What if Bell were wrong?

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

Re: What if Bell were wrong?

Postby gill1109 » Tue Apr 06, 2021 5:00 am

FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 Well folks, you know how it is. Since Bell's theory is shot down, all the Bell fans can do is resort to nonsense.

Poor Fred. What I said went right over your head. Sorry.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: What if Bell were wrong?

Postby minkwe » Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:16 am

gill1109 wrote:Using pre-agreed time slots is *not* the same as using time-tagging and a coincidence window after the fact. The latter (time-tagging and a coincidence window) allows local realistic models to mimic quantum correlations (the coincidence loophole, which is even more severe than the detection loophole). The former (pre-agreed time slots) prevents it. That’s why the former is used in so-called loophole-free Bell tests.

Handwaving. No content. See pubpeer discussion.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: What if Bell were wrong?

Postby gill1109 » Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:55 am

minkwe wrote:
gill1109 wrote:Using pre-agreed time slots is *not* the same as using time-tagging and a coincidence window after the fact. The latter (time-tagging and a coincidence window) allows local realistic models to mimic quantum correlations (the coincidence loophole, which is even more severe than the detection loophole). The former (pre-agreed time slots) prevents it. That’s why the former is used in so-called loophole-free Bell tests.

Handwaving. No content. See pubpeer discussion.

The content:

1) you know well yourself that time-tagging and a coincidence window allows one to mimic quantum correlations using a local realistic model.

2) Pre-agreed time slots with random binary settings and binary outcomes prevent that. If you disbelieve me, or cannot read my papers, please come up with your own simulation of the 2015 type experiments, sticking to the rules put down by Bell and adopted by the 2015 experimenters. Nobody has done it yet ... because it is impossible. Here are the references you should consult:

Bell's "Bertlmann's socks", see experimental design described in Figure 7 and text describing the figure. This experimental design was adopted by the four groups of experimenters in 2015. "No-conspiracy" is enforced by providing fresh and completely random binary settings for each time slot.

The maths: martingale results obtained by me in 2001 and used (and refined) by the 2015 experimenters.

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0110137
Accardi contra Bell (cum mundi): The Impossible Coupling
Richard D. Gill
An experimentally observed violation of Bell's inequality is supposed to show the failure of local realism to deal with quantum reality. However, finite statistics and the time sequential nature of real experiments still allow a loophole for local realism, known as the memory loophole. We show that the randomized design of the Aspect experiment closes this loophole. Our main tool is van de Geer's (2000) supermartingale version of the classical Bernstein (1924) inequality guaranteeing, at the root n scale, a not-heavier-than-Gaussian tail of the distribution of a sum of bounded supermartingale differences. The results are used to specify a protocol for a public bet between the author and L. Accardi, who in recent papers (Accardi and Regoli, 2000a,b, 2001; Accardi, Imafuku and Regoli, 2002) has claimed to have produced a suite of computer programmes, to be run on a network of computers, which will simulate a violation of Bell's inequalites. At a sample size of thirty thousand, both error probabilities are guaranteed smaller than one in a million, provided we adhere to the sequential randomized design. The results also show that Hess and Philipp's (2001a,b) recent claims are mistaken that Bell's theorem fails because of time phenomena supposedly neglected by Bell.

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0301059
Time, Finite Statistics, and Bell's Fifth Position
Richard D. Gill
I discuss three issues connected to Bell's theorem and Bell-CHSH-type experiments: time and the memory loophole, finite statistics (how wide are the error bars Under Local Realism), and the question of whether a loophole-free experiment is feasible, a surprising omission on Bell's list of four positions to hold in the light of his results. Levy's (1935) theory of martingales, and Fisher's (1935) theory of randomization in experimental design, take care of time and of finite statistics. I exploit a (classical) computer network metaphor for local realism to argue that Bell's conclusions are independent of how one likes to interpret probability, and give a critique of some recent anti-Bellist literature.

The 2015 experiments used a really beautiful refinement and simplification of my 2001 martingale inequalities. I describe it in the appendix to this recent paper:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9380450
Comment on “Dr. Bertlmann’s Socks in a Quaternionic World of Ambidextral Reality”
I point out critical errors in the article “Dr. Bertlmann’s Socks in a Quaternionic World of Ambidextral Reality” by J. Christian, published in IEEE ACCESS. Christian’s model does not generate the singlet correlations but in fact simply reproduces the Bertlmann effect. John Bell’s colleague Reinhold Bertlmann of CERN, in his younger days, always wore one pink and one blue sock, at random. The moment you saw his left foot, you knew what colour sock would be on his right foot. Action at a distance? As John Bell liked to explain, quantum entanglement cannot be explained away in such an easy way. Yet Christian’s model assigns the two particles of the EPR-B experiment an equal and opposite spin at the source, the choice being determined by a fair coin toss. However they are measured, these spins are recovered. Christian’s computer simulation works by not actually simulating his model at all but by almost directly tracing the negative cosine built into his computer algebra package. Bell’s theorem has not been disproved. Debate as to what it means for the foundations of physics as well as for quantum information engineering (quantum communication, computation) is more lively today than ever before. A possible role for Geometric Algebra is still wide open and deserves further investigation, informed by a proper understanding of the mathematical content of Bell’s theorem.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: What if Bell were wrong?

Postby minkwe » Tue Apr 06, 2021 8:09 am

gill1109 wrote:2) Pre-agreed time slots with random binary settings and binary outcomes prevent that. If you disbelieve me, or cannot read my papers, please come up with your own simulation of the 2015 type experiments, sticking to the rules put down by Bell and adopted by the 2015 experimenters. Nobody has done it yet ... because it is impossible. Here are the references you should consult:

Pre-agreed time slots are effectively the same as post-agreed time slots (aka coincidence window). The important thing is not the time when the timeslots were agreed on, but the selective effect of the timeslots. See the discussion on pubpeer if you have forgotten why that is the case. A simulation is already described by De Raedt which does what you claim is impossible.

Nevertheless, why do we need all the gymnastics in the first place? It's because of the photon-identification issue which I brought to your attention back when epr-clocked was published and you didn't get it (I remember you thought you could "fix" my simulation by removing the most important feature which introduced the photon identification problem). Experimenters are trying to solve the problem of matching which particle at Alice belongs with which particle at Bob. This is the photon-identification loophole. No experiment has closed this loophole.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: What if Bell were wrong?

Postby gill1109 » Tue Apr 06, 2021 9:56 am

minkwe wrote:
gill1109 wrote:2) Pre-agreed time slots with random binary settings and binary outcomes prevent that. If you disbelieve me, or cannot read my papers, please come up with your own simulation of the 2015 type experiments, sticking to the rules put down by Bell and adopted by the 2015 experimenters. Nobody has done it yet ... because it is impossible. Here are the references you should consult:

Pre-agreed time slots are effectively the same as post-agreed time slots (aka coincidence window). The important thing is not the time when the timeslots were agreed on, but the selective effect of the timeslots. See the discussion on pubpeer if you have forgotten why that is the case. A simulation is already described by De Raedt which does what you claim is impossible.

Nevertheless, why do we need all the gymnastics in the first place? It's because of the photon-identification issue which I brought to your attention back when epr-clocked was published and you didn't get it (I remember you thought you could "fix" my simulation by removing the most important feature which introduced the photon identification problem). Experimenters are trying to solve the problem of matching which particle at Alice belongs with which particle at Bob. This is the photon-identification loophole. No experiment has closed this loophole.

They are *not* effectively the same, and I explained to you why they are not effectively the same. Please study the literature. Feel free to ask questions if there are issues in the maths which you don't understand.

I already explained why the simulation of de Raedt does not do the impossible. He changes the protocol for analysis of the data from the experiment in such a way that he can apply postselection and exploit the detection loophole.

I am not going to re-read those endless PubPeer discussions which mainly showed that a lot of people are not capable of reading some fairly elementary mathematics.

Experimenters are *not* trying to solve the problem of matching which particle at Alice belongs with which particle at Bob. The 2015 experimentalists do not do this. There is no problem. There are matching time slots. Read the papers describing their experiments and read "Bertlmann's socks". After you have done that, we can talk, either here on the forum or by email. Whatever you like.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: What if Bell were wrong?

Postby minkwe » Tue Apr 06, 2021 10:39 am

gill1109 wrote:They are *not* effectively the same, and I explained to you why they are not effectively the same. Please study the literature. Feel free to ask questions if there are issues in the maths which you don't understand.

They are the same, you haven't provided any math or explanation or posted any literature to the contrary. One of the peers on PubPeer did a wonderful job explaining convincingly why you and your co-author are wrong. You had no response then and still do not have any now.

I already explained why the simulation of de Raedt does not do the impossible. He changes the protocol for analysis of the data from the experiment in such a way that he can apply postselection and exploit the detection loophole.

You have not explained anything and they do not do what you claim they do. In their words: The combination of a digital computer and discrete-event simulation is used to construct a minimal but faithful model of the most perfected realization of these laboratory experiments. In contrast to prior simulations, all photon selections are strictly made, as they are in the actual experiments, at the local station and no other "post-selection" is involved.. Are you suggesting the authors a lying?

I am not going to re-read those endless PubPeer discussions which mainly showed that a lot of people are not capable of reading some fairly elementary mathematics.

How convenient, it is here not for your benefit but for the benefit of those who might be misled by your claims.

Experimenters are *not* trying to solve the problem of matching which particle at Alice belongs with which particle at Bob.

:shock: You obviously have no clue about how experiments are done, and what the challenges are. This was already apparent from your response to epr-clocked. BTW, your arxiv paper about my simulations contains lies. You say:

"In this note, I analyze the code and the data generated by M. Fodje's (2013, 2014) simulation programs "epr-simple" and "epr-clocked". They were written in Python published on Github only, initially without any documentation at all of how they worked."
...
In the original postings, the description of how the programs worked was non-existent.

These are lies. Anyone can go to Github (https://github.com/michel4j/epr-clocked) to verify that the documentation was posted at the same time as the code 7 years ago on Feb 26, 2014. If you can write falsehoods with such ease, then why should anything that you say in such articles be believed?
You have one week to retract this paper yourself!

The 2015 experimentalists do not do this. There is no problem. There are matching time slots. Read the papers describing their experiments and read "Bertlmann's socks". After you have done that, we can talk, either here on the forum or by email. Whatever you like.

Have you read the accounts of any of these experiments? You don't know what you are talking about.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: What if Bell were wrong?

Postby FrediFizzx » Tue Apr 06, 2021 10:59 am

Yep, poor Gill as his favorite theory gets shot down so of course all he can do is spew nonsense and lies.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: What if Bell were wrong?

Postby minkwe » Tue Apr 06, 2021 11:50 am

I hope that Gill will voluntarily correct the record by retracting the articles containing defamatory remarks from all journals/preprint services he has posted it to. A week is a reasonable time for him to do that, otherwise, I will take action. And the retraction notices must clearly state the reason for retraction. Anything less would be a bad faith attempt and would still require independent action on my part to clear my name.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: What if Bell were wrong?

Postby gill1109 » Wed Apr 07, 2021 7:05 am

arXiv writes: Your replacement is scheduled to be announced at Thu, 8 Apr 2021 00:00:00 GMT. The abstract will appear in the subsequent mailing as displayed below,
In this note, I analyze the data generated by M. Fodje's (2013, 2014) simulation programs "epr-simple" and "epr-clocked". They were written in Python and published on Github only. Inspection of the code and program descriptions showed that they made use of the detection-loophole and the coincidence-loophole respectively. I evaluate them with appropriate modified Bell-CHSH type inequalities: the Larsson detection-loophole adjusted CHSH, and the Larsson-Gill coincidence-loophole adjusted CHSH (NB: its correctness is conjecture, we do not have proof). The experimental efficiencies turn out to be approximately eta = 81% (close to optimal) and gamma = 55% (far from optimal). The observed values of CHSH are, as they should be, within the appropriately adjusted bounds. Fodjes' detection-loophole model turns out to be very, very close to Pearle's famous 1970 model, so the efficiency is close to optimal. The model has the same defect as Pearle's: the joint detection rates exhibit signalling. The coincidence-loophole model is actually a clever modification of the detection-loophole model. Because of this, however, it cannot lead to optimal efficiency.

See also
https://researchers.one/articles/20.01.00001
Michel, I posted *preprints* of that paper. It did not pass peer review. It is of almost no interest to anyone, though it should interest you.

I did all that years ago. I'm glad that you have at last got around to reading it. I have fixed the sentences you object to.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: What if Bell were wrong?

Postby minkwe » Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:04 am

gill1109 wrote:arXiv writes: Your replacement is scheduled to be announced at Thu, 8 Apr 2021 00:00:00 GMT. The abstract will appear in the subsequent mailing as displayed below,
In this note, I analyze the data generated by M. Fodje's (2013, 2014) simulation programs "epr-simple" and "epr-clocked". They were written in Python and published on Github only. Inspection of the code and program descriptions showed that they made use of the detection-loophole and the coincidence-loophole respectively. I evaluate them with appropriate modified Bell-CHSH type inequalities: the Larsson detection-loophole adjusted CHSH, and the Larsson-Gill coincidence-loophole adjusted CHSH (NB: its correctness is conjecture, we do not have proof). The experimental efficiencies turn out to be approximately eta = 81% (close to optimal) and gamma = 55% (far from optimal). The observed values of CHSH are, as they should be, within the appropriately adjusted bounds. Fodjes' detection-loophole model turns out to be very, very close to Pearle's famous 1970 model, so the efficiency is close to optimal. The model has the same defect as Pearle's: the joint detection rates exhibit signalling. The coincidence-loophole model is actually a clever modification of the detection-loophole model. Because of this, however, it cannot lead to optimal efficiency.

See also
https://researchers.one/articles/20.01.00001
Michel, I posted *preprints* of that paper. It did not pass peer review. It is of almost no interest to anyone, though it should interest you.

I did all that years ago. I'm glad that you have at last got around to reading it. I have fixed the sentences you object to.

I've started a separate thread for this. Provide your replies on this topic there.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Previous

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 88 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library