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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 88 guests