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.pdfThe 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.