Is the Quantum Randi Challenge (QRC) valid?

[Mikko]

And... My long awaited answer to the question that I first posed when I started this thread is that the QRC is not a valid Bell hidden variable model tester for all cases of possible hidden variable models. The reason why is that it basically excludes a certain class of hidden variable model since the angles for a and b are both zero for about 25 percent of the time. IOW, for approximately 200 out of 800 trials. The reason why the angles were chosen of 0 for a, 3pi/8 for a', 0 for b, and pi/4 for b' was to be able to do the anti-correlation in the same test. This proves to be the part that flaws the QRC.

These angles and their probability distribution are experimentally testable, so this cannot be really called a flaw, although it can be regarded as an inefficiency in some sense. Any statistical inefficiency can be removed simply by sufficient large samples. Another problem is that if a theory could pass at these angles then it would be accepted, no matter how badly it might work at other angles. But it still would be interesting, at least mathematically.

[gill1109]

The experimenter may measure at any angles, chosen according to any scheme they like, and without telling anyone in advance what they are going to do. Alice is allowed to repeatedly pick either 0 or 67.5 degrees. Bob is allowed to repeatedly pick either 0 or 45 degrees. This scheme has a nice property that all *absolute differences* theta between Alice and Bob's angles are multiples (0, 1, 2, or 3) of 22.5 degrees. The probability that the two measurement outcomes are equal should be sin^2(theta) = (1 - cos(2 theta) ) /2 = 0, (1-1/sqrt2) / 2, 1/2, (1 + 1 / sqrt 2) / 2.

Fred has noticed that Chantal Roth's original simulation, later ported to Mathematica by John Reed, fails to match QM predictions at theta = 0. It also fails QRC because it cannot be rewritten as separate programs running on separate programs. Following Joy Christian's instructions, Chantal simulated A times B, not A and B separately.

There are yet more problems with all the other simulation programs. They generate outcomes -1, 0, or 1. Runs with either outcome 0 have been discarded. No one has been able to rewrite the programs, *maintaining their local structure*, and leaving the free choice of settings to the "outside" experimentalist, but so that no runs are discarded.

It's a simple mathematical theorem that this can't be done. It's the hard-core pure-math strict-tautology part of what we call Bell's theorem. (No physics, no meta-physics. Just elementary arithmetic, probability, logic).

We may conclude that QRC passed this first test with flying colours.

[FrediFizzx]

These angles and their probability distribution are experimentally testable, so this cannot be really called a flaw, although it can be regarded as an inefficiency in some sense. Any statistical inefficiency can be removed simply by sufficient large samples. Another problem is that if a theory could pass at these angles then it would be accepted, no matter how badly it might work at other angles. But it still would be interesting, at least mathematically.

It's a flaw when a complete class of HV models don't work properly for 25 percent of the time no matter how large the sample is. The class of HV models I am talking about work fine when you use Weihs, et al, angles. IOW, the QRC is rigged against the very HV models that could beat it.

Anyways, I am locking this thread. Start a new thread if you wish to discuss this further.

The QRC is part of the "junk" science it is supposed to be protecting us from.
...