FrediFizzx wrote:Here is a link to about when Michel created epr-simple.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.phy ... XDA-aei3sJ
.
From that discussion it looks like it was Heine that first mentioned the Gisin and Gisin and Pearle models.
.
FrediFizzx wrote:Here is a link to about when Michel created epr-simple.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.phy ... XDA-aei3sJ
.
Joy Christian wrote:***
I disagree with the claims made above by Richard Gill. What he has written is a gross misrepresentation of what actually led to Michel's original "EPR simple" simulation. I have not belittled Richard Gill's contribution. It has been acknowledged in my IEEE paper. But I am not going to give more credit to anyone than what they actually deserve. I am not running a credit charity.
***
gill1109 wrote: …
I would love to know where Michel got his ideas from. …
FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote: …
I would love to know where Michel got his ideas from. …
Write Michel's function in your reply to this and tell us what it looks like. It is no big secret.
.
The detection loophole model used here is very simple. There is a hidden variable E uniformly distributed in [0,2π]. Independently thereof, there is a second hidden variable P taking values in [0, 1/2]. Its distribution is determined by the relation P = sin^2((π/2)U)/2 where U is uniform on [0, 1]. Alice and Bob’s measurement outcomes are sign cos(E −α) and sign cos(E −β +π) respectively, if each of their particles is detected. Alice’s particle is detected if and only if abs(cos(E − α)) > P and Bob’s if and only if abs(cos(E − β)) > P.
Pearle (1970) characterized mathematically the set of all probability distributions of P which would give us the singlet correlations exactly (and for measurement directions in space, not just in the plane). He also picks out one particularly simple model in the class. His special choice has P = (2/√V ) − 1 ∈ [0, 1] where V is uniform on [1, 4].
FrediFizzx wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Here is a link to about when Michel created epr-simple.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.phy ... XDA-aei3sJ
.
From that discussion it looks like it was Heine that first mentioned the Gisin and Gisin and Pearle models.
.
FrediFizzx wrote:Joy Christian wrote:
I disagree with the claims made above by Richard Gill. What he has written is a gross misrepresentation of what actually led to Michel's original "EPR simple" simulation. I have not belittled Richard Gill's contribution. It has been acknowledged in my IEEE paper. But I am not going to give more credit to anyone than what they actually deserve. I am not running a credit charity.
He keeps saying he has proof. So where is the proof?
FrediFizzx wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Here is a link to about when Michel created epr-simple.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.phy ... XDA-aei3sJ
.
From that discussion it looks like it was Heine that first mentioned the Gisin and Gisin and Pearle models.
.
On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 4:10:02 AM UTC, mich...@gmail.com wrote:
> I have posted an event-by-event simulation of EPR which reproduces the QM results at https://github.com/minkwe/epr-simple/ (comments welcome)
>
>
>
> It appears it should be possible to do the same for Joy's model. As a first step, I have ported the code written by Chantal Roth to python https://github.com/minkwe/jcspython/ but I need to understand a little what is going on:
>
>
>
Hi Michel,
> Specifically, can I use the Ca1,Ca2,Cb1,Cb2 functions to
> generate the +1/-1 results at each station? If so, how?
No, that won't work. Ca1, Ca2, Cb1, and Cb2 do not have enough
information within them to generate the strong correlation.
I looked at your program, but I do not yet understand how you
are able to produce the strong correlation. My hunch is that
your program involves either exploiting some sort of detector
loophole or non-locality. I will ask Chantal to have a look.
Best,
Joy
Heinera wrote:
We also see that Joy was not involved in the creation of epr-simple at all. It was already on github when Joy was first made aware of it.
Joy Christian wrote:Heinera wrote:
We also see that Joy was not involved in the creation of epr-simple at all. It was already on github when Joy was first made aware of it.
Wrong! That thread is not when Michel first entered the discussion in that forum about my model. There are other threads in that forum and in one of them Michel joined the discussion.
***
Heinera wrote:Joy Christian wrote:Heinera wrote:
We also see that Joy was not involved in the creation of epr-simple at all. It was already on github when Joy was first made aware of it.
Wrong! That thread is not when Michel first entered the discussion in that forum about my model. There are other threads in that forum and in one of them Michel joined the discussion.
Nope.
Joy Christian wrote:I don't care what you claim or belive. You have zero credibility in my books.
Heinera wrote:Joy Christian wrote:I don't care what you claim or belive. You have zero credibility in my books.
I don't see how my credibility has anything to do with this, since I simply quoted a post of yours that clearly shows how your credibility goes up in smoke. We can all read, you know.
gill1109 wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote: …
I would love to know where Michel got his ideas from. …
Write Michel's function in your reply to this and tell us what it looks like. It is no big secret.
.
Please take a look at https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.00106. Michel's model can be found on page 10 of the pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1507.00106.pdf (between a graph and some R code). This is what I found:
FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote: …
I would love to know where Michel got his ideas from. …
Write Michel's function in your reply to this and tell us what it looks like. It is no big secret.
.
Please take a look at https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.00106. Michel's model can be found on page 10 of the pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1507.00106.pdf (between a graph and some R code). This is what I found:
Here is Michel's function from his GitHub page readme. We don't care about what you wrote at this point.
p = ½ sin²t, t ∈ [0..π/2)
Now, what does that look like to you? Or anybody? BTW, cosine works just as good as sine does. That is a hint.
.
gill1109 wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Here is Michel's function from his GitHub page readme. We don't care about what you wrote at this point.
p = ½ sin²t, t ∈ [0..π/2)
Now, what does that look like to you? Or anybody? BTW, cosine works just as good as sine does. That is a hint.
.
Yes Fred. It looks to me like what I wrote! You asked me a question and I gave you an answer. Now you say that you don't care what my answer would have been, anyway. I'm losing the thread of this discussion.
FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Here is Michel's function from his GitHub page readme. We don't care about what you wrote at this point.
p = ½ sin²t, t ∈ [0..π/2)
Now, what does that look like to you? Or anybody? BTW, cosine works just as good as sine does. That is a hint.
.
Yes Fred. It looks to me like what I wrote! You asked me a question and I gave you an answer. Now you say that you don't care what my answer would have been, anyway. I'm losing the thread of this discussion.
Gads, the usually subterfuge! You were wondering where Michel got his formula from. There was no answer to that in your papers. So what does that formula look like to you?
.
gill1109 wrote:That formula looks to me like p = ½ sin²t, t ∈ [0..π/2). Of course you can rewrite it in terms of a cosine of twice the angle, using the familiar identity cos 2t = 1 - 2 sin²t. …
gill1109 wrote:Dear friends
In preparation for the debate at the symposium, I posted a summary criticism of the IEEE Access paper on PubPeer, https://pubpeer.com/publications/A60DFDEE69A368611FCDCD3184125D, shamelessly stealing Heinera's nice argument (imitation is the sincerest form of flattery), and also borrowing a wonderful quote from Einstein which another friend recently placed on the other forum https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/bell_quantum_foundations.
I don't plan to follow subsequent discussions, and maybe nothing new will be said, and maybe nothing will be said at all. Joy has his refutations of my arguments all ready. Others may like to bring in yet more heavy artillery. I did try my utmost best to be civil, appreciative, and factual.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 202 guests