jreed wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Upon advice from counsel, I've decided to release the Mathematica code for the Complete States Selection section. Apparently you can't sufficiently protect an idea that involves the laws of nature. So here it is,
EPRsims/QMlocal_CS_no0s3D.pdfAt least you saw the idea from the code here first.
This version has the A and B measurement functions simplified as in the previous post.
.
Here's what I found when I checked your Complete States Selection code:
This is what's in your notebook (slightly rearranged for display):
λ4=(2/√(1+3 (RandomReal[{0,π},samples])⁄π)-1);
and here's Pearle's equation for the detection loophole from his paper, according to Gill:
λ3=(2/√(1+3RandomReal[{0,1},samples])-1);
As you can see these are identical except for the factor of pi that is the limit of the random selection in your algorithm, and a division to make the random selection equal to a limit of 1. You have rediscovered Pearle's result for the detection loophole.
They didn't rediscover it. I told it to them. They adopted it. I can prove it, if you like! Of course, they are clever enough to correct Pearle's mistakes themselves, but I was the first ever to document those mistakes. I discussed it with Pearle himself.
Look: I *gave* my mathematical corrections of Pearle's formulas to Joy and his friends, and I gave the first-ever computer implementation of the corrected Pearl's model, coded by me, to Joy and his friends, including those friends of his who knew how to program a computer. It was a present from me. I wanted them to have it and to use it. But I cannot accept anyone claiming that they discovered it before me. Maybe Joy didn't know that his computing friends had got it from me. I could understand that. I would like to hear some confirmation from Joy and his friends, or alternatively, I would like to hear an alternative scenario, together with supporting copies of emails etc, etc.
Honestly, I am not going to speak at a conference together with Joy while this little "plagiarism" matter is between us! At least, I cannot speak at a conference together with Joy, without raising the matter in public.
Of course, you can say that "Pearle's model" is just a version of Michel Fodjes, or Caroline Thompson's or whatever. Yes, the basic principles (rejection!) are the same. They all result in close approximations to the cosine curve. In an experiment you wouldn't know the difference. But Pearle's model is crafted so as to give *exactly* the cosine. The others do not. They were not intended to give *exactly* the cosine. And Pearle was *before* the others. The others did not know it. Actually, Caroline did - the point of her model is that there was a physical story behind it, of spinning balls, which showed that there were simple physical mechanisms which could do this, in reality.