New simulations of detection and coincidence loophole models

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

Re: New simulations of detection and coincidence loophole mo

Postby gill1109 » Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:45 pm

Nobody should believe anyone's claims.

Please distinguish "model" (or more precisely maths of the model) from "program". You yourself wrote (about epr-simple)

The maths of the model can be summarized as:

λ = {e, p, s}, e ∈ [0..2π), s = {1/2, 1}
p = ½ sin²t, t ∈ [0..π/2)
e' = e + 2πs
A(a,λ) = sign(-1ⁿ cos n(a − e)) if |cos n(a − e)| > p, 0 otherwise
B(b,λ) = sign(-1ⁿ cos n(b − e')) if |cos n(b − e')| > p, 0 otherwise
where n = 2s

Alternatively, p = tᵏ, t ∈ [0..π/4), k=π/2 also works well.


I honestly believe that I correctly implemented in R code the maths of your models. Take a look at

http://rpubs.com/gill1109/epr-simple
http://rpubs.com/gill1109/epr-clocked-full
http://rpubs.com/gill1109/epr-clocked-core

Notice the comments at the head of each script.

If you think my implementation was incorrect please let me know.

Perhaps you just object to the *names* of the scripts. I could change them, if that is what is bothering you. I could add "-caricature" to each name, if you like.

However we would actually make some progress if you would simply study them and think about the results.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: New simulations of detection and coincidence loophole mo

Postby minkwe » Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:22 pm

minkwe wrote:
gill1109 wrote:You had better look at my simulations.

I will do no such thing. My simulation is open-source, you can download it and run it as many times as you like. It saves output files, you can analyze them as you like. You don't need to rewrite it in order to test MY simulation. If you rewrite it, I'm not going to give you my blessing that what you have is my model. Sorry it is not. Besides you have stated many times what your intentions were and I can quote you:

gill1109 wrote:I fixed this defect myself.
.
gill1109 wrote:Actually first I improved the detectors in his model

You do not like my model so you pretended it was an error or a defect and you changed it. Even though I told you everything in my model was part of the model and no defect. You simply ignored me and continued your tricks:
gill1109 wrote:One person's feature is another person's bug! And vice versa.

So you have now explained that when you say 100% detection, you mean that all particles which you intended to be emitted are indeed detected too. But you have told us that 0.01% of the particles do not come in pairs. So your source is imperfect.

I made it perfect


minkwe wrote:No you did not. My source is already perfect. It behaves the way it is meant to behave. You don't have to like it, but that is the model. You changed the model. You are free to have your own standards of how a source should behave but results you compute according to those assumptions will not tell you anything about my simulation , or the real world experiments it attempts to model.


Anyone following this can review our prior discussion about your escapades here: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=23&start=23

Nobody should trust your claims that you are testing my model. You are not. Had you intended to test my model, you would simply have analyzed the output from my programs. But no, you rewrote everything to fulfill your wishes contrary to my warnings and now you want me to bless your work so that you may use it to discredit my work. Sorry, If you want to say anything about my model with a straight-face, you will simply analyze the data from my model not your caricatures of it.

You have admitted already in this thread that your intentions were to "ADAPT" my model to suit what you wanted to do. Those were your words. I've told you already such "ADAPTATIONS" changes the model. Anyone can read the README file included in the model as well as our discussion about it from several months ago in which you kept trying to change my model and I resisted it.

Let me remind you of a section of the License for my programs:

https://github.com/minkwe/epr-clocked/blob/master/LICENSE wrote: Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain
that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free
software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we
want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so
that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original
authors' reputations.


It is common decency that when you modify somebody's work, you do not go around claiming that what you got was their work. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: New simulations of detection and coincidence loophole mo

Postby gill1109 » Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:31 pm

I'm afraid Michel that this way you are not going to learn anything new. You are not going to learn that things are not always what they seem.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: New simulations of detection and coincidence loophole mo

Postby minkwe » Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:58 pm

gill1109 wrote:I'm afraid Michel that this way you are not going to learn anything new. You are not going to learn that things are not always what they seem.

You are not my teacher. I will learn whatever I will learn. Don't concern yourself with my learning. Rather, follow common decency and do not attribute your modifications of my work to me.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: New simulations of detection and coincidence loophole mo

Postby gill1109 » Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:50 am

minkwe wrote:
gill1109 wrote:I'm afraid Michel that this way you are not going to learn anything new. You are not going to learn that things are not always what they seem.

You are not my teacher. I will learn whatever I will learn. Don't concern yourself with my learning. Rather, follow common decency and do not attribute your modifications of my work to me.

I do not attribute my modifications of your work to you. In fact, I have not modified your work in any way.

I have studied your model. I have not modified your model in any way whatsoever.

I am not your teacher. If you want not to learn from me, you surely won't. Live well, good luck. I hope you will find other teachers because I believe there are a lot of important things you do not know.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: New simulations of detection and coincidence loophole mo

Postby minkwe » Fri Jun 13, 2014 5:23 am

gill1109 wrote:I do not attribute my modifications of your work to you. In fact, I have not modified your work in any way.

I have studied your model. I have not modified your model in any way whatsoever.

Obviously false, as anyone who reads this thread and all our communications about my models in the other thread will clearly find. Your intentions are clear. Your motives are obvious. If wanted to study my model, you would have analyzed the output files MY programs produced. You have been analyzing simulations written in R, I never wrote anything in R so your claim that you have not modified anything is false. You wrote all the R code. On your own I made no contribution to it. I have never reviewed your code, I have never given you any blessing that what you have is my model, because you have stated from the beginning that your intention was to ADAPT my model in ways I disagreed with, you stated that rewrite them in R to suit your "experimental protocol". You can not now claim that whatever you have is my model, as that will be dishonest. So go ahead and analyze your programs to your hearts content. Leave my name out of it.

It is common decency that when you modify somebody's work, you do not go around claiming that what you got was their work. Why is this so hard for you to understand? First learn some common decency before you can purport to tell others what they know or might not know. If I want to learn something, I will learn it from someone who is honest and respectful of others, and does not misrepresent people based on hidden agendas.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: New simulations of detection and coincidence loophole mo

Postby gill1109 » Fri Jun 13, 2014 5:40 am

minkwe wrote:
gill1109 wrote:I do not attribute my modifications of your work to you. In fact, I have not modified your work in any way.

I have studied your model. I have not modified your model in any way whatsoever.

Obviously false, as anyone who reads this thread and all our communications about my models in the other thread will clearly find. Your intentions are clear. Your motives are obvious. If wanted to study my model, you would have analyzed the output files MY programs produced. You have been analyzing simulations written in R, I never wrote anything in R so your claim that you have not modified anything is false. You wrote all the R code. On your own I made no contribution to it. I have never reviewed your code, I have never given you any blessing that what you have is my model, because you have stated from the beginning that your intention was to ADAPT my model in ways I disagreed with, you stated that rewrite them in R to suit your "experimental protocol". You can not now claim that whatever you have is my model, as that will be dishonest. So go ahead and analyze your programs to your hearts content. Leave my name out of it.

It is common decency that when you modify somebody's work, you do not go around claiming that what you got was their work. Why is this so hard for you to understand? First learn some common decency before you can purport to tell others what they know or might not know. If I want to learn something, I will learn it from someone who is honest and respectful of others, and does not misrepresent people based on hidden agendas.

Maybe you misunderstand me! And maybe I changed my mind!?

Maybe today I no longer have the same plans as I had two months ago?

Today I am not the same person as I was several months ago.

I did not modify your work. I did some experiments with your model. If you claim that it is not your model, you had better look at my R code and tell me where I went wrong. If you are not interested in learning from experience, then make sure that you never get any experience.

Did you read "Bertlmann's socks" yet?
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: New simulations of detection and coincidence loophole mo

Postby minkwe » Fri Jun 13, 2014 5:57 am

gill1109 wrote:Maybe you misunderstand me! And maybe I changed my mind!?

Maybe today I no longer have the same plans as I had two months ago?

Today I am not the same person as I was several months ago.


Maybe. But based on your stated intentions, and your actions today, you can not be trusted when you claim to be analyzing my model.


I did not modify your work. I did some experiments with your model. If you claim that it is not your model, you had better look at my R code and tell me where I went wrong.

You did not modify my work, yet somehow it magically translated itself to R. I will never bless any R-code from you purporting to be my model.

Did you read "Bertlmann's socks" yet?

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? These kinds of loaded questions have no place here.
Last edited by minkwe on Fri Jun 13, 2014 6:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: New simulations of detection and coincidence loophole mo

Postby gill1109 » Fri Jun 13, 2014 6:14 am

Have you read "Bertlmann's socks" recently?

I have read and re-read it many times. I always find new things in it.

I studied your code, understood it, and rewrote it in R. It works just fine. Same violation of same inequalities etc etc. I have no need of anyone's blessing. The models which you implemented in Python stand on their own. Anyone can read my code and look at the experiments which I did with it. I acknowledge that I learnt those models by studying your code. No dishonesty.

Imagine a brilliant engineer invents a new, better, photodetector. He publishes the principles of the photodetector, explicitly allowing anyone to use and modify these plans as they like, as long as they acknowledge the source and publish their own modification under the same license.

Another scientist then builds a photodector according to these principles and uses it to perform a loophole-free Bell-type experiment. He publishes his own specifications and acknowledges their source. The engineer complains because he believes in local realism. "His photodector" is not to be used for such experiments.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: New simulations of detection and coincidence loophole mo

Postby minkwe » Fri Jun 13, 2014 6:53 am

gill1109 wrote:Have you read "Bertlmann's socks" recently?

I have read and re-read it many times. I always find new things in it.

I have read it many times. What new thing have you found that is relevant to all the discussions we've been having? Start a new thread or post it here and you might have my interest, if not mine, I'm sure there will be many others on these forums interested. I have never found anything in Bertlmann's socks that even attempts to rescue Bell from his fatal mixing of strongly objective and weakly objective concepts.

I studied your code, understood it, and rewrote it in R. It works just fine.

According to you. But even one of your own friends, another Bell-believer told you you had left important bits out, but you simply brushed him aside and called it a flaw in the original model. You can not be trusted to represent my work correctly. There is ample evidence in these forums to make that judgement.

The models which you implemented in Python stand on their own.

So then answer this simple question if you can, honestly. Why oh why are you unable to make your point by analysing the output data from MY PROGRAMS. Why is it necessary for you to rewrite the program in order to analyse it?
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: New simulations of detection and coincidence loophole mo

Postby gill1109 » Fri Jun 13, 2014 7:18 am

minkwe wrote:So then answer this simple question if you can, honestly.Why oh why are you unable to make your point by analysing the output data from MY PROGRAMS. Why is it necessary for you to rewrite the program in order to analyse it?


Quite a few reasons.

(0) I wanted to analyse the model, not the program.

(1) I wanted to run CHSH-style experiments. Alice and Bob each choosing between two specific settings.

(2) I wanted to do my own data-analyses on the data, not yours; and I wanted to do them in R.

(3) I wanted to analyse the data in R, on a MacBook Pro under OS X.9. I am not a Python wizard. I couldn't get the R package for reading Numpy data files into R to work under my version of R

(4) I wanted to repeat experiments many times. It costs an awful lot of time to save large files to disks with one program and then read them off disk with another. Much better to have them created in memory and analysed in memory, and the repetitions all done within the same program.

(5) I wanted to make my experiments reproducible and for that purpose I needed to add set/save/restore random seed functionality

(6) I noticed that some of your numerical and probabilistic procedures are rather inefficiently programmed. There are much faster and at the same time numerically much more accurate ways to simulate your model.

(7) There are very decent interfaces between R and C++, and between R some other languages, but not between R and Python. And I'm not a Python wizard.

I use R because it is designed for statistical data analysis and programming. It's perfect for my present purposes. Programs are very short, easy to write and easy to debug and easy to explain to other people. Rpubs and Rstudio are wonderful tools for communication and development and more tools are on the way e.g. RShiny is an R server so that you can put interactive R programs online.

I haven't told you here what the point was. There were quite a few interesting points and some new discoveries.

Incidentally, Hans de Raedt agreed with me that Aspect and Weihs applied the wrong inequality. If they had used the appropriate inequality they would not have got a statistically significant violation. To put it another way: they did not test local realism, they tested local realism plus some other assumptions. So if the inequality which they tested was violated, then the other assumptions could be at fault, not local realism.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: New simulations of detection and coincidence loophole mo

Postby minkwe » Fri Jun 13, 2014 7:38 am

gill1109 wrote:
minkwe wrote:So then answer this simple question if you can, honestly.Why oh why are you unable to make your point by analysing the output data from MY PROGRAMS. Why is it necessary for you to rewrite the program in order to analyse it?


Quite a few reasons.

(0) I wanted to analyse the model, not the program.

Not true. You wanted to change the model and fix what you called bugs/defects in it. That is what you repeatedly stated yourself. Maybe you changed your mind. But that was your stated intention. The program is the model. As stated in the README file, the model is not fully described anywhere else but in the program.

(1) I wanted to run CHSH-style experiments. Alice and Bob each choosing between two specific settings.

The program already performs a "CHSH"-style experiment exactly as it is done in real EPRB experiments and it allows you to provide specific settings. So if you do not like the way the program does what you call a "CHSH"-style experiment. You are free to modify it to do what you like. But it is dishonest to continue to claim that what you now have is my model. It is not.

(2) I wanted to do my own data-analyses on the data, not yours; and I wanted to do them in R.

I already told you from the beginning you can do your own data analysis of the data produced by MY PROGRAMS in any program you like. This excuse will not work. You are not being straightforward here.

(3) I wanted to analyse the data in R, on a MacBook Pro under OS X.9. I am not a Python wizard. I couldn't get the R package for reading Numpy data files into R to work under my version of R

Simply disingenuous, as you can see in my README file, I have given clear instructions which allow anyone to convert the numpy data files into text versions which can be analyzed in any programming language of your choice. Who are you trying to fool here.

(4) I wanted to repeat experiments many times. It costs an awful lot of time to save large files to disks with one program and then read them off disk with another. Much better to have them created in memory and analysed in memory, and the repetitions all done within the same program.
(5) I wanted to make my experiments reproducible and for that purpose I needed to add set/save/restore random seed functionality

Again, you are not being straight forward here. As anyone can see by reading the original thread. Even though I've told you many times that re-setting random number seeds goes against my models. MY PROGRAMS already allow you to run them many times with the same random number seeds. This excuse won't work either. It takes a lot more time to rewrite my programs than to run them.

(6) I noticed that some of your numerical and probabilistic procedures are rather inefficiently programmed. There are much faster and at the same time numerically much more accurate ways to simulate your model.

You don't have to like it. It is my model, if you change it, STOP ATTRIBUTING YOUR MODIFICATIONS TO ME.

(7) There are very decent interfaces between R and C++, and between R some other languages, but not between R and Python. And I'm not a Python wizard.

I use R because it is designed for statistical data analysis and programming. It's perfect for my present purposes. Programs are very short, easy to write and easy to debug and easy to explain to other people. Rpubs and Rstudio are wonderful tools for communication and development and more tools are on the way e.g. RShiny is an R server so that you can put interactive R programs online.

I haven't told you here what the point was. There were quite a few interesting points and some new discoveries.


This is what the header of your code says.
## Michel Fodje's "epr-clocked" coincidence loophole model
## Stripped down to essential core
##

You are free to do whatever you want in whatever language you want. You are free to rewrite my programs, and change them in whatever way you like. I only ask that you STOP ATTRIBUTING YOUR MODIFICATIONS TO ME. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: New simulations of detection and coincidence loophole mo

Postby gill1109 » Fri Jun 13, 2014 10:07 pm

Richard Gill's modifications to Michel Fodje's mathematical models are Richard Gill's modifications to Michel Fodje's mathematical models. Gill does not attribute the modifications to some-else else. He made them.This is called science. Building on the work of others.

Anyone who can read Python can see what Fodje's mathematical models are. Fodje implemented mathematical models in Python code and published the code. From then on, other scientists can take his ideas in new directions.

Does Fodje want to prevent the world from finding out about the results? Namely that Fodje's simulations do not significantly violate any appropriate Bell-type inequalities?

Why does he write in huge red capital letters, if in fact his aim is to suppress knowkedge?
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: New simulations of detection and coincidence loophole mo

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Jun 14, 2014 12:12 am

gill1109 wrote:Why does he write in huge red capital letters, if in fact his aim is to suppress knowkedge?

Apparently he doesn't want his name on anything of yours. Take his name off and use a link reference to the web page where his code is.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: New simulations of detection and coincidence loophole mo

Postby minkwe » Sat Jun 14, 2014 10:10 am

gill1109 wrote:Does Fodje want to prevent the world from finding out about the results? Namely that Fodje's simulations do not significantly violate any appropriate Bell-type inequalities?

This is exactly the dishonesty I'm talking about. And it is exactly your motive for doing exactly what you are doing. If you analyze the OUTPUT DATA FROM MY SIMULATIONS and it does not violate Bell's inequalities, you can shout that as much as you like. What you can not do is modify my model, change it in ways I disapprove and then claim as you just did that my simulations do not significantly violate Bell-type inequalities. This is precisely why it is difficult for you to understand what I've been telling you in large bold print. Because your intention is to claim that my simulations do not violate Bell's inequalities, by analyzing data which is not from my simulations, but from a caricature which you have modified and changed in order to obtain the result you want. This is the worst kind of scientific malpractice, and I'm happy you finally admitted it. Your previous post clearly illustrates your motives and intentions for doing what you are doing.

The funny thing is you claim above that I'm trying to prevent the world from knowing that "my simulations do not violate any appropriate Bell-type inequalities?". Why would I want to do that, when I've been arguing that nothing whatsoever can ever violate the CHSH or any other Bell-like inequality if the correct calculation is performed, not even QM? Why would I want to do that, when I've been arguing from the beginning that not even my simulations can violate the appropriate inequality? Why would I want to do that when I've been arguing from the beginning that violations by simulations and QM and experiments are only apparent, because of erroneous mixing of counterfactual and actual correlations, because of erroneous mixing of weakly objective and strongly objective correlations, because of erroneous mixing of 4xN degrees of freedom with 4x2xN degrees of freedom. You are surely severely confused.

See viewtopic.php?f=6&t=23#p597
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: New simulations of detection and coincidence loophole mo

Postby gill1109 » Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:57 am

minkwe wrote:You are surely severely confused.

Well, for sure, at least one of us is severely confused.

OK so you agree that appropriate inequalities can never be violated. So how can you complain about my confirmation of what you have been saying all along?

Perhaps, what you mean by "appropriate" is different from what I mean by "appropriate". And what you mean by "violated" is different from what I mean by "violated".

The inequalities which your simulation model does not statistically significantly violate are different from (and indeed they are sharper than) the trivial inequalities which you think are the only appropriate inequalities.

Your simulation epr-clocked of the coincidence loophole does not statistically significantly violate the Larsson-Gill modified CHSH inequality.

Your simulation epr-simple of the detection loophole does not statistically significantly violate the Larsson modified CHSH inequality, nor the CH inequality, nor the CHSH inequality after putting back every "non-detection" as an actual outcome "0". Exactly as Caroline Thompson and Jan-Ake Larsson and Richard Gill predicted. As Pearle 1970 explained.

Hans de Raedt agreed with me too: an event-based local hidden variables simulation cannot very often statistically significantly violate the appropriate inequalities. Hans and I both agreed what the appropriate inequalities were.

CHSH already explained: violation of the inequality (they meant: statistically significant violation) means either that LHV is wrong or that the fair-sampling hypothesis is not satisfied. Your model violates fair-sampling. It has too, obviously!

My simulations epr-clocked-core and epr-clocked-full show that indeed the core part of your "clocked" model produces exactly the same results as the full "clocked" model, with very large probability, when N is small. And anyone can see that the difference, when N is large, is usually going to be very small indeed.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: New simulations of detection and coincidence loophole mo

Postby gill1109 » Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:14 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote:Why does he write in huge red capital letters, if in fact his aim is to suppress knowkedge?

Apparently he doesn't want his name on anything of yours. Take his name off and use a link reference to the web page where his code is.

Fred

I read Michel's Python code. Anyone can read it.

I can see what model he is simulating. Anyone can.

I write new simulations in a different computer language of his model.

I publish them on internet and cite my inspiration. The comments in the header of my code give the link. Anyone can check and let me know if I'm mistaken in any way.

I kindly ask Michel to take a look at my code and let me know if I got his model right.

I only did all this because Michel refused to collaborate in any way with me, adapting his programs to the experimental protocol which I wanted to investigate.

I am glad I did it, because my programs run very fast, the code is very transparent, and took no time at all to write ... and I made some interesting discoveries.
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 86 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library