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 local » Tue Oct 22, 2019 5:52 am

gill1109 wrote:I hope to gain access to the data soon. I will be delighted to share it with Michel.
...
Delft data: Michel said that he already had what he needed.

Translation: They told Richard he can't have the raw data. And Richard doesn't like my tone so he petulantly ignores my request (he confirmed that in a PM). Hensen et al are cynically hiding their data and Richard has no objections, only lame excuses. Why are they hiding their data?

Everything else Richard gives above is already known. He has done nothing.

Free the data!
local
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: Some observations/questions about the Delft Experiment

Postby gill1109 » Tue Oct 22, 2019 11:09 pm

local wrote:
gill1109 wrote:I hope to gain access to the data soon. I will be delighted to share it with Michel.
...
Delft data: Michel said that he already had what he needed.

Translation: They told Richard he can't have the raw data. And Richard doesn't like my tone so he petulantly ignores my request (he confirmed that in a PM). Hensen et al are cynically hiding their data and Richard has no objections, only lame excuses. Why are they hiding their data?

Everything else Richard gives above is already known. He has done nothing.

Free the data!

"local", you are wrong, yet again. The Delft data is not being hidden; nor is the Vienna data. Scream allegations that they are hiding it if it makes you feel good.

I don't *petulantly* refuse your request. I do object to your tone. After all, you use it deliberately in order to hurt. You must be very angry.

"Petulantly is the adverb formation of petulant, which comes from the Latin word petulantem, meaning “wanton,” “forward,” or “insolent.” The modern use of petulantly has morphed to mean that one is moody or childish, and no longer means that one is wanton or forward."

I got the Vienna data from Marissa Giustina. Her Vienna email address still works fine. She still distributes the data from "her" experiment. I could in principle pass it on to anyone who is having trouble getting into contact with her, but they like to keep track of who has the data, since they, and the Austrian taxpayers who funded the research, do have some rights regarding acknowledgement of where the data came from in any publications using that data.
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 » Wed Oct 23, 2019 5:23 am

gill1109 wrote: I got the Vienna data from Marissa Giustina. Her Vienna email address still works fine. She still distributes the data from "her" experiment.

Richard is being disingenuous and intentionally obtuse. We already have the Vienna data. I specifically asked several times for the Delft (Hensen et al) full raw data. The Hensen et al full raw data is not available and is being intentionally suppressed. Only lame excuses have been offered. Richard advises by PM that even if he had that data he would not give it to me. Despicable!

Free the Hensen et al data!
local
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: Some observations/questions about the Delft Experiment

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Oct 23, 2019 5:34 am

local wrote:
Free the Hensen et al data!

I recommend that you write to the Nobel Prize committee in Stockholm and politely explain the situation to them, giving full details of your requests and the response you received from the experimenters. This is important because I hear that every year since 2015 they have been nominated for a Nobel Prize for their experimental ingenuity. Although they might face tough competition from Clauser, Aspect, and Zeilinger and may not get the Nobel Prize, it is important that the Nobel committee knows about their unwillingness to share the raw data (if indeed they are unwilling --- I have no evidence for that one way or another).

***
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 local » Wed Oct 23, 2019 9:26 am

That's a great idea! Still, anybody could submit a nomination, even for the much more deserving Dr Christian. It's meaningless. If a Nobel prize is ever awarded for this nonsense, it will be a dark day for science.

I can just imagine the thinking going on with Hensen et al: Let's see, do we continue hiding our raw data and hope to get that Nobel, or do we release the full data and allow researchers to expose and confirm our postselection game?

Free the Hensen et al full raw data!
local
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: Some observations/questions about the Delft Experiment

Postby local » Wed Oct 23, 2019 9:51 am

gill1109 wrote: I am pretty sure that Jan-Åke Larsson has the data we want; he also has some hefty criticism, not published, on the Hensen et al experiment.

Why hasn't he published this criticism? And why hasn't he shared the data? Could it be that Jan-Åke is scared of becoming an "unreliable researcher" (he's already on shaky ground for challenging some aspects of quantum computation)? Why isn't Richard Gill encouraging his friend to publish this criticism, and share the data, consistent with transparency and the search for truth?

Free the Hensen et al full raw data!
local
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: Some observations/questions about the Delft Experiment

Postby gill1109 » Wed Oct 23, 2019 7:24 pm

local wrote:
gill1109 wrote: I am pretty sure that Jan-Åke Larsson has the data we want; he also has some hefty criticism, not published, on the Hensen et al experiment.

Why hasn't he published this criticism? And why hasn't he shared the data? Could it be that Jan-Åke is scared of becoming an "unreliable researcher" (he's already on shaky ground for challenging some aspects of quantum computation)? Why isn't Richard Gill encouraging his friend to publish this criticism, and share the data, consistent with transparency and the search for truth?

My friend's criticism on the first Hensen et al. paper is the same as that of other people. It is well known and has been much discussed. It is answered to some extent in their second paper.

The data is already shared.

The important thing now is to repeat the experiment with about ten times as large a sample size. That should triple the number of standard deviations thereby reaching the traditional 5 sigma limit.

And preferably, several different research groups should do this.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Some observations/questions about the Delft Experiment

Postby FrediFizzx » Wed Oct 23, 2019 7:37 pm

What freakin' difference will it make to repeat the experiment with more data? QM has already been extensively validated.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Some observations/questions about the Delft Experiment

Postby FrediFizzx » Wed Oct 23, 2019 9:08 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:What freakin' difference will it make to repeat the experiment with more data? QM has already been extensively validated.
.

Particle physics has validated quantum field theory up the freakin' wazoo! All these Bell test experiments are a waste of time and money because they really don't say anything about Bell's junk physics theory even though they further validate QM.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Some observations/questions about the Delft Experiment

Postby local » Thu Oct 24, 2019 5:26 am

gill1109 wrote: The data is already shared.

Gill doubles down on his policy of disingenuity and intentional obtuseness. Only a postselected subset of the full raw data of the Hensen et al experiment has been released. The authors refuse to provide access to the full raw data, which would allow researchers to properly assess the experiment. Remember that undocumented postselection is exactly the place where hanky-panky (intentional or otherwise) can occur, and access to the full raw data is required for researchers to determine if the postselection was harmless or if it was in fact responsible for only an artifactual violation of an inequality.

Where is the link to the full raw data of the Hensen et al experiment? Don't tell us to contact the authors; they have already declined.

The important thing now is to repeat the experiment with about ten times as large a sample size.

What a joke! The important thing is to do science by releasing the full raw data. More data could be useful but not if it is going to be secretly postselected and then fobbed off on the scientific community.

Free the Hensen et al full raw data!
local
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: Some observations/questions about the Delft Experiment

Postby local » Thu Oct 24, 2019 5:59 am

FrediFizzx wrote:Particle physics has validated quantum field theory up the freakin' wazoo! All these Bell test experiments are a waste of time and money because they really don't say anything about Bell's junk physics theory even though they further validate QM.

The experiments are intended to prove quantum nonlocality, which the researchers believe will bring them the Nobel prize or other adulation. One big problem for that program is that QM does not predict or imply nonlocality for the EPRB scenario.
local
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: Some observations/questions about the Delft Experiment

Postby Heinera » Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:03 am

local wrote:The experiments are intended to prove quantum nonlocality, which the researchers believe will bring them the Nobel prize or other adulation. One big problem for that program is that QM does not predict or imply nonlocality for the EPRB scenario.


Could you elaborate a little? Do you mean that QM does not predict the cosine correlations for the scenario?
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Some observations/questions about the Delft Experiment

Postby local » Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:28 am

Happy to oblige, Heinera.

The cosine curve results from a single joint measurement that includes access to both stations' settings. However, In EPRB we have two separated measurements, which each have access only to their local setting. In this latter case, we need Luders projection to get the cosine. However, that requires superluminal transmission of information in EPRB with space-like separation of the stations, and so Luders projection cannot be applied. There is a good treatment of this here:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.01808

The quantum mysterians want to confuse you by referring to von-Neumann-Luders projection (Gill uses this trick), hoping you will not realize that von Neumann and Luders projections are different and that a QM calculation can use either one. Indeed, it is even possible to calculate using no projection at all, which is the most appropriate way for EPRB. The von Neumann and null projection calculations do not yield the cosine.
local
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: Some observations/questions about the Delft Experiment

Postby Heinera » Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:05 am

local wrote:Happy to oblige, Heinera.

The cosine curve results from a single joint measurement that includes access to both stations' settings. However, In EPRB we have two separated measurements, which each have access only to their local setting. In this latter case, we need Luders projection to get the cosine. However, that requires superluminal transmission of information in EPRB with space-like separation of the stations, and so Luders projection cannot be applied. There is a good treatment of this here:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.01808

The quantum mysterians want to confuse you by referring to von-Neumann-Luders projection (Gill uses this trick), hoping you will not realize that von Neumann and Luders projections are different and that a QM calculation can use either one. Indeed, it is even possible to calculate using no projection at all, which is the most appropriate way for EPRB. The von Neumann and null projection calculations do not yield the cosine.


Ok. So i take it you think Joy Christian's theory is rubbish then, since it predicts the cosine correlations for the EPRB setting.

(It even predicts the cosine correlations for a completely classical experiment with small exploding balls.)

.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Some observations/questions about the Delft Experiment

Postby local » Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:19 am

Heinera wrote: Ok.

Great to hear that you find the argument correct and coherent!

So i take it you think Joy Christian's theory is rubbish then, since it predicts the cosine correlations for the EPRB setting.

(It even predicts the cosine correlations for a completely classical experiment with small exploding balls.)

No, I don't take it that way. I have remarked elsewhere on how the argument may or may not apply to a 3-sphere scenario, and I am sure that JC's understanding is much more nuanced than you suppose and continues to evolve. No, I do not believe that JC's analyses are rubbish. Honestly, I am not an expert in JC's analytical framework (3-sphere topology, etc.) and so I cannot pronounce on it, and therefore I cannot call it genius or rubbish. It is certainly interesting!
Last edited by local on Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:27 am, 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 Heinera » Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:26 am

local wrote:Please don't put words in my mouth. I have remarked elsewhere on how the argument may or may not apply to a 3-sphere scenario, and I am sure that JC's understanding is much more nuanced than you suppose and continues to evolve. No, I do not believe that JC's analyses are rubbish.


Ah, so you are unsure about whether the cosine correlations should appear in an actual experiment? Is that it?
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Some observations/questions about the Delft Experiment

Postby local » Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:30 am

Heinera wrote: Ah, so you are unsure about whether the cosine correlations should appear in an actual experiment? Is that it?

The question is whether EPRB (or exploding balls) acts according to normal 3D topology or to 3-sphere (or other exotic) topology. If the former, then I am convinced that the cosine will not be obtained. If the latter, I do not draw any conclusion at this time.
local
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: Some observations/questions about the Delft Experiment

Postby Heinera » Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:46 am

local wrote:
Heinera wrote: Ah, so you are unsure about whether the cosine correlations should appear in an actual experiment? Is that it?

The question is whether EPRB (or exploding balls) acts according to normal 3D topology or to 3-sphere topology. If the former, then I am convinced that the cosine will not be obtained. If the latter, I do not draw any conclusion at this time.


Good. So a priori (without looking at the full dataset), the Delft results could be perfectly plausible then.

.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Some observations/questions about the Delft Experiment

Postby local » Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:53 am

Good.

So happy you concur with my analysis!

It's implausible in a 3D world. I don't know enough to conclude about plausibility (let alone "perfect plausibility") for exotic topologies. I have not seen enough to convince me to reject 3D topology, although I keep an open mind on the subject.

But really, plausibility is not the issue here. The issue is proving quantum nonlocality (or less ambitiously, quantum correlation) with a proper experiment that provides the full data and analysis that leads to the conclusion. Delft is not such an experiment.
local
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: Some observations/questions about the Delft Experiment

Postby minkwe » Thu Oct 24, 2019 1:34 pm

Heinera wrote:So a priori (without looking at the full dataset), the Delft results could be perfectly plausible then.

Please be careful about how you say things. The Delft results are not only plausible, they are certain. When you talk about experimental data that has been obtained, we are no longer in the realm of probability/plausibility. It happened.

Perhaps you are hinting at the question of how the data came to be. And that is an wide open question, and though I'm not making any suggestion here, I dare say "fraud" has not been ruled out.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 70 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library