gill1109 wrote: The main one was a 2013 SPIE paper. I just checked it out again. Yes, he wrote there that the “joint measurement” concept was wrong. But at that time he had no alternative approach.
Nonsense. He said that the marginals must be used instead of the joint distribution. The later paper added the Luders projection angle. Use of the marginals is equivalent to null projection.
He did not claim that the two particles arriving at the detectors were in the singlet state.
More nonsense. Graft writes:
"for separated measurements of the correlated spin-1 singlet state at stations A and B"
He was committed to the detection loophole approach...
He believed that miscalibration (first pointed out by him) invoked the detection 'loophole' in the Weihs experiment. It's just rhetoric to say he was "committed to" it. He was interested in all the mechanisms, but papers come one at a time.
The experiments of 2015 don’t claim to create the singlet state, and didn’t try to. They don’t find -a.b.
Yes, we all know that. We know about nonmaximal states, etc. But we are talking about the theoretical prediction for the singlet state.
Last I looked, Donald was critical of their random generators
More misrepresentation. The lack of expected randomness was argued to prove postselection, not to criticize their generators.
@all
Please study Graft's papers carefully and don't rely upon Gill's motivated misrepresentation of them.
FrediFizzx wrote:https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/lrhvcqm-1.1.pdf
Just backtrack the product calculation to the A and B measurement functions. I will explain it later in more detail without Jay's extraneous commentary about the uncertainty principle.
Thank you. I will study it with great interest. And looking forward to your further elaboration about it.