IEEE has also Accepted my Refutation of Bell's Theorem

[FrediFizzx]

Here is a link to about when Michel created epr-simple.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.phy ... XDA-aei3sJ
.

From that discussion it looks like it was Heine that first mentioned the Gisin and Gisin and Pearle models.
.

[FrediFizzx]

***
I disagree with the claims made above by Richard Gill. What he has written is a gross misrepresentation of what actually led to Michel's original "EPR simple" simulation. I have not belittled Richard Gill's contribution. It has been acknowledged in my IEEE paper. But I am not going to give more credit to anyone than what they actually deserve. I am not running a credit charity.

***

He keeps saying he has proof. So where is the proof?
.

[FrediFizzx]

…
I would love to know where Michel got his ideas from. …

Write Michel's function in your reply to this and tell us what it looks like. It is no big secret.
.

[gill1109]

…
I would love to know where Michel got his ideas from. …

Write Michel's function in your reply to this and tell us what it looks like. It is no big secret.
.

Please take a look at https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.00106. Michel's model can be found on page 10 of the pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1507.00106.pdf (between a graph and some R code). This is what I found:

The detection loophole model used here is very simple. There is a hidden variable E uniformly distributed in [0,2π]. Independently thereof, there is a second hidden variable P taking values in [0, 1/2]. Its distribution is determined by the relation P = sin^2((π/2)U)/2 where U is uniform on [0, 1]. Alice and Bob’s measurement outcomes are sign cos(E −α) and sign cos(E −β +π) respectively, if each of their particles is detected. Alice’s particle is detected if and only if abs(cos(E − α)) > P and Bob’s if and only if abs(cos(E − β)) > P.

Pearle (1970) characterized mathematically the set of all probability distributions of P which would give us the singlet correlations exactly (and for measurement directions in space, not just in the plane). He also picks out one particularly simple model in the class. His special choice has P = (2/√V ) − 1 ∈ [0, 1] where V is uniform on [1, 4].

Actually you will not find that formula in Pearle's paper. You will find some formulas which are wrong. I went through Pearle's paper, which I already knew, located the errors and corrected them, programmed them, and checked and double checked the new derivation. Florin Moldoveanu helped me. I programmed the stuff in R, and posted on R pubs, and discussed it with my friends on those internet fora. Three or four months later Joy suddenly had a new paper with my formulas in it and also Rpubs documents, where anyone can see that my very own code had been copied and pasted. I doubt that Joy did that, since he doesn't do computer programming. I suppose he had some help from someone who did understand programming and was able to understand my programs and make minor changes.

[gill1109]

Here is a link to about when Michel created epr-simple.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.phy ... XDA-aei3sJ
.

From that discussion it looks like it was Heine that first mentioned the Gisin and Gisin and Pearle models.
.

So what?

You mean: he first mentioned them in that particular group of folk. Some of us already knew about them a long time. Accardi knew about them, Caroline Thompson knew about them. I knew all about all of their work. I corresponded intensively with both Accardi and with Thompson. I worked with Nicolas Gisin. Talked intensively many times with Luigi. Read all their papers.

My first arXiv paper on quantum stuff is from 2001. It is about my quarrel with Luigi Accardi which was about the detection loophole. I knew all the old literature on that issue long before 2001.

[Joy Christian]

I disagree with the claims made above by Richard Gill. What he has written is a gross misrepresentation of what actually led to Michel's original "EPR simple" simulation. I have not belittled Richard Gill's contribution. It has been acknowledged in my IEEE paper. But I am not going to give more credit to anyone than what they actually deserve. I am not running a credit charity.

He keeps saying he has proof. So where is the proof?

Indeed. Richard Gill has no proof. It is all bluff and fantasy. There is no substance to any of his claims.

***

[Heinera]

Here is a link to about when Michel created epr-simple.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.phy ... XDA-aei3sJ
.

From that discussion it looks like it was Heine that first mentioned the Gisin and Gisin and Pearle models.
.

I have been looking for that thread. A bit earlier in the thread, we see the first interaction between Michael Fodje and Joy Christian:

On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 4:10:02 AM UTC, mich...@gmail.com wrote:
> I have posted an event-by-event simulation of EPR which reproduces the QM results at https://github.com/minkwe/epr-simple/ (comments welcome)
>
>
>
> It appears it should be possible to do the same for Joy's model. As a first step, I have ported the code written by Chantal Roth to python https://github.com/minkwe/jcspython/ but I need to understand a little what is going on:
>
>
>


Hi Michel,

> Specifically, can I use the Ca1,Ca2,Cb1,Cb2 functions to
> generate the +1/-1 results at each station? If so, how?

No, that won't work. Ca1, Ca2, Cb1, and Cb2 do not have enough
information within them to generate the strong correlation.

I looked at your program, but I do not yet understand how you
are able to produce the strong correlation. My hunch is that
your program involves either exploiting some sort of detector
loophole or non-locality. I will ask Chantal to have a look.

Best,

Joy

Oh, the irony!

We also see that Joy was not involved in the creation of epr-simple at all. It was already on github when Joy was first made aware of it.

[Joy Christian]

We also see that Joy was not involved in the creation of epr-simple at all. It was already on github when Joy was first made aware of it.

Wrong! That thread is not when Michel first entered the discussion in that forum about my model. There are other threads in that forum and in one of them Michel joined the discussion. He had not produced his simulation at that time. In fact, he was still unsure about what it was that Chantal and I were trying to simulate. After all, EPR-simple is Michel's hobby not his day job.

***

[Heinera]

We also see that Joy was not involved in the creation of epr-simple at all. It was already on github when Joy was first made aware of it.

Wrong! That thread is not when Michel first entered the discussion in that forum about my model. There are other threads in that forum and in one of them Michel joined the discussion.
***

Nope.

[Joy Christian]

We also see that Joy was not involved in the creation of epr-simple at all. It was already on github when Joy was first made aware of it.

Wrong! That thread is not when Michel first entered the discussion in that forum about my model. There are other threads in that forum and in one of them Michel joined the discussion.

Nope.

I don't care what you claim or belive. You have zero credibility in my books. I will let Fred and/or Michel confirm or deny what I know to be true. Michel did not come from nowhere and produced his EPR simple simulation. Apart from various online discussions, I was also in touch with Michel via email and we discussed the simulation Chantal and I were working on.

***

[Heinera]

I don't care what you claim or belive. You have zero credibility in my books.

I don't see how my credibility has anything to do with this, since I simply quoted a usenet post of yours that clearly shows how your credibility goes up in smoke. We can all read, you know.

[Joy Christian]

I don't care what you claim or belive. You have zero credibility in my books.

I don't see how my credibility has anything to do with this, since I simply quoted a post of yours that clearly shows how your credibility goes up in smoke. We can all read, you know.

Your credibility has everything to do with it. Credibility is built or destroyed over years of online behavior, on this forum and elsewhere. I do not trust anything you say or do. Period.

***

[FrediFizzx]

OK guys, this is getting way too personal. Let's get back more on topic.
.

[FrediFizzx]

…
I would love to know where Michel got his ideas from. …

Write Michel's function in your reply to this and tell us what it looks like. It is no big secret.
.

Please take a look at https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.00106. Michel's model can be found on page 10 of the pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1507.00106.pdf (between a graph and some R code). This is what I found:

Here is Michel's function from his GitHub page readme. We don't care about what you wrote at this point.

p = ½ sin²t, t ∈ [0..π/2)

Now, what does that look like to you? Or anybody? BTW, cosine works just as good as sine does. That is a hint.
.

[gill1109]

…
I would love to know where Michel got his ideas from. …

Write Michel's function in your reply to this and tell us what it looks like. It is no big secret.
.

Please take a look at https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.00106. Michel's model can be found on page 10 of the pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1507.00106.pdf (between a graph and some R code). This is what I found:

Here is Michel's function from his GitHub page readme. We don't care about what you wrote at this point.

p = ½ sin²t, t ∈ [0..π/2)

Now, what does that look like to you? Or anybody? BTW, cosine works just as good as sine does. That is a hint.
.

Yes Fred. It looks to me like what I wrote! You asked me a question and I gave you an answer. Now you say that you don't care what my answer would have been, anyway. I'm losing the thread of this discussion.

[FrediFizzx]

Here is Michel's function from his GitHub page readme. We don't care about what you wrote at this point.

p = ½ sin²t, t ∈ [0..π/2)

Now, what does that look like to you? Or anybody? BTW, cosine works just as good as sine does. That is a hint.
.

Yes Fred. It looks to me like what I wrote! You asked me a question and I gave you an answer. Now you say that you don't care what my answer would have been, anyway. I'm losing the thread of this discussion.

Gads, the usually subterfuge! You were wondering where Michel got his formula from. There was no answer to that in your papers. So what does that formula look like to you?
.

[gill1109]

Here is Michel's function from his GitHub page readme. We don't care about what you wrote at this point.

p = ½ sin²t, t ∈ [0..π/2)

Now, what does that look like to you? Or anybody? BTW, cosine works just as good as sine does. That is a hint.
.

Yes Fred. It looks to me like what I wrote! You asked me a question and I gave you an answer. Now you say that you don't care what my answer would have been, anyway. I'm losing the thread of this discussion.

Gads, the usually subterfuge! You were wondering where Michel got his formula from. There was no answer to that in your papers. So what does that formula look like to you?
.

That formula looks to me like p = ½ sin²t, t ∈ [0..π/2). Of course you can rewrite it in terms of a cosine of twice the angle, using the familiar identity cos 2t = 1 - 2 sin²t.

Are you trying to tell us that Michel got the formula cos 2t = 1 - 2 sin²t from Joy? I got it drummed into my head at high school. So I don't think that can quite be the point. Moreover, I think Michel is the one who can tell us, if he wants to, how or where he found his model.

As I've said, *very similar models* had been around for years and years, and lots of people (including myself) knew them; and some of those people used such models to make simulation programs (Accardi; de Raedt; Gisin and Gisin, ... ). Some of those programs were better than Michel's, because they reproduced the cosine we were after, exactly.

When I showed Joy my results on Pearl's model, he was delighted, because he had actually forgotten all about it. He'd seen it years ago, because Philip Pearl and Joy's supervisor Abner Shimony were buddies, but as you know, Joy earlier worked on quite different things. The Bell stuff was not Joy's main interest.

So, you're saying that Joy's model is actually an imperfect reproduction of Pearl's, which Joy thought was his own, but Joy had actually forgotten some of the details, and therefore unfortunately given Michel the wrong formulas to program. But, fortunately, I pointed out to Joy that his memory had let him down, thereby enabling Joy and Michel to get it perfect.

Yes, I am very happy to be acknowledged for that contribution.

Please make up your mind.

[gill1109]

Dear friends

In preparation for the debate at the symposium, I posted a summary criticism of the IEEE Access paper on PubPeer, https://pubpeer.com/publications/A60DFDEE69A368611FCDCD3184125D, shamelessly stealing Heinera's nice argument (imitation is the sincerest form of flattery), and also borrowing a wonderful quote from Einstein which another friend recently placed on the other forum https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/bell_quantum_foundations.

I don't plan to follow subsequent discussions, and maybe nothing new will be said, and maybe nothing will be said at all. Joy has his refutations of my arguments all ready. Others may like to bring in yet more heavy artillery. I did try my utmost best to be civil, appreciative, and factual.

[FrediFizzx]

That formula looks to me like p = ½ sin²t, t ∈ [0..π/2). Of course you can rewrite it in terms of a cosine of twice the angle, using the familiar identity cos 2t = 1 - 2 sin²t. …

Egads! More crazy subterfuge snipped out. Now..., what does this look like to you?



It is just the quantum probability for ++ or --. His distribution function is simply that formula varied from 0 to pi/2! No big mystery there.
.

[FrediFizzx]

Dear friends

In preparation for the debate at the symposium, I posted a summary criticism of the IEEE Access paper on PubPeer, https://pubpeer.com/publications/A60DFDEE69A368611FCDCD3184125D, shamelessly stealing Heinera's nice argument (imitation is the sincerest form of flattery), and also borrowing a wonderful quote from Einstein which another friend recently placed on the other forum https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/bell_quantum_foundations.

I don't plan to follow subsequent discussions, and maybe nothing new will be said, and maybe nothing will be said at all. Joy has his refutations of my arguments all ready. Others may like to bring in yet more heavy artillery. I did try my utmost best to be civil, appreciative, and factual.

Oh good, more advertising of the local-realistic model for free!
.