you deny this?

No response.

[minkwe]

I would suggest that you make the same assumption that all particles are paired in any real experiment of your choice, including the recent Giustina experiment which claims to have "closed the coincidence loophole". I suggest you use the same data analysis procedure and assumptions you just introduced, and post the results here. It will be revealing.

No response.

[gill1109]

Correlations are obtained on subsets of Λ, namely on

ΛAC′ , ΛAD′ , ΛBC′ , or ΛBD′ . (iv)

Then

E(AC′|ΛAC′ ) + E(AD′|ΛAD′ ) + E(BC′|ΛBC′ ) − E(BD′|ΛBD′ ) ≤ 4 − 2δ. (11)

Proof. The proof consists of two steps; the first part is similar to the proof of Theorem 1,
using the intersection ΛI = ΛAC′ ∩ ΛAD′ ∩ ΛBC′ ∩ ΛBD′ , (12)

on which coincidences occur for all relevant settings. This ensemble may be empty, but only
when δ = 0 and then the inequality is trivial, so δ > 0 can be assumed in the rest of the proof.

E(AC′|ΛI) + E(AD′|ΛI) +E(BC′|ΛI) − E(BD′|ΛI) ≤ 2. (13)

Now it is easy to see that the set is empty: None of the particle pairs in any of the 4 sets measured in any EPR-experiments ever performed or performable in the future is a member of any of the other sets. The sets used for calculating each of the terms is disjoint from all the others, therefore ΛI is a null set. Do you deny this?

No response.

My response is, yet again, that you are wrong and clearly haven't read Larsson-Gill closely enough, nor taken any notice of my explanations here. So I don't feel obliged to add anything to that.

[gill1109]

I would suggest that you make the same assumption that all particles are paired in any real experiment of your choice, including the recent Giustina experiment which claims to have "closed the coincidence loophole". I suggest you use the same data analysis procedure and assumptions you just introduced, and post the results here. It will be revealing.

No response.

My response is that I am not assuming anywhere that all particles are paired in any real experiment. Nor am I assuming they are paired in your simulations, nor in my data-analyses. I am analysing data using "your" algorithm (which is Jan-Ake's, which Jan and I discussed together long ago).

[gill1109]

Michel, I am still waiting for your response to this one (minor edits by me to make it, hopefully, clearer still):

Let me remind you of the Larsson-Gill claim: it is only possible to get CHSH approx equal to 2 sqrt 2 with a simulation like yours when the coincidence rate is below 87.87%.

For instance: it is not possible to get the coincidence rate to 90% (i.e. a bit above 87.87%) and at the same time CHSH above 2.82 (i.e. pretty close to 2 sqrt 2, or even better)

Both numbers refering to the limit as the experiment gets indefinitely large. There can obviously be chance fluctuations in both numbers in a finite experiment - you do know the 1 over square root of N law, I am sure.

Your own simulation results confirm our predictions.

Why don't you spend some time trying empirically to prove that we are wrong? Tweak your simulation so that it has coincidence rate 90% or better and, at the same time, CHSH equal to 2.8 or better (up to statistical error). Can you do it?

[minkwe]

Why don't you spend some time trying empirically to prove that we are wrong? Tweak your simulation so that it has coincidence rate 90% or better and, at the same time, CHSH equal to 2.8 or better (up to statistical error). Can you do it?

Why should I spend any time on that, when analytically, logically and mathematically, your paper is clearly wrong. Besides, my ability or inability to do anything does not change the fact that your paper is wrong. No doubt you won't answer my question:

In EPR test experiments, do you deny the fact that the sets of particles used to measure each correlation are disjoint?????
By what magic of mathematics or logic, do you claim that an intersection of 4 disjoint sets is not a null set?????

These are the two simple questions, whose simple answers are devastating to your paper. By the way you have no answers to the following ones either:

<a1b1> + <a2b2′> + <a3′b3′> − <a4′b4> Each paired-product term, has an upper bound of 1 and a lower bound of -1. Which clearly means the upper bound is 4. By what magic of mathematics or logic, do you claim that 4 disjoint sets of particles impose restrictions on each other such that the upper bound is less than 4????

[gill1109]

Why don't you spend some time trying empirically to prove that we are wrong? Tweak your simulation so that it has coincidence rate 90% or better and, at the same time, CHSH equal to 2.8 or better (up to statistical error). Can you do it?

Why should I spend any time on that, when analytically, logically and mathematically, your paper is clearly wrong. Besides, my ability or inability to do anything does not change the fact that your paper is wrong. No doubt you won't answer my question:

In EPR test experiments, do you deny the fact that the sets of particles used to measure each correlation are disjoint?????
By what magic of mathematics or logic, do you claim that an intersection of 4 disjoint sets is not a null set?????

These are the two simple questions, whose simple answers are devastating to your paper. By the way you have no answers to the following ones either:

<a1b1> + <a2b2′> + <a3′b3′> − <a4′b4> Each paired-product term, has an upper bound of 1 and a lower bound of -1. Which clearly means the upper bound is 4. By what magic of mathematics or logic, do you claim that 4 disjoint sets of particles impose restrictions on each other such that the upper bound is less than 4????

Question 0 "Why should I spend any time on that, when analytically, logically and mathematically, your paper is clearly wrong".

Answer: I don't mind what you do with your time. But I will mention that your prior assumption here is false. Maybe if you might admit to yourself that maybe there are some things which you don't quite understand yet, you might be able to learn some useful new stuff. On the other hand, if you are always certain you're right, you'll not learn much new, ever.


Question 1 a "Do I deny the fact that...":

Answer: No.


Question 1 b: "By what magic, do you claim that an intersection of 4 disjoint sets is not a null set?"

Answer: I do not claim what you say that I claim.


Question 2: "By what magic...":

Answer: Here I did use what apparently appears to you to be magic. ("Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", Arthur C. Clarke). Actually, I assumed random sampling of the settings, and I used probability theory, which is part of modern mathematics. Moreover, I only made probabilistic assertions (my assertions involved probabilities and error quantities).

PS. I am beginning to get a bit worried that you maybe never learnt any probability theory, am I right? (There are lots of things I never learnt about, either!). For instance, do you know the Chernoff bound? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernoff_bound?

See also http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~sinclair/cs271/n13.pdf, Lecture notes CS271 Randomness & Computation Fall 2011, Lecture 13: October 6, by Alistair Sinclair.

[gill1109]

Dear Michel

Can you tweak your simulation so that it has coincidence rate 90% or better and, at the same time, CHSH equal to 2.8 or better? (both statements: up to statistical error. Obviously in a small simulation you might just happen to be lucky. What happens in really big simulations?).

Richard

PS ... and a similar question regarding your earlier simulation model.

[minkwe]

Obviously in a small simulation you might just happen to be lucky.

I suppose you want a simulation as big as the one you yourself are using in your arguments to discredit my simulation? Run for 1 second with ~20000 particle pairs?

Code: Select all

No. of detected particles, non-zero outcomes only
   Alice:           26848
     Bob:           26848
   CHSH: <= 2.0, Sim: 3.228, QM: 2.828
   Coincidence Efficiency:  91.2 %


Your theory says that is impossible, 1 counter-example is enough. You do know the meaning of "UPPER BOUND" don't you. It means it is impossible to violate it even in one case. Luck has nothing to do with it and your paper is clearly wrong. Your ad-hominem attacks won't change that fact.

EDIT: Oh I know what you will say next, that it doesn't match QM. Moving the goal-post yet again.

[gill1109]

Obviously in a small simulation you might just happen to be lucky.

I suppose you want a simulation as big as the one you yourself are using in your arguments to discredit my simulation? Run for 1 second with ~20000 particle pairs?

Code: Select all

No. of detected particles, non-zero outcomes only
   Alice:           26848
     Bob:           26848
   CHSH: <= 2.0, Sim: 3.228, QM: 2.828
   Coincidence Efficiency:  91.2 %


Your theory says that is impossible, 1 counter-example is enough. You do know the meaning of "UPPER BOUND" don't you. It means it is impossible to violate it even in one case. Luck has nothing to do with it and your paper is clearly wrong. Your ad-hominem attacks won't change that fact.

EDIT: Oh I know what you will say next, that it doesn't match QM. Moving the goal-post yet again.

Splendid! Please tell me exactly the sequence of commands which you gave so that I can reproduce this myself. "Now we have a contradiction, now we can make some progress".

By the way, *one* simulation is not enough, you *might* just have been lucky!

[minkwe]

Answer: ... Actually, I assumed random sampling of the settings, and I used probability theory, which is part of modern mathematics. Moreover, I only made probabilistic assertions (my assertions involved probabilities and error quantities).

May the record show that Richard Gill has claimed that by randomly sampling "settings", it is possible to cause 4 disjoint sets of "hidden variables" to have a non-null intersection.

You didn't truly expect me not to catch the slight of hand, substituting "settings" where your sets are dealing with "hidden variables" did you? You are right, I did not learn this brand of "Probability theory".

BTW, I have given you more than enough already, I'll follow the advice of some very wise men, and write a paper about this instead, then you will find out how I did it in the paper.

[gill1109]

Answer: ... Actually, I assumed random sampling of the settings, and I used probability theory, which is part of modern mathematics. Moreover, I only made probabilistic assertions (my assertions involved probabilities and error quantities).

May the record show that Richard Gill has claimed that by randomly sampling "settings", it is possible to cause 4 disjoint sets of "hidden variables" to have a non-null intersection.

You didn't truly expect me not to catch the slight of hand, substituting "settings" where your sets are dealing with "hidden variables" did you? You are right, I did not learn this brand of "Probability theory".

Sorry Michel, you repeatedly do not read what I write.

I did not say that the four disjoint sets thereby had a non-empty intersection.

And why do you say "sleight of hand" when I refer to random selection of settings?

You are assuming that I am a cheat (you may believe it, but you must behave as though you trust my good intentions). I will report this breach of the rules of the forum, immediately.

[gill1109]

BTW, I have given you more than enough already, I'll follow the advice of some very wise men, and write a paper about this instead, then you will find out how I did it in the paper.

Now that's a very good idea.

But please, before you do that, tell me exactly the sequence of commands which you gave to generate the numbers you just showed us, so that I can reproduce them myself. If you're right, Jan-Ake and I will have to withdraw our paper. But I suspect a misunderstanding.

"Now we have a contradiction, now we can make some progress".

I would say that this is a win-win situation.