Some observations/questions about the Delft Experiment

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

Re: Some observations/questions about the Delft Experiment

Postby Heinera » Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:00 am

Joy Christian wrote:If ture, then that would certainly qualify to be called "fraud."

***


Why on earth should we expect that they needed to resort to fraud to produce these results? The cosine correlations should be observed even in a macroscopic experiment, where post-selection, matching and non-detections are of course not an issue. So why should we suspect foul play in the Delft experiment?

See: https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784, published in Int J Theor Phys.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Some observations/questions about the Delft Experiment

Postby local » Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:04 am

gill1109 wrote: This is harmless postselection.

Prove it! You can't, because you admit that the raw data has been destroyed by the authors. And now you ask us to trust them. I don't trust them. Their behaviour has been despicable. They have forfeited any good faith.

You've reached peak Monty Python when your only argument is "trust me".

Heinera wrote: Why on earth should we expect that they needed to resort to fraud to produce these results?

JC did not claim that they needed to, only that the available evidence suggested that they may have done so.
local
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: Some observations/questions about the Delft Experiment

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:14 am

Heinera wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:If ture, then that would certainly qualify to be called "fraud."

***


Why on earth should we expect that they needed to resort to fraud to produce these results? The cosine correlations should be observed even in a macroscopic experiment, where post-selection, matching and non-detections are of course not an issue. So why should we suspect foul play in the Delft experiment?

See: https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784, published in Int J Theor Phys.

Richard D. Gill has already answered your question elsewhere in this forum:

gill1109 wrote:
Experimentally they are clever, their engineering is good and novel. They need to raise money to pay for their expensive experiments with many research assistants and PhD students, and they need to gain prestige within the academic world, so they write the kind of nonsense in Science or Nature which especially appeals to science journalists and the public. Academic publication is based on in-crowds and cliques promoting the work of their friends so as to promote their own work, keeping the science funding flowing and the scientific prestige and hence power and hence funding...

***
Last edited by Joy Christian on Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Some observations/questions about the Delft Experiment

Postby Heinera » Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:14 am

local wrote:
Heinera wrote: Why on earth should we expect that they needed to resort to fraud to produce these results?

JC did not claim that they needed to, only that the available evidence suggested that they may have done so.


Why would someone resort to fraud if they didn't need to? And what available evidence?
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Some observations/questions about the Delft Experiment

Postby local » Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:19 am

Heinera wrote: Why would someone resort to fraud if they didn't need to?

We don't know if they needed to or not, and that is in any case irrelevant. As I have hypothesized, they needed to because their raw data did not support nonlocality.

And what available evidence?

I remind you of all the reported anomalies in the data that are consistent with harmful postselection and the fact that the authors destroyed the raw data.
local
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: Some observations/questions about the Delft Experiment

Postby gill1109 » Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:32 am

local wrote:
Heinera wrote: Why would someone resort to fraud if they didn't need to?

We don't know if they needed to or not, and that is in any case irrelevant. As I have hypothesized, they needed to because their raw data did not support nonlocality.

And what available evidence?

I remind you of all the reported anomalies in the data that are consistent with harmful postselection and the fact that the authors destroyed the raw data.

The reported mild anomalies in the data are all consistent with *no* harmful postselection. The data set is too small to draw many serious conclusions at all. Remember that the martingale tests used in all the famous experiments mean that it is not harmful if experimental parameters drift and jump during the course of the experiment. One can also take account of a more than realistic deviation from complete randomness in the settings. Recall that the experiments have been repeated using all kinds of different mechanisms for generating the random measurement settings, without any change in the results.

Actually, the data sets are large enough to strongly support quantum mechanics in the strong sense that ideal spin measurements on two-qubit systems explain the reduced data (reduced to the multinomial counts) very well indeed, much better than local realism. See https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.06863.pdf

The authors did not "destroy the raw data". They did not keep utterly irrelevant raw data for very good reasons. It merely would have added expensive overhead to an already expensive and difficult experiment. The idea that they deliberately destroyed the irrelevant data because it would have proved their experimental findings incorrect is insulting, and quite beyond ludicrous.

Anyone who is concerned about defects of this experiment should raise the money in order to fund a bigger experiment (ten times larger, would be nice, if they can keep other things more or less constant) and also to pay for the storage and distribution of a whole lot more utterly irrelevant data. In order to raise the money, those who are concerned about this should *publish* well-documented and well-argued critiques of the experiment in decent journals. They'd better study the published literature and show that they do actually understand the issues here.

There are plenty of publication outlets where it is *not* axiomatic that Bell has been proven right, by experiment. So they needn't worry that some evil establishment will suppress them

Don't just rage on about conspiratorial researchers on semi-private internet fora. Show us your evidence.
Last edited by FrediFizzx on Sat Oct 26, 2019 12:25 pm, edited 6 times in total.
Reason: Personal comments removed
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Some observations/questions about the Delft Experiment

Postby local » Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:35 am

gill1109 wrote:The data set is too small to draw any serious conclusions at all.

Because the authors destroyed most of it! Despicable anti-science.

The data we destroyed was irrelevant. Trust us! Don't ask why we went to such great expense and effort to collect irrelevant data.

Nevertheless, it's gracious of you to admit that the Delft experiment is worthless.
local
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: Some observations/questions about the Delft Experiment

Postby gill1109 » Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:54 am

local wrote:
gill1109 wrote:The data set is too small to draw any serious conclusions at all.

Because the authors destroyed most of it! Despicable anti-science.

The data we destroyed was irrelevant. Trust us! Don't ask why we went to such great expense and effort to collect irrelevant data.

Nevertheless, it's gracious of you to admit that the Delft experiment is worthless.


They didn't collect irrelevant data at great expense or effort. That's the whole point.
Last edited by FrediFizzx on Sat Oct 26, 2019 10:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Personal comment removed.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Some observations/questions about the Delft Experiment

Postby Heinera » Sat Oct 26, 2019 10:27 am

local wrote:
gill1109 wrote:The data set is too small to draw any serious conclusions at all.

Because the authors destroyed most of it! Despicable anti-science.

The data we destroyed was irrelevant. Trust us! Don't ask why we went to such great expense and effort to collect irrelevant data.

Nevertheless, it's gracious of you to admit that the Delft experiment is worthless.


They didn't collect, and then destroy, the data. They didn't collect it in the first place, because the photons that produced it could not be deemed entangled. Results from non-entangled photons have no relevance to Bell's theorem, as anyone familiar with the theorem understands.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Some observations/questions about the Delft Experiment

Postby local » Sat Oct 26, 2019 10:36 am

minkwe and others have already refuted that. There is collected data that was destroyed/discarded. Now you are quibbling about which data was destroyed. It's ridiculous.

Results from non-entangled photons have no relevance to Bell's theorem

That assumes the validity of your notion of "entanglement", source state, etc. That is called circular logic. Collect the data, analyze it, draw conclusions. There is no place for "throw out this data".

They did throw out data that was collected. Are you denying that?
local
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: Some observations/questions about the Delft Experiment

Postby gill1109 » Sat Oct 26, 2019 10:52 am

local wrote:minkwe and others have already refuted that. There is collected data that was destroyed/discarded. Now you are quibbling about which data was destroyed. It's ridiculous.

Results from non-entangled photons have no relevance to Bell's theorem

That assumes the validity of your notion of "entanglement", source state, etc. That is called circular logic. Collect the data, analyze it, draw conclusions. There is no place for "throw out this data".

The did throw out data that was collected. Are you denying that?

They did not keep hold of data that had been temporarily available but was no more needed.

You're wrong about circular logic. The protocol of the experiment and the analysis of the data makes no reference whatsoever to words like "entanglement", "source state", etc.

The experimenters study the correlations between outcomes at A and B given settings at A and B and an outcome at C.

Local realism makes clear predictions as to what those correlations could be.

In the experiment, one looks to see if those predictions are fulfilled. Answer, they were not fulfilled.

Quantum mechanics is a weaker theory, in the sense that its predictions are less restrictive.

The predictions of quantum mechanics were not violated. (Bell-CHSH did not exceed 2 sqrt 2).
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Some observations/questions about the Delft Experiment

Postby local » Sat Oct 26, 2019 10:56 am

gill1109 wrote: They did not keep hold of data that had been temporarily available but was no more needed.

No more needed because it did not support nonlocality! Why don't you allow independent researchers to decide if data is "no more needed"? I suppose they must be unreliable, right Gill?

Nevertheless, it is gracious of you to admit that data was collected and then discarded. Heinera may be shocked!

And of course the predictions of quantum mechanics were violated, because QM does not predict the anomalies reported in the data.
Last edited by local on Sat Oct 26, 2019 11:09 am, edited 6 times in total.
local
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: Some observations/questions about the Delft Experiment

Postby localyokel » Sat Oct 26, 2019 10:58 am

gill1109 wrote:
localyokel wrote:I fear my questions above have been forgotten. Can the group answer:
1. Why should we expect Alice and Bob's transmissions to Casper ever get "entangled"?
2. Is it all local to Casper at the end?
In regards to 2:
Richard says "...Casper's lab, where there are two photo-detectors. Occasionally, both of those detectors click. If so, one doesn't know which photon went which way." So I get the impression that Casper does NOT make two measurements that are separated enough from one another to be called nonlocal.

If the answer to 2 is "it is all local to Casper", then I will put my newly printed out copy of Hensen et. al. through the shredder, and seek other data to decide locality vs. nonlocality.

Answer to question 1. QM tells us this. “Entanglement” is a concept within QM. But you don’t have to believe it. The whole point of the experiment is to investigate what happens under the assumption of local realism.

Answer to question 2. Casper’s measurements are very close together in time and space. They constitute one measurement with four possible outcomes.

There are three parties. Alice and Bob have binary inputs and binary outputs, Caspar’s has zero inputs and one quaternary output.But in fact three of the four are grouped, it can also be considered as one binary output,

If you’re not going to read the paper carefully, you had better not have printed it at all in the first place.

Minkwe says it’s postselection. OK call it what you like. Postselection can be harmful. It can be harmless. This is harmless postselection.

Of course if you don’t trust the researchers, don’t bother to read their papers. If you have evidence that they are untrustworthy, publish the evidence.

If your only evidence is “I believe in local realism hence the data must be faked and/or the mathematics wrong” I suggest you just shut up. You harm your own cause by maligning these researchers merely for the purpose of gratifying your own ego. There is something on Wikipedia called “the assumption of good faith”. I think it should also be a working rule when discussing science on a forum where what is written is in public view. Anonymous slander is especially distasteful. It harms the cause of the owner of the forum.


Where's the slander? I think I understand the experiment, to a degree, now. This youtube video was very helpful:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE8MaQJkRcg
The 3 party Bell Experiment description begins at 2:45. It seems "crowd sourcing" the analysis of the ENTIRE dataset would be helpful due to timing issues between the 3 locations. How many terrabytes would the entire compressed dataset be?
localyokel
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2019 5:49 pm

Re: Some observations/questions about the Delft Experiment

Postby Heinera » Sat Oct 26, 2019 11:19 am

local wrote:
Results from non-entangled photons have no relevance to Bell's theorem

That assumes the validity of your notion of "entanglement", source state, etc.

No. The only thing that matters is that the decision of what constitutes an "entangled" pair is made with spacelike separation from the two detection events. This means that (assuming local realism) there is no way the detection outcomes can influence the decision. No other assumption of what "entanglement" means is necessary.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Some observations/questions about the Delft Experiment

Postby local » Sat Oct 26, 2019 11:24 am

What matters is that data was collected and then selectively destroyed. Independent researchers are unable to properly review this destruction process. It was jiggery-pokery. Prove otherwise!

Any reasonable scientist would be able to reply: here is the raw data, you can see that there is no bias in the data destruction.
Last edited by local on Sat Oct 26, 2019 12:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
local
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: Some observations/questions about the Delft Experiment

Postby local » Sat Oct 26, 2019 11:41 am

gill1109 wrote:It merely would have added expensive overhead to an already expensive and difficult experiment.

We are back to "the dataset is too big" after the failure of "you are disgusting".
local
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: Some observations/questions about the Delft Experiment

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Oct 26, 2019 12:20 pm

This thread is going around in circles so it is being locked.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Previous

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 83 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library