The real puzzle

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

Re: The real puzzle

Postby minkwe » Mon May 05, 2014 10:55 pm

Zero. Now where is the dataset?
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: The real puzzle

Postby gill1109 » Tue May 06, 2014 5:45 am

minkwe wrote:Zero. Now where is the dataset?

You mean, zero money? Well that's a pity. There are also zero lines in the dataset, at present, too. Each line will cost one Euro. How big should the data-set be? I already wrote the program to make the data, following the instructions which I earlier gave to you. Piece of cake.

And *please* could you start a new topic if you want to go seriously into this matter? Re-state your challenge and give some of the references...
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: The real puzzle

Postby gill1109 » Tue May 06, 2014 10:54 am

Got carried away programming the Larsson Gill model saturating their inequality and producing S = 2 sqrt 2. My script simulates the model, and depending on the random seed, sometimes violates the "inequality" obtained by replacing population quantities with their empirical counterparts. The bigger the sample size, the smaller the probability of a large violation. The script which I posted to Rpubs sets the seed fortuitously and, with N = 10^4; lets the sample analogue of the LG inequality be violated by an amount 0.027 which is probably two or three standard deviations. Good for a publication in social psychology or spatial economics, but not in physics.

http://rpubs.com/gill1109/Coincidence

Perhaps Michel will now like to admit he's mistaken and make a small donation to Medecins sans Frontieres.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: The real puzzle

Postby minkwe » Tue May 06, 2014 11:55 am

Good, you now claim to have simulated a non-real dataset which violates your LG theorem, let us scrutinize it.

Your LG theorem says:

| E(AC′|ΛAC′) + E(AD′|ΛAD′)| + |E(BC′|ΛBC′) − E(BD′|ΛBD′)|≤ 4 - 2δ

What is delta in your simulation?
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: The real puzzle

Postby minkwe » Tue May 06, 2014 1:27 pm

Richard, let me help you to calculate delta in your simulation:

Delta is zero in your simulation because the sets are completely disjoint. You can easily verify by adding the following code

Code: Select all
samplecommon <- (sample11 & sample12 & sample21 & sample22)
LGdelta <- sum(samplecommon)/sum(sample11)
LGdelta

Output:
Code: Select all
[1] 0

The ensembles are completely disjoint nothing common. A null set. delta is zero which means the appropriate inequality is

| E(AC′|ΛAC′) + E(AD′|ΛAD′)| + |E(BC′|ΛBC′) − E(BD′|ΛBD′)|≤ 4

You got S = 2.826. You needed to achieve 4.00001, not even close.

Sorry, you will have to try harder.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: The real puzzle

Postby gill1109 » Tue May 06, 2014 9:52 pm

delta is defined in formula (7), which refers to the population (ie to the model, not to the outcomes of a simulation experiment), and it refers to events defined in terms of counterfactual measurement of spin in both directions on both particles at once.

It is not difficult however to add the complete set of counterfactual measurement outcomes in the simulation code, and to compute the "empirical" analogue of (7).

I have extended the script. There is indeed also a violation of (7) in this particular experiment.

Note: one cannot violate a theorem. But sample analogues can violate population inequalities, of course. To look at (7) we need to extend the simulation so as to simulate the complete set of counterfactual outcomes of all possible measurements. The model allows us to do so, easily, by definition (it is a LHV model).
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: The real puzzle

Postby minkwe » Wed May 07, 2014 9:56 am

gill1109 wrote:delta is defined in formula (7), which refers to the population (ie to the model, not to the outcomes of a simulation experiment), and it refers to events defined in terms of counterfactual measurement of spin in both directions on both particles at once.

Richard, who are you trying to fool here? According to your paper:
The problem here is that the ensemble on which the correlations are evaluated changes
with the settings, while the original Bell inequality requires that they stay the same. In effect,
the Bell inequality only holds on the common part of the four different ensembles ΛAC′ , ΛAD′ ,
ΛBC′ , and ΛBD′ , i.e., for correlations of the form
E(AC′|ΛAC′ ∩ ΛAD′ ∩ ΛBC′ ∩ ΛBD′ ). (8)
Unfortunately our experimental data comes in the form
E(AC′|ΛAC′),


The population is Λ, the ensembles from the experiment are ΛAC′ , ΛAD′ ,ΛBC′ , and ΛBD′. Delta is calculated as:

so we need an estimate of the relation of the common part to its constituents:
δ = inf_settings P(ΛAC′ ∩ ΛAD′ ∩ ΛBC′ ∩ ΛBD′ )/P(ΛAC′ )
= inf_settings P(ΛAD′ ∩ ΛBC′ ∩ ΛBD′ |ΛAC′).
...
ΛI = ΛAC′ ∩ ΛAD′ ∩ ΛBC′ ∩ ΛBD′
This ensemble may be empty, but only when δ = 0

ΛI is the common part of the four ensembles. If your specious new explanation is correct, then the population is null when delta is zero. Which is hogwash. You can't disown your own paper !?
It is not difficult however to add the complete set of counterfactual measurement outcomes in the simulation code, and to compute the "empirical" analogue of (7).
I have extended the script. There is indeed also a violation of (7) in this particular experiment.

You must really believe I'm stupid, otherwise you will not post your new script.

You calculate rho11, rho12, rho21, rho22 from one dataset with different sample11, sample12, sample21, and sample22, then you generate 4 different datasets from which you calculate sample11, sample12, sample21, and sample22 but deliberately do not calculate rho11, rho12, rho21, rho22 for these, then you simply reuse the rho11, rho12, rho21, rho22 you calculated in the first case to calculate S, which you now use to compare with the bound calculated from the 4 different cases. Pure nonsense.

Delta must be calculated from the same dataset which you use to calculate S. Using the same sample11, sample12, sample21, and sample22. The symbols in equation (10) and equation (11) in your paper have the exact same meaning. So enough with the silly games. Here is how to fix the mess you posted:

1. Now I already showed you that your delta of zero from the first case gave you an upper bound of 4 and your S was 2.826 (not even close).
2. You now provided 4 separate calculations for each setting pair. That is fine, but we must calculate a new S for this case. I'll post the code for the first two, and anyone can complete the rest.
After the lines where the dataSet is assigned, the following three lines:
Code: Select all
dataSet <- data.frame(settingAlice = settingAlice, spinAlice = spinAlice, timeAlice = timeAlice,
                      settingBob = settingBob, spinBob = spinBob, timeBob = timeBob)
delta <- abs(timeAlice - timeBob)
sample11 <- (delta < 1.5) & (settingAlice == 1) & (settingBob == 1)
rho11 <- mean((spinAlice*spinBob)[sample11])


Code: Select all
dataSet <- data.frame(settingAlice = settingAlice, spinAlice = spinAlice, timeAlice = timeAlice,
                      settingBob = settingBob, spinBob = spinBob, timeBob = timeBob)

delta <- abs(timeAlice - timeBob)
sample12 <- (delta < 1.5) & (settingAlice == 1) & (settingBob == 2)
rho12 <- mean((spinAlice*spinBob)[sample12])

After doing, this for all 4 cases, you can now calculate a new S. USING THE NEW RHOs!!!!!

Code: Select all
(S <- rho11 + rho12 + rho21 - rho22)
all <- sum(sample11 & sample12 & sample21 & sample22)

delta11 <- all / sum(sample11)
delta12 <- all / sum(sample12)
delta21 <- all / sum(sample21)
delta22 <- all / sum(sample22)
delta <- min(c(delta11, delta12, delta21, delta22))

bound <- 4 - 2 * delta
S-bound


Code: Select all
[1] -0.005963789

Repeat this as many times as you like, with the random number seed off, and find me just one case in which S-bound is greater than 0.00001. I tried it and after 1000 iterations the biggest value for S-bound I got was -0.0041

So sorry Richard, you have failed yet again. Back to the drawing board.

Note: one cannot violate a theorem. But sample analogues can violate population inequalities, of course. To look at (7) we need to extend the simulation so as to simulate the complete set of counterfactual outcomes of all possible measurements. The model allows us to do so, easily, by definition (it is a LHV model).

Richard, we are interested in the theorem in your paper. Equation (11) and the variable delta used to calculate it, from equation (10). Stop the diversionary tactics with equation (7). We are not interested in it. Secondly, you seem to have missed the important part of the challenge:

minkwe wrote:You claim that violation of such a bound is a privileged property of QM/non-local theories/non-real theories but impossible for LHV models.

You should have been trying to find a non-local/non-real theory that violates your LG theorem, if you believed it was easier to do.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: The real puzzle

Postby gill1109 » Wed May 07, 2014 11:48 am

I did what you asked me to do, Michel. You owe me a beer, if ever we meet somewhere.

The theorem in my paper is a true theorem. The difference between population mean and sample average still eludes you.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: The real puzzle

Postby minkwe » Wed May 07, 2014 12:12 pm

gill1109 wrote:I did what you asked me to do, Michel. You owe me a beer, if ever we meet somewhere.

You tried but failed. I don't owe you anything, although I would happily buy you a beer if we do meet.

The theorem in my paper is a true theorem.

Yes your theorem (equation 11) is true. Your theorem being a mathematical tautology, can never be violated by anything, not statistical error, not non-locality, not non-realism, zilch. No future experiment will ever violate it either. This little exercise should have made you realize that.
The difference between population mean and sample average still eludes you

Nope I'm not. It is you who is completely in the dark when it comes to applying mathematics to experiments and physics.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: The real puzzle

Postby gill1109 » Wed May 07, 2014 8:12 pm

minkwe wrote:No future experiment will ever violate it either.

What we have discovered is that you understand something quite different by the expression "an empirical violation of an inequality" than everyone else in the world. It makes communication difficult (and hinders your understanding of the scientific literature). Did you read chapters 13 and 16 of "Speakable and Unspeakable" and if not, why not?

Thd purpose of that little R experiment was in order to gain some insight into this topic. Did you try it yet?
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: The real puzzle

Postby minkwe » Thu May 08, 2014 5:04 am

Richard, you do not understand how to apply mathematics to experiments or physics. That is what we have discovered.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: The real puzzle

Postby gill1109 » Thu May 08, 2014 8:40 am

minkwe wrote:Richard, you do not understand how to apply mathematics to experiments or physics. That is what we have discovered.


Since you express yourself bluntly, Michel, I hope you will excuse me for doing the same.

We have discovered that you can't apply mathematics to experiments, Michel, because you don't know anything about statistics, hence you don't even have the vocabulary in order to formulate the issues which then arise when confronting physical models with experimental data. Because you don't have the concepts, don't have the words, you are blind, totally blind, to the issues.

We haven't seen you doing any physics, so we can't judge whether or not you can apply mathematics to physics. We have however discovered that you are blissfully unaware of key literature references in this area. Instead, you spend your time picking up weird ideas from obscure and unreadable self-published garbage written by unqualified amateurs who also are totally unaware of key literature references.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: The real puzzle

Postby minkwe » Thu May 08, 2014 9:17 am

You are excused, Richard. But we now know that your current paper being prepared for publication contains lies. And your only excuse has been that the editors did not allow you more space to tell the truth. Says alot about your paper, or the Journal which might actually publish it. But we don't expect any less from authors/journals which push nonsensical ideas such as "non-realism", "non-locality", "multiple-universes", "backward causation", "negative probabilities", etc.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: The real puzzle

Postby gill1109 » Thu May 08, 2014 10:10 pm

I have a personal eBook copy of "Speakable..." so if anyone wants to see one or the other chapter, they can email me ... but I would prefer they bought it and read all of it.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: The real puzzle

Postby gill1109 » Fri May 09, 2014 12:27 am

minkwe wrote:(1) How can it be that two particles are "entangled" at the stations if they were not "entangled" at the source?
OR
(2) Why do we need a single source (as opposed to two separate sources) to begin with if we do not believe the source imparts shared hidden properties to the particle pairs?


My numbers (1), (2), and correction of a typo.

Answer to question 1: just as is the case with classical correlation, one can (according to conventional QM theory) create quantum entanglement from nothing by post-selection.

Classical version: it could be that in the population, two factors which both increase the chance of a particular illness are completely uncorrelated. However, if you look at people with the illness, you'll find that the absence of one of those factors increases the likelihood that the other is present.

The quantum version of this is well-known as the phenomenon of entanglement-swapping, and it's used in quantum teleportation, and so on... It's related to the fact that the completely random state of two spin half systems is a four component mixture of the four pure and maximally entangled states |00> +/- |11>, |01> +/- |10>

Therefore the answer to question 2 is: we don't need a single source, if our experiments involve post-selection.

PS I found Michel's recent posts somewhat offensive and I don't want to be provoked into ad hominem attacks as a defence against ad hominem attacks. In order to de-escalate (cf. Putin saying the Ukraine referenda should be postponed) I made his posts temporarily invisible. Someone had better let me know if he says something I should respond to.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: The real puzzle

Postby minkwe » Fri May 09, 2014 7:10 am

gill1109 wrote:
minkwe wrote:(1) How can it be that two particles are "entangled" at the stations if they were not "entangled" at the source?
OR
(2) Why do we need a single source (as opposed to two separate sources) to begin with if we do not believe the source imparts shared hidden properties to the particle pairs?


Answer to question 1: just as is the case with classical correlation, one can (according to conventional QM theory) create quantum entanglement from nothing by post-selection.
...
Therefore the answer to question 2 is: we don't need a single source, if our experiments involve post-selection.

You forgot that we are talking about the EPRB experiment. There is no post-selection station between the source and Alice and Bob. Besides, I can easily and classically add correlation between two previously uncorrelated streams of classical objects by post-selection too. Just have 2 machines producing balls of different colors at random. The two streams are uncorrelated. Yet just add a station which only allows two balls through (one from each source), if they have the same color and bam you have introduced "entanglement", nothing interesting there. You can call it "teleportation" to sound mystical :roll:.

PS I found Michel's recent posts somewhat offensive and I don't want to be provoked into ad hominem attacks as a defence against ad hominem attacks. In order to de-escalate (cf. Putin saying the Ukraine referenda should be postponed) I made his posts temporarily invisible. Someone had better let me know if he says something I should respond to.

I find the above comment somewhat disingenuous. You've said this many times before and yet kept reading my posts. We'll see if this will hold up this time. 1... 2... 3...
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: The real puzzle

Postby gill1109 » Sat May 17, 2014 11:54 pm

... 100. Now they're visible again.

Yes, they called it "teleportation" in order to gain PR and funding.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Previous

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 65 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library