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 » Sun Mar 28, 2021 10:25 pm

Justo wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
Justo wrote:
Esail wrote:Please give an example of those "local functions A(a, µ), B(b, µ) which reproduce the correlation (1)"

You just need to violate measurement independence. An explicit sample is given in "Michel Feldmann. New loophole for the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Foundations of Physics Letters, 8(1):41-53, 1995."

Indeed, that paper used the conspiracy loophole, but Feldmann's model is disproved by the results of the 2015 loophole-free experiments. Feldman's "conspiracy" needs time to be implemented, and in those new experiments there is not enough time.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225677089_New_loophole_for_the_Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen_paradox


I don't know if those experiments can rule out "conspiracy". I used to think that needed time to take place but now I realized I was wrong.
I believe Zeilinger made Bell tests using light of distant quasar to rule out measurement dependence but I am not sure how that should be interpreted.

You can also achieve “conspiracy” by post-selection.
I also don’t find those quasar light experiments convincing. The light has to be processed very close to the experiment in order to produce the setting choices. You need to believe a lot of theoretical stuff in order to believe that the signal you feed to the detectors was created in the quasars.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: What if Bell were wrong?

Postby Justo » Mon Mar 29, 2021 1:49 pm

gill1109 wrote:You can also achieve “conspiracy” by post-selection.


Can you give us references and/or explain how that post-selection issue works?
Justo
 

Re: What if Bell were wrong?

Postby gill1109 » Mon Mar 29, 2021 7:46 pm

Justo wrote:
gill1109 wrote:You can also achieve “conspiracy” by post-selection.


Can you give us references and/or explain how that post-selection issue works?

It is also called the detection loophole. The measurement outcome is ternary: -1, 0 or +1 where “0” means “no detection”. If one rejects particle pairs where either detection is missing, we are left with a subpopulation of particle pairs. If the detection mechanism depends on the setting at each detector and on the hidden variable carried by the particles, then surviving particle pairs have hidden variable which in general will be statistically dependent on both detector settings.

The coincidence loophole exacerbates the situation even further.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: What if Bell were wrong?

Postby minkwe » Thu Apr 01, 2021 3:27 pm

gill1109 wrote:
Justo wrote:
Esail wrote:Please give an example of those "local functions A(a, µ), B(b, µ) which reproduce the correlation (1)"

You just need to violate measurement independence. An explicit sample is given in "Michel Feldmann. New loophole for the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Foundations of Physics Letters, 8(1):41-53, 1995."

Indeed, that paper used the conspiracy loophole, but Feldmann's model is disproved by the results of the 2015 loophole-free experiments. Feldman's "conspiracy" needs time to be implemented, and in those new experiments there is not enough time.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225677089_New_loophole_for_the_Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen_paradox

There have never been any "loophole-free" experiments. https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.08307.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: What if Bell were wrong?

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Apr 01, 2021 3:44 pm

minkwe wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
Justo wrote:
Esail wrote:Please give an example of those "local functions A(a, µ), B(b, µ) which reproduce the correlation (1)"

You just need to violate measurement independence. An explicit sample is given in "Michel Feldmann. New loophole for the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Foundations of Physics Letters, 8(1):41-53, 1995."

Indeed, that paper used the conspiracy loophole, but Feldmann's model is disproved by the results of the 2015 loophole-free experiments. Feldman's "conspiracy" needs time to be implemented, and in those new experiments there is not enough time.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225677089_New_loophole_for_the_Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen_paradox

There have never been any "loophole-free" experiments. https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.08307.

Ah, that's a good new one. "Photon identification loophole" :D There can't actually be any loopholes to Bell's theory because it is shot down.
.
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 gill1109 » Sat Apr 03, 2021 6:13 am

minkwe wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
Justo wrote:
Esail wrote:Please give an example of those "local functions A(a, µ), B(b, µ) which reproduce the correlation (1)"

You just need to violate measurement independence. An explicit sample is given in "Michel Feldmann. New loophole for the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Foundations of Physics Letters, 8(1):41-53, 1995."

Indeed, that paper used the conspiracy loophole, but Feldmann's model is disproved by the results of the 2015 loophole-free experiments. Feldman's "conspiracy" needs time to be implemented, and in those new experiments there is not enough time.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225677089_New_loophole_for_the_Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen_paradox

There have never been any "loophole-free" experiments. https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.08307.

There is no such thing as the “photon identification loophole”. Hess, de Raedt and Michielsen have not understood that the experimental unit in the “loophole-free” Bell experiments of 2015 is “time slot”. They do not have event-based simulations of the 2015 experiments.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: What if Bell were wrong?

Postby Justo » Sat Apr 03, 2021 1:55 pm

gill1109 wrote: It is also called the detection loophole. The measurement outcome is ternary: -1, 0 or +1 where “0” means “no detection”. If one rejects particle pairs where either detection is missing, we are left with a subpopulation of particle pairs. If the detection mechanism depends on the setting at each detector and on the hidden variable carried by the particles, then surviving particle pairs have hidden variable which in general will be statistically dependent on both detector settings.


I suppose the "fair sampling assumption" is the assumption that this problem does not affect the statistics, i.e., the measured subensemble correctly represents the statistics of the whole ensemble. Is this interpretation correct?

I' m sorry, I know you like to discuss and disagree, but I only want to learn and shy away when the discussion is useless.
Justo
 

Re: What if Bell were wrong?

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Apr 03, 2021 2:19 pm

gill1109 wrote:
minkwe wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
Justo wrote:You just need to violate measurement independence. An explicit sample is given in "Michel Feldmann. New loophole for the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Foundations of Physics Letters, 8(1):41-53, 1995."

Indeed, that paper used the conspiracy loophole, but Feldmann's model is disproved by the results of the 2015 loophole-free experiments. Feldman's "conspiracy" needs time to be implemented, and in those new experiments there is not enough time.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225677089_New_loophole_for_the_Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen_paradox

There have never been any "loophole-free" experiments. https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.08307.

There is no such thing as the “photon identification loophole”. Hess, de Raedt and Michielsen have not understood that the experimental unit in the “loophole-free” Bell experiments of 2015 is “time slot”. They do not have event-based simulations of the 2015 experiments.

Do you have a reference for that or are you just talking more freakin' nonsense yet again? Though it doesn't really matter. Bell's theory is shot down so there isn't any "loopholes" for it any more.
.
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 gill1109 » Sat Apr 03, 2021 9:16 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote:There is no such thing as the “photon identification loophole”. Hess, de Raedt and Michielsen have not understood that the experimental unit in the “loophole-free” Bell experiments of 2015 is “time slot”. They do not have event-based simulations of the 2015 experiments.

Do you have a reference for that or are you just talking more freakin' nonsense yet again? Though it doesn't really matter. Bell's theory is shot down so there isn't any "loopholes" for it any more.

The reference you should consult, Fred, is Bell’s “Bertlmann’s socks” paper. And the four papers of the four experiments of 2015 (Delft, Munich, NIST, Vienna). Hess, de Raedt and Michielsen have not published simulations of those experiments. Nobody has. It isn’t possible to do a faithful simulation of those experiments.

Read the papers, and try yourself!
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: What if Bell were wrong?

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Apr 03, 2021 9:40 pm

@gill1109 Yep, just as I figured. More of your freakin' nonsense. We are not taking your word for it. I was talking about a reference citing how they are wrong. Or lay it out in detail here. But as I was saying it doesn't really matter since Bell's theory is shot down.
.
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 gill1109 » Sun Apr 04, 2021 1:37 am

FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 Yep, just as I figured. More of your freakin' nonsense. We are not taking your word for it. I was talking about a reference citing how they are wrong. Or lay it out in detail here. But as I was saying it doesn't really matter since Bell's theory is shot down.

Don't take my word for it. As I already told you, John Bell lays it out in "Bertlmann's socks". Look at Figure 7 and the surrounding text. (One paragraph of text before, and one paragraph after). https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/jpa-00220688/document. Let us know if there is something you don't understand.

And take a look at the 2015 experiments:

Hensen, B., Bernien, H., Dréau, A. et al. Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres. Nature 526, 682–686 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15759

M. Giustina, M.A.M. Versteegh, S. Wengerowsky et al. Significant-Loophole-Free Test of Bell's Theorem with Entangled Photons. Phys. Rev. Lett., 115 (25) 250401, 7pp (2015) https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.250401

L. K. Shalm, E. Meyer-Scott, B. G. Christensen, et al. Strong Loophole-Free Test of Local Realism. Phys. Rev. Lett., 115, 250402 (2015). https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.250402

W. Rosenfeld, D. Burchardt, R.Garthoff, K.Redeker, N. Ortegel, M. Rau, and H. Weinfurter. Event-Ready Bell Test Using Entangled Atoms Simultaneously Closing Detection and Locality Loopholes. Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 010402 (2016). https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.010402

De Raedt, Hess and Michielsen write: "Central to these discussions and questions are the correlations of space-like separated detection events, some of which are interpreted as the observation of a pair of entities such as photons. The problem of classifying events as the observation of a “photon” or of something else is not as simple as in the case of say, billiard balls. The particle identification problem is, in fact, key for the understanding of the epistemology of correlations between events. What do we know about such correlations of space-like separated events? Popular presentations of Bell’s work typically involve two isolated persons (Alice, Bob) at separated measurement stations (Tenerife, La Palma), who just collect data of local measurements. But how does Alice know that she is dealing with a particle of a pair of which Bob investigates the other particle? She is supposed to be totally isolated from Bob’s wing of the experiment in order to fulfill Einstein’s separation and locality principle! The answer is that neither Alice nor Bob know they deal with correlated pairs if their stations are completely separated from each other and have no space-time knowledge of the other wing ever. In his theoretical work on the EPRB experiment, Bell did not address this fundamental question but considered correlated pairs as given, without any trace of the tools of measurement and of space-time concepts that are both necessary to accomplish the identification of events. He then claimed to have discovered a conflict between his theoretical description and the quantum theoretical description of the EPRB thought experiment [Bell: La Nouvelle Cuisine]."

It is absolutely clear that De Raedt, Hess and Michielsen do not know Bell's work well. Bell explains explicitly in "Bertlmann's socks" that Alice and Bob do not know and do not have to know that they are each dealing with one particle of the same pair of particles. He also does not assume that they "have no space-time knowledge of the other wing ever". They perform a lot of communication in advance to set up a sequence of time slots. In each time slot they each insert a binary setting into an apparatus and in each time slot they extract a binary outcome from the same apparatus. This is also exactly what the experimenters did in the 2015 experiments. De Raedt and his friends introduce a loophole into a loophole-free experiment by post-selecting according to "two particles of the same pair being detected at about the same time". That's how they can simulate local realistic violation of the Bell inequalities.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: What if Bell were wrong?

Postby Justo » Sun Apr 04, 2021 5:31 am

gill1109 wrote:It is absolutely clear that De Raedt, Hess and Michielsen do not know Bell's work well. Bell explains explicitly in "Bertlmann's socks" that Alice and Bob do not know and do not have to know that they are each dealing with one particle of the same pair of particles. He also does not assume that they "have no space-time knowledge of the other wing ever". They perform a lot of communication in advance to set up a sequence of time slots. In each time slot they each insert a binary setting into an apparatus and in each time slot they extract a binary outcome from the same apparatus. This is also exactly what the experimenters did in the 2015 experiments. De Raedt and his friends introduce a loophole into a loophole-free experiment by post-selecting according to "two particles of the same pair being detected at about the same time". That's how they can simulate local realistic violation of the Bell inequalities.


Notice that Hess et. al. do not merely criticize the experiments. They criticize Bell's theoretical model saying that it is incorrect. So it is not only about experiments. By the way, they base their theoretical criticism on CFD.
Justo
 

Re: What if Bell were wrong?

Postby minkwe » Sun Apr 04, 2021 5:59 am

gill1109 wrote:It is absolutely clear that De Raedt, Hess and Michielsen do not know Bell's work well. Bell explains explicitly in "Bertlmann's socks" that Alice and Bob do not know and do not have to know that they are each dealing with one particle of the same pair of particles.

It is absolutely clear that you do not understand an iota of what De Raedt, Hess and Michielsen are talking about, and you are divorced from even the most basic common sense physics and experimental practice. How in the freaking world do you calculate correlations between Alice and Bob without knowing which particle at Alice corresponds with which particle at Bob? Don't you understand that what matters is not what Alice and Bob know but what has to be known by the experimentalist who calculates the correlations?

There is no such thing as the “photon identification loophole”. Hess, de Raedt and Michielsen have not understood that the experimental unit in the “loophole-free” Bell experiments of 2015 is “time slot”. They do not have event-based simulations of the 2015 experiments.

I believe this has been explained to you already on pubpeer, why your time-slot idea does not solve anything. Using "time-slot" is effectively the same as time-tagging and using a coincidence window after the fact.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: What if Bell were wrong?

Postby Justo » Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:11 am

minkwe wrote:I believe this has been explained to you already on pubpeer, why your time-slot idea does not solve anything. Using "time-slot" is effectively the same as time-tagging and using a coincidence window after the fact.

Can you please specify the pubpeer reference to read it in pubpeer?
Justo
 

Re: What if Bell were wrong?

Postby minkwe » Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:11 am

gill1109 wrote:They perform a lot of communication in advance to set up a sequence of time slots. In each time slot they each insert a binary setting into an apparatus and in each time slot they extract a binary outcome from the same apparatus. This is also exactly what the experimenters did in the 2015 experiments. De Raedt and his friends introduce a loophole into a loophole-free experiment by post-selecting according to "two particles of the same pair being detected at about the same time". That's how they can simulate local realistic violation of the Bell inequalities.


Wrong! From https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.08307:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.08307 wrote:Recent Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm experiments [M. Giustina et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 250401 (2015); L. K. Shalm et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 250402 (2015)] that claim to be loophole free are scrutinized and are shown to suffer a photon identification loophole. 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. The simulation results demonstrate that a manifestly non-quantum model that identifies photons in the same local manner as in these experiments can produce correlations that are in excellent agreement with those of the quantum theoretical description of the corresponding thought experiment, in conflict with Bell's theorem.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: What if Bell were wrong?

Postby minkwe » Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:19 am

minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: What if Bell were wrong?

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Apr 04, 2021 9:19 am

minkwe wrote:
How in the freaking world do you calculate correlations between Alice and Bob without knowing which particle at Alice corresponds with which particle at Bob? Don't you understand that what matters is not what Alice and Bob know but what has to be known by the experimentalist who calculates the correlations?

The problem becomes even more acute in relativistic spacetime. After all, Alice and Bob are supposed to be stationed at a spacelike distance from one another. If so, then their results that are coincident in one frame of reference are not so in another. The result of Charlie's calculations of correlations thus depends on the reference frame he is performing the calculations in.
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: What if Bell were wrong?

Postby gill1109 » Mon Apr 05, 2021 12:36 am

minkwe wrote:
gill1109 wrote:It is absolutely clear that De Raedt, Hess and Michielsen do not know Bell's work well. Bell explains explicitly in "Bertlmann's socks" that Alice and Bob do not know and do not have to know that they are each dealing with one particle of the same pair of particles.

It is absolutely clear that you do not understand an iota of what De Raedt, Hess and Michielsen are talking about, and you are divorced from even the most basic common sense physics and experimental practice. How in the freaking world do you calculate correlations between Alice and Bob without knowing which particle at Alice corresponds with which particle at Bob? Don't you understand that what matters is not what Alice and Bob know but what has to be known by the experimentalist who calculates the correlations?

There is no such thing as the “photon identification loophole”. Hess, de Raedt and Michielsen have not understood that the experimental unit in the “loophole-free” Bell experiments of 2015 is “time slot”. They do not have event-based simulations of the 2015 experiments.

I believe this has been explained to you already on pubpeer, why your time-slot idea does not solve anything. Using "time-slot" is effectively the same as time-tagging and using a coincidence window after the fact.

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.

The experimentalists who performed the 2015 experiments computed correlations between binary inputs and binary outputs on a “per time slot” basis. Following the reasoning in Bell’s “Bertlmann’s socks” paper, see the text around Bell’s Figure 7 in that paper. The point of the experiment is not to further refine QM understanding of notions of “particles”. The point is to show that phenomena can be observed in the lab which do not have a local realistic explanation.
Last edited by gill1109 on Mon Apr 05, 2021 12:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: What if Bell were wrong?

Postby gill1109 » Mon Apr 05, 2021 12:44 am

minkwe wrote:
gill1109 wrote:They perform a lot of communication in advance to set up a sequence of time slots. In each time slot they each insert a binary setting into an apparatus and in each time slot they extract a binary outcome from the same apparatus. This is also exactly what the experimenters did in the 2015 experiments. De Raedt and his friends introduce a loophole into a loophole-free experiment by post-selecting according to "two particles of the same pair being detected at about the same time". That's how they can simulate local realistic violation of the Bell inequalities.


Wrong! From https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.08307:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.08307 wrote:Recent Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm experiments [M. Giustina et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 250401 (2015); L. K. Shalm et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 250402 (2015)] that claim to be loophole free are scrutinized and are shown to suffer a photon identification loophole. 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. The simulation results demonstrate that a manifestly non-quantum model that identifies photons in the same local manner as in these experiments can produce correlations that are in excellent agreement with those of the quantum theoretical description of the corresponding thought experiment, in conflict with Bell's theorem.

They write about what they call a “perfected” realisation of those experiments. They change the experiment to make it vulnerable to the detection loophole and they show that they can then simulate it in a local realistic manner. They do not simulate experiments run according to the protocol actually used in the loophole-free experiments (the protocol specified by Bell). They know very well that that would be impossible! Karl Hess (Illinois) has carefully written out Bell’s proof of Bell’s theorem in his (Hess’s) book. He agrees that it is a true theorem. Hans De Raedt (Groningen) and his wife Kristel Michielsen (Aachen) know this very well too. They do local realist simulations of loophole-ridden experiments. That’s why the two teams have got together.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: What if Bell were wrong?

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Apr 05, 2021 8:41 am

@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.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 82 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library