"Bell's theorem refuted" now published by EPL

[Justo]

Alice’s PA setting does not influence Bob’s result but selects the photon pairs for matching events. There is no superluminal interaction.

This sentence by Esail is sufficient to recognize that Justo's criticism of his model is correct. The issue of nonlocality that concerned Bell has nothing to do with "superluminal interaction."
.

For me, the problem with Essail's concepts is that his model "selects" photon pairs according to settings. When investigating nonlocality one is concerned with only one particular pair of photons and what happens with the photos of a single pair. That is why a coincidence loophole exists in the experiments.
I asked him about what he means by "selecting photons" before writing the comment but he did not seem to understand the question. I remember asking him if thinks about an isotropic population of photons. That would be one way of making sense of the word "selecting a pair of photons", but he did not understand my question.

[minkwe]

When investigating nonlocality one is concerned with only one particular pair of photons and what happens with the photos of a single pair. That is why a coincidence loophole exists in the experiments.

I will assume that you understand that you can't calculate correlations from a single pair of photons. No experiment has ever been performed in which anyone was only interested in one pair. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean.

I asked him about what he means by "selecting photons" before writing the comment but he did not seem to understand the question. I remember asking him if thinks about an isotropic population of photons.

What do you mean by "isotropic population of photons"? Based on whatever definition you provide, are you aware of any experiment in which such an "isotropic" population of photons was prepared and used?

That would be one way of making sense of the word "selecting a pair of photons", but he did not understand my question.

Do you know how pairs of photons are "selected" in all Bell test experiments? I also assume you are aware that every experiment to date involves some way of selecting pairs of photons. Earlier experiments did post-selection. Newer ones use real-time selection tricks like pre-defined windows or some other "heralding" mechanism.

[gill1109]

When investigating nonlocality one is concerned with only one particular pair of photons and what happens with the photos of a single pair. That is why a coincidence loophole exists in the experiments.

I will assume that you understand that you can't calculate correlations from a single pair of photons. No experiment has ever been performed in which anyone was only interested in one pair. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean.

I asked him about what he means by "selecting photons" before writing the comment but he did not seem to understand the question. I remember asking him if thinks about an isotropic population of photons.

What do you mean by "isotropic population of photons"? Based on whatever definition you provide, are you aware of any experiment in which such an "isotropic" population of photons was prepared and used?

That would be one way of making sense of the word "selecting a pair of photons", but he did not understand my question.

Do you know how pairs of photons are "selected" in all Bell test experiments? I also assume you are aware that every experiment to date involves some way of selecting pairs of photons. Earlier experiments did post-selection. Newer ones use real-time selection tricks like pre-defined windows or some other "heralding" mechanism.

Michel, you use the word "tricks" to dismissively insinuate that these methods are rubbish. You put the word "heralding" in quotes because I suspect you think it is a nonsense idea, too. However, these tricks and technologies were explained and developed by Bell in his paper "Bertlmann's socks" long ago. Experimenters certainly understood them and tried to use them for many years, finally succeeding in 2015 with four experimental-loophole-free experiments which exactly followed Bell's "tricks" discussed and motivated 40 years earlier. I say *experimental* loophole free, because the "loophole" of superdeterminism is a metaphysical loophole which you can't exclude by experimental devices; you can however make it ludicrous by taking a lot of care in the procedure you use to generate random settings for the experiment.

"Heralding" simply means a three-party experiment. Alice, Bob and Casper. Casper does a measurement which merely means that Alice and Bob's measurement systems are in a good initial state. One studies the correlations between Alice and Bob's measurement outcomes, given Alice and Bob's settings, and given that Casper gets the "good" signal from his measurement.

Pre-defined time windows is a time-honoured method to dispose of the coincidence loophole. The coincidence loophole meant that non-local dependence is introduced by selecting pairs of events conditional on some relation between the outcomes on each side. Don't do it! Study the statistics of measurements on time windows, not the statistics of measurements on pairs of particles.
Yes, it is hard to convince physicists that this is smart but it is common practice in evidence-based medicine. There, it is called the "intention-to-treat principle". Which one uses to deal with the self-selection of patients which occurs when patients drop out of a trial because of experiencing side effects or just not feeling happy. Post-selection possibly highly correlated with the phenomenon you are studying - effectiveness of a medication against some medical condition.

[Esail]

Thank you. I looked at the first page in DeepDyve and it is enough for me.
There we can read why my claim(and apparently of everyone else in this forum and also of Bell deniers in Research Gate) about the model's nonlocality is correct. According to Muchowski:
"The fact that Bob's value is once +1 and another time -1 depending on alpha, is not a sign of nonlocality"

Although I don't find particularly clear all points of Muchowski's model, I think the above statement is absolutely clear and beyond any possible misinterpretation. Muchowski's concept of locality is different from what everyone else's, including those who reject the Bell theorem.

It is a matter of fact that your attempt to refute my model with your comment has clearly failed. Especially because your conclusions from the example you gave are wrong. You should honestly admit that.

[Joy Christian]

Thank you. I looked at the first page in DeepDyve and it is enough for me.
There we can read why my claim(and apparently of everyone else in this forum and also of Bell deniers in Research Gate) about the model's nonlocality is correct. According to Muchowski:
"The fact that Bob's value is once +1 and another time -1 depending on alpha, is not a sign of nonlocality"

Although I don't find particularly clear all points of Muchowski's model, I think the above statement is absolutely clear and beyond any possible misinterpretation. Muchowski's concept of locality is different from what everyone else's, including those who reject the Bell theorem.

It is a matter of fact that your attempt to refute my model with your comment has clearly failed. Especially because your conclusions from the example you gave are wrong. You should honestly admit that.

Esail, it is quite ironic that you are asking Justo to admit that his criticism is wrong when you are unable to even see --- let alone admit --- that your model is manifestly nonlocal. There is an extremely simple test to check whether your model is local or nonlocal. All you have to do is unambiguously write down the local functions, A(a, h) = +/-1 and B(b, h) = +/-1, with the meanings of these functions specified by Bell in the first equation of his 1964 paper. You are unable to do that. In fact, as Fred pointed out elsewhere, your model does not even produce the binary numbers +/-1. It is therefore beyond my comprehension of how your model got published in an apparently peer-reviewed journal. Clearly, the reviewers of your paper have no understanding of what makes a model for the singlet correlations local.

For convenience, here is Bell's definition of local causality, reproduced from one of my papers:


.

[Esail]

For me, the problem with Essail's concepts is that his model "selects" photon pairs according to settings. When investigating nonlocality one is concerned with only one particular pair of photons and what happens with the photos of a single pair. That is why a coincidence loophole exists in the experiments.
I asked him about what he means by "selecting photons" before writing the comment but he did not seem to understand the question. I remember asking him if thinks about an isotropic population of photons. That would be one way of making sense of the word "selecting a pair of photons", but he did not understand my question.

By setting her polarizer PA to alpha Alice selects all photon pairs which hit her polarizer (A=+1). According to the model the peer photons 2 of Alice's thus selected photon 1 definitely hit a Polarizer PB set to alpha+pi/2. Without a selection there is no photon pair with a specific polarization as the system in singlet state is not separable. In QM terms a selection by a polarizer is equivalent to a projection onto the polarizer direction. It is well known that a projection from a singlet state onto a polarizer direction alpha at one side leaves the system on the other side in a state with polarization alpha+pi/2. The question was for a long time if this is due to instantaneous interaction or to hidden variables. After my model there is strong evidence the latter is the case.

[Esail]

There is an extremely simple test to check whether your model is local or nonlocal. All you have to do is unambiguously write down the local functions, A(a, h) = +/-1 and B(b, h) = +/-1,

Functions A(a,h) and B(b,h) do not exist without a reference to the context where the latter is given by the setting of one polarizer.

The model is local as I have explained many times at last in my reply to Justo's comment. It has been approved by renowned professors. If you think it were wrong why don't you point to the wrong equation or show which of the assumptions are not allowed.

[Joy Christian]

There is an extremely simple test to check whether your model is local or nonlocal. All you have to do is unambiguously write down the local functions, A(a, h) = +/-1 and B(b, h) = +/-1,

Functions A(a,h) and B(b,h) do not exist without a reference to the context where the latter is given by the setting of one polarizer.

This is complete nonsense. Contextuality is explicitly built-in in the functions A(a,h) and B(b,h). You are not permitted to invent your own eccentric ideas of contextuality and locality.

The model is local as I have explained many times at last in my reply to Justo's comment. It has been approved by renowned professors. If you think it were wrong why don't you point to the wrong equation or show which of the assumptions are not allowed.

Your model is manifestly nonlocal.

I have pointed out the mistake in your model many times before. You are unable to write down the local functions in the manner of Bell. That proves that your model is nonlocal. Period.

Please name the "renowned professors" who have approved the publication of your paper so that we can name and shame them here. They clearly have no clue of what locality means.
.
.

[Justo]

There is no need to invoke authority and "great professors". This is very simple and is not subject to interpretation. Essail said that entanglement means non-separable which is equivalent to nonlocality. That is why common causes are introduced in the first place, to separate the non-separable in order to make it local.
On the other hand, If we want to talk about authority, I cited papers in highly respected journals explaining that, under given circumstances, "contextuality" already implies nonlocality.

Essail should try to understand what locality means: an action or measurement in one place cannot have an instant influence in another separated and far away location.
In Essail's model, as I explain in the comment, Alice's choice of her setting influences the result that Bob finds. Whether you call that contextuality or bananas it does not matter.

[Justo]

I tried to makes of Essail's locality claims and the only way I find is this:
He says that different settings "select" different entangled particles. So, apparently, his models contain a population or an ensemble of many different "entangled" particles. I believe that in this way we can avoid nonlocality but that is not what the Bell experiment measures. Besides, that does not mean contextuality.

[gill1109]

There is an extremely simple test to check whether your model is local or nonlocal. All you have to do is unambiguously write down the local functions, A(a, h) = +/-1 and B(b, h) = +/-1,

Functions A(a,h) and B(b,h) do not exist without a reference to the context where the latter is given by the setting of one polarizer.

This is complete nonsense. Contextuality is explicitly built-in in the functions A(a,h) and B(b,h). You are not permitted to invent your own eccentric ideas of contextuality and locality.

The model is local as I have explained many times at last in my reply to Justo's comment. It has been approved by renowned professors. If you think it were wrong why don't you point to the wrong equation or show which of the assumptions are not allowed.

Your model is manifestly nonlocal.

I have pointed out the mistake in your model many times before. You are unable to write down the local functions in the manner of Bell. That proves that your model is nonlocal. Period.

Please name the "renowned professors" who have approved the publication of your paper so that we can name and shame them here. They clearly have no clue of what locality means.
.
.

I agree! Notice that “h” can include many variables belonging to many parts of all the physical systems involved. When we write “A(a, h)” there is no implication that “h” is anywhere in particular. No implication that it came from the source. It can contain the “context” of Alice’s measurement and of Bob’s measurement! The function A takes setting and context as arguments, and is very, very relaxed about what may be included in “context”. Also yesterday’s cup of tea on Mars might have some influence on both Alice and Bob’s instruments here on Earth…

[Esail]

In Essail's model, as I explain in the comment, Alice's choice of her setting influences the result that Bob finds. Whether you call that contextuality or bananas it does not matter.

Again: Alice's setting does not influence Bob's results. It just determines which of Bob's positive results match with Alice's. That this match depends on Alice's setting is no surprise given that the photons of the two sides in the initial state are perpendicular polarized.

I've written this in my Reply to your Comment. Why do you ignore this and still insist on your wrong arguments.

[Justo]

In Essail's model, as I explain in the comment, Alice's choice of her setting influences the result that Bob finds. Whether you call that contextuality or bananas it does not matter.

Again: Alice's setting does not influence Bob's results. It just determines which of Bob's positive results match with Alice's. That this match depends on Alice's setting is no surprise given that the photons of the two sides in the initial state are perpendicular polarized.

Thanks to your response to my comment, I finally uderstood why you say your model is local.
You chose different particles according to what setting is chosen. That is not "contextuality" and is not how you test locality

[gill1109]

In Essail's model, as I explain in the comment, Alice's choice of her setting influences the result that Bob finds. Whether you call that contextuality or bananas it does not matter.

Again: Alice's setting does not influence Bob's results. It just determines which of Bob's positive results match with Alice's. That this match depends on Alice's setting is no surprise given that the photons of the two sides in the initial state are perpendicular polarized.

I've written this in my Reply to your Comment. Why do you ignore this and still insist on your wrong arguments.

You use Alice's setting to choose which of Bob's results are to be matched to Alice's.
1) Experimenters do not do this. Your model does not explain experimental data
2) Experimenters pre-match time slots. A time slot of Alice and a time-slot of Bob are specified in advance. During each time slot, and locally at each location, a random binary setting is chosen and input to an apparatus, and a binary outcome is determined from data produced by the apparatus using a pre-chosen algorithm.
Your model has no connection either to quantum theory or to what is commonly called "local realism" or to experiment. You have a hidden variables theory of the type Alice's outcome = A(a, b, lambda) and Bob's outcome = B(a, b, lambda). It's contextual and the context is non-local in the worst possible way: it includes the settings on both sides of the experiment.

[Esail]

Thanks to your response to my comment, I finally uderstood why you say your model is local.
You chose different particles according to what setting is chosen. That is not "contextuality" and is not how you test locality

In an entangled particle system, there are no discrete particles with a defined polarization. Otherwise the system would be separable, which it is not. Through a selection, however, a particle flow with identical polarization is selected. This is due to the indistinguishability of entangled photons, which also cannot be distinguished by their polarization. Selection alpha means selecting all photons which would pass a polarizer set to alpha. Selecting from the initial context comprises all generated photons with polarization 0° in the range 0<lambda<cos**2(alpha) and photons with polarization 90° in the range cos**2(alpha) <lambda<1.

In QM terms a selection by a polarizer is equivalent to a projection onto the polarizer direction. It is well known that a projection from a singlet state onto a polarizer direction alpha at one side leaves the system on the other side in a state with polarization alpha+pi/2. The question was for a long time if this is due to instantaneous interaction or to hidden variables. After my model there is strong evidence the latter is the case.

[Esail]

You use Alice's setting to choose which of Bob's results are to be matched to Alice's.
1) Experimenters do not do this. Your model does not explain experimental data
2) Experimenters pre-match time slots. A time slot of Alice and a time-slot of Bob are specified in advance. During each time slot, and locally at each location, a random binary setting is chosen and input to an apparatus, and a binary outcome is determined from data produced by the apparatus using a pre-chosen algorithm.
Your model has no connection either to quantum theory or to what is commonly called "local realism" or to experiment. You have a hidden variables theory of the type Alice's outcome = A(a, b, lambda) and Bob's outcome = B(a, b, lambda). It's contextual and the context is non-local in the worst possible way: it includes the settings on both sides of the experiment.

1) Experimenters collect data A(a, time) =+1 ,B(b, time) =+1. This is Alice's setting to choose which of Bob's results are to be matched to Alice's.
From these data the expectation value can be calculated (see the paper)
2) From the model point of view each setting establishes a different experiment.
That my model is local can be read in the paper. If you want to refute it please stick to the text.

[gill1109]

You use Alice's setting to choose which of Bob's results are to be matched to Alice's.
1) Experimenters do not do this. Your model does not explain experimental data
2) Experimenters pre-match time slots. A time slot of Alice and a time-slot of Bob are specified in advance. During each time slot, and locally at each location, a random binary setting is chosen and input to an apparatus, and a binary outcome is determined from data produced by the apparatus using a pre-chosen algorithm.
Your model has no connection either to quantum theory or to what is commonly called "local realism" or to experiment. You have a hidden variables theory of the type Alice's outcome = A(a, b, lambda) and Bob's outcome = B(a, b, lambda). It's contextual and the context is non-local in the worst possible way: it includes the settings on both sides of the experiment.

1) Experimenters collect data A(a, time) =+1 ,B(b, time) =+1. This is Alice's setting to choose which of Bob's results are to be matched to Alice's.
From these data the expectation value can be calculated (see the paper)
2) From the model point of view each setting establishes a different experiment.
That my model is local can be read in the paper. If you want to refute it please stick to the text.

1) Experimenters do what I say, not what you say. Read some recent Bell experiment papers if you don’t believe me.
2) Your model is not local according to usual definitions of local and I don’t discuss your text since your scenario is totally irrelevant, both to theory (LR vs QM) and to experiment (LR vs observed laboratory facts).

[Esail]

1) Experimenters do what I say, not what you say. Read some recent Bell experiment papers if you don’t believe me.

They may also collect A/B = +1/-1, -1,-1,-1,+1. From the theoretical point of view A/B =+1/+1 is enough. See the paper.

[Justo]

Thanks to your response to my comment, I finally uderstood why you say your model is local.
You chose different particles according to what setting is chosen. That is not "contextuality" and is not how you test locality

In an entangled particle system, there are no discrete particles with a defined polarization. Otherwise the system would be separable, which it is not. Through a selection, however, a particle flow with identical polarization is selected. This is due to the indistinguishability of entangled photons, which also cannot be distinguished by their polarization. Selection alpha means selecting all photons which would pass a polarizer set to alpha. Selecting from the initial context comprises all generated photons with polarization 0° in the range 0<lambda<cos**2(alpha) and photons with polarization 90° in the range cos**2(alpha) <lambda<1.

In QM terms a selection by a polarizer is equivalent to a projection onto the polarizer direction. It is well known that a projection from a singlet state onto a polarizer direction alpha at one side leaves the system on the other side in a state with polarization alpha+pi/2. The question was for a long time if this is due to instantaneous interaction or to hidden variables. After my model there is strong evidence the latter is the case.

The problem then seems to be your concept of "locality". Locality means: what an experimenter decides to do in a far away laboratory cannot change the result of what I decide to measure here when the measuring events are spacelike separated. That is the simple and clear meaning of locality and is what your model clearly violates as I showed in my comment and everyone has tried to explain to you.
I does not matter how you try to explain that; it is a nonlocal effect and will continue to be a nonlocal effect unless your change the concept of locality.

[gill1109]

1) Experimenters do what I say, not what you say. Read some recent Bell experiment papers if you don’t believe me.

They may also collect A/B = +1/-1, -1,-1,-1,+1. From the theoretical point of view A/B =+1/+1 is enough. See the paper.

They may do what they like. If you want to be relevant to physics, you had better find out what they actually do, and why.