local wrote:Gill insinuates that you stole those authors' coincidence window model (not so). Too cowardly to come right out and say it. Typical stone-cold narc tactics. Gaslighting, muddying, and projection. In fact, Gill himself stole the coincidence window mechanism from the great Arthur Fine, and Gill doesn't cite his predecessors in the application of martingales. Despicable.
"local", who are my predecessors in the application of martingale theory to Bell experiments?
In my experience, by the way, people who descend into pseudo-psychiatric destruction of other scientists' behaviour tend to do that when they have entirely run out of scientific arguments. What a load of rubbish you are spouting! I'm not insinuating anything at all. I hope your weird accusations made you feel better.
As I posted a few days back, I was reading discussions of a paper of Gordon Watson on Academia.edu, this led me to look at quite a few more works of Bell denialists, which led me to a bunch of papers by Marian Kupcsynski, which led me to three papers by Hans de Raedt, Karl Hess and Kristel Michielsen. As you all know, Hans and his wife Kristel work on computer simulations of quantum physical models. They are very good at it. They have linked up with Karl Hess. I suggest that Joy and Fred take a good look at their recent works. In particular, they are modelling in a local realistic way the new generation of experiments. I don't agree with their findings and I notice that they quite misinterpret those experiments. In particular, they are still using the detection loophole and coincidence loophole and not processing the observed data (from a sequence of time-slots) in the way that the 2015 experimenters do.
I saw some striking similarities with Fred's model. Lots of people have come up with detection-loophole and coincidence-loophole models, as they nowadays are called. Of course, the discoverers do not give them those names. They argue they are exposing the true underlying physics. Possibly, in the case of early Bell experiments, they were right.
Jan-Åke Larsson and I tried to figure out what Hess and Philipp were up to, going on about time and micro time. The thing is, Bell *did* discuss the issue of time, and I had already showed in 2001 how one could take account of it using randomised settings and fixed time-slots. We wondered if Hess and Philipp were thinking about the way experimentalists used to create observations of pairs of events by whether or not they were separated by a small distance in time. We showed that this phenomenon opened up a way to simulate quantum correlations in a local realistic way, even more easily than the already well-known detection efficiency problem. We gave it a name. Karl Hess first denied it, then said we had stolen it from them, then said that it had been discovered by Sergio Paszacio (whom he had never cited in his works). OK, he was pissed off since we had already killed his PNAS papers. Because we had discovered the mistake in Philipp's enormous mathematical calculations, which, as Hess admitted, he had not checked in detail. It was quite outside his comfort zone. The mathematical core of Bell's work is quite correct, as most people are prepared to admit, including Hess, de Raedt, Joy Christian. The problem is the (meta)physical interpretation.
We certainly were inspired by Hess and Philpp's work and freely admitted it. I have later had pleasant interactions with Karl. It was very sad that Walter died so unexpectedly. He was a very good probabilist.
You can't have it both ways. Fine, Pearl, Pascazio showed how one could create quantum signature behaviour in a classical physical way. Fred and Joy are doing the same, and using techniques that mathematically are closely related. Joy himself has written that there is a certain mathematical similarity between one of his models with Pearl's model. Fred and Joy are free to interpret their work physically just how they like. Everybody else is free to study their methods and, if they like, to interpret it differently.
Experimentalists are now doing experiments with such a stringent protocol that Fred and Joy certainly cannot simulate those experiments in a local realistic way without changing the way the data collected is processed. Hess, de Raedt and Michielsen only succeed in doing simulations of post 2015 experiments by changing how the observed data is analysed. Obviously, they have to change something. They are attempting the impossible, so the way to succeed is by moving the goalposts.
If I read those papers again and find the model which struck my eye, I might mention it here on the forum. It looked interesting enough to write about in a future publication. But Marian Kupscynski himself has already written a critique of the Hess-de Raedt-Michielsen works. This is interesting, since he himself is a Bell-denier, publishing a lot of papers in quite decent journals. Probably it is better to leave it buried.