FrediFizzx wrote:There needs to be four computer stations; add one for data analysis.
.
Heinera wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:There needs to be four computer stations; add one for data analysis.
.
No, the data analysis is this:
[(Number of same results) - (Number of different results)]/(Total results for the combination)
You don't need an extra computer for that, do you?
FrediFizzx wrote:There needs to be four computer stations; add one for data analysis. This has already been done here.
EPRsims/Joy_local_CS_no0s3Ds0.pdf
CHSH result = 2.79567
Bam! Bell's junk physics theory is disproven.
Heinera wrote:I think we have somehow lost sight of the operational definition of Bell's theorem in the latest threads. Even those of you who think that the proof of Bell's theorem is wrong can't rule out the possibility that his conclusion is correct, can you? I mean, I could come up with a horribly wrong proof of Fermat's last theorem, but in some sense I would still have gotten to the right conclusion, wouldn't I? (since we now have Andrew Wiles' correct proof).
So, the only way to prove Bell wrong is to come up with a counterexample. Here is how that must work:
We have three computers, called SOURCE, ALICE, and BOB. There are two communication channels, one from SOURCE to ALICE, and one from SOURCE to BOB. The channels are one way, i.e, you can only send data from SOURCE to ALICE, not the other way. The same goes for SOURCE to BOB.
At fixed intervals, the computer SOURCE should send a data package to ALICE and BOB. The data package can be anything. Upon reception, the computer ALICE will also receive one of two setting a=0 or a'=45 from the outside, that is, exogenously given. The computer ALICE should then produce an output of either +1 or -1. The same goes for BOB, with exogenously received settings either b=22.5 or b'=67.5.
We do this 10 000 times. Collect the results for ALICE and BOB. Match the 10 000 pairs for ALICE and BOB. Compute the following for each of the four combinations (a,b), (a,b'), (a',b), (a',b'):
[(Number of same results) - (Number of different results)]/(Total results for the combination)
We now have four correlations. If the exogenously given settings are generated at random (in any sensible sense of the word "random", e.g. by an RNG), Bell's theorem (or rather the CHSH theorem) says that at least one of them will be way off from what QM predicts (at least 0.2 off).
For anyone who wants to refute Bell's theorem, there is only one way forward: write computer programs that adhere to the above specifications and at the same time reproduce the four QM predictions for the correlations, within sensible error margins.
minkwe wrote:You are obviously behind the times on this. Have you been asleep all this while? What you describe has no resemblance to an actual EPR experiment and thus completely irrelevant to QM.
minkwe wrote:Why don't you first present step by step the detailed QM prediction for your described simulation. In other words, I challenge your claimed QM prediction for your described simulation.
minkwe wrote:Secondly, please describe how Alice and Bob will be able to correlate anything without additional information . How should they know which value from Bob corresponds to which value from Alice.
gill1109 wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:There needs to be four computer stations; add one for data analysis. This has already been done here.
EPRsims/Joy_local_CS_no0s3Ds0.pdf
CHSH result = 2.79567
Bam! Bell's junk physics theory is disproven.
Michel did not do what Heinera asked for. Nor did John Reed. Nor did you, Fred. Nor did anybody at all, ever, yet.
I wish you would try.
Nobody can change physics. That's not the question. The question is what can you do with a network of classical computers communicating classically according to a particular quite rigorous protocol. Can you imitate with classical computers and classical internet connections what they did in real life, adhering to that particular protocol, but with what they claimed were quantum sources, detectors and channels, in Delft, Boulder, Vienna, Munich...? Nobody has tried yet, as far as I know. …
FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:There needs to be four computer stations; add one for data analysis. This has already been done here.
EPRsims/Joy_local_CS_no0s3Ds0.pdf
CHSH result = 2.79567
Bam! Bell's junk physics theory is disproven.
Michel did not do what Heinera asked for. Nor did John Reed. Nor did you, Fred. Nor did anybody at all, ever, yet.
I wish you would try.
Nobody can change physics. That's not the question. The question is what can you do with a network of classical computers communicating classically according to a particular quite rigorous protocol. Can you imitate with classical computers and classical internet connections what they did in real life, adhering to that particular protocol, but with what they described [first I wrote "claimed", but there was no *claim* at all - RDG] as quantum sources, detectors and channels, in Delft, Boulder, Vienna, Munich...? Nobody has tried yet, as far as I know. …
Sorry to bust your bubble but the simulation I posted at the link above is how Nature works and is how QM can predict the individual +/-1 outcomes for A and B. Nature does not have to follow a "particular rigorous protocol" made up by you, Heine or anyone else.
.
minkwe wrote:You are obviously behind the times on this. Have you been asleep all this while? What you describe has no resemblance to an actual EPR experiment and thus completely irrelevant to QM.
Heinera wrote:Who said it should resemble "actual EPR experiments"? Bell's theorem compares LHV theories to QM theory. No actual experiments needed.
Heinera wrote:We now have four correlations. If the exogenously given settings are generated at random (in any sensible sense of the word "random", e.g. by an RNG), Bell's theorem (or rather the CHSH theorem) says that at least one of them will be way off from what QM predicts (at least 0.2 off).
You may challenge the predictions of QM all you want.
Heinera wrote:The two computers ALICE and BOB shouldn't correlate anything. That is a task left to us analyzing the results. Since the 10 000 results will be in sequence for both ALICE and BOB, the correspondence is trivial.
What you are trying to do is bring up the good old loophole discussion again. But that is irrelevant, because no one is arguing that the loopholes don't exist. This computer setup is deliberately specified in a way that rules out any possibilities for introducing loopholes.
Every few hundred milliseconds, the recorded events are transferred to the PC. During the experiment, about 2 megabyte of data is generated every second. To keep the size of the generated data-set manageable, blocks of about 100000 events are saved to the hard drive only if an entanglement heralding event (E) is present in that block.
gill1109 wrote: … Nature has no choice but to submit to the protocol. …
minkwe wrote:QM said it should. What do you think QM is all about if not actual experiments? So show us the detailed calculations for the QM prediction for the simulation.
minkwe wrote:[rest is snipped]
Heinera wrote:Let me ask you a very simple yes/no question: Do you think it is possible to program three computers the way I specified, that give four correlations ?
minkwe wrote:Here is a quote from the "loophole-free" Delft paper:Every few hundred milliseconds, the recorded events are transferred to the PC. During the experiment, about 2 megabyte of data is generated every second. To keep the size of the generated data-set manageable, blocks of about 100000 events are saved to the hard drive only if an entanglement heralding event (E) is present in that block.
They are already "heralding" (aka selecting) blocks but even the selected blocks contain 100000 events and yet at the end their correlations were calculated 245 events! Yet as soon as anyone mentions data matching, the cheerleaders of the Delft paper are quick to pounce with "loophole" claims.
So again, the point is that you have to compare like to like. You guys have a tendency of comparing apples and oranges. Your inability to see the difference between them does not obviate the requirement to always compare comparable correlations. When will you guys learn this?
gill1109 wrote:The selection of events is done independently of the selection of settings and independently of the measurement outcomes at the measurement stations. Michel, you need to read those papers better.
Heinera wrote:QM is a theory. Corroborated by lots and lots of experiments. But the experiments are not the theory.
The QM predictions for the correlations are Since I'm not your physics teacher, I wont't post the detailed calculations.
A simple Google search turned up dozens of excellent expositions - try that instead.
Let me ask you a very simple yes/no question: Do you think it is possible to program three computers the way I specified, that give four correlations ?
minkwe wrote:Provided you are not assuming the matching is not required, the answer is Yes.
Heinera wrote:minkwe wrote:Provided you are not assuming the matching is not required, the answer is Yes.
There is no matching issue in this simulation. The matching is trivial. Any matching issue would be a well known loophole.
I thought you claimed that loopholes had nothing to do with things, and that the problem with Bell's theorem was it's neglect of the fact that each particle can only be measured once, with one setting only? Which is how it is measured in this simulation.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 234 guests