function getClassicResult(prt,pol,debug) {
let result=0;
const delta=Math.abs(Math.abs(pol.axis)-Math.abs(prt.axis)), deltaCos=Math.abs(Math.cos(delta*Math.PI/180)), posProb=deltaCos*deltaCos;
result=(Math.random()<=posProb)?1:0;
debug.math='getClassicResult(prt,pol)';
return result
}
function detectClassic(prt,pol,debug) {
const delta=Math.abs(Math.abs(pol.axis)-Math.abs(prt.axis)), delta2Cos=Math.abs(Math.cos((delta+delta)*Math.PI/180));
return (Math.random()<=delta2Cos)?true:false;
}
function getKarmaPenyResult(prt,pol,debug) {
let result=0;
const delta=Math.abs(Math.abs(pol.axis)-Math.abs(prt.axis)), deltaCos=Math.abs(Math.cos(delta*Math.PI/180)), deltaCos2=deltaCos*deltaCos;
result=deltaCos2>=0.5?1:0;
debug.math='getKarmaPenyResult(prt,pol)';
return result;
}
function detectKarmaPeny(prt,pol,debug) {
const delta=Math.abs(Math.abs(pol.axis)-Math.abs(prt.axis)), delta2Cos=Math.abs(Math.cos((delta+delta)*Math.PI/180));
return (Math.random()<=delta2Cos)?true:false;
}
They call the 2-sided detections 'coincidences' and the 1-sided detections 'singles'. I'm sorry to say that it is not easy to find data about this. You may wish to examine the two 'loophole-free' Bell test experiments perfored in 2015, one led by Marissa Giustina and the other led by Bas Hensen. In the Bas Hensen experiment they use electron spin instead of photon polarisation. It is a very complicated experiment in which they always get a reading, and so there are no 'singles'. However, I spent one evening analysing their results and found statistically significant figures that indicate that the correlation is caused by some influence from the setting used in the previous trial attempt. In the Marissa Giustina experiment I found that they were not using the Eberhard inequality that they claimed to be using. They had derrived a simpler inequality from it and I could easily violate the simpler inequality with local reality detection probability.
jtankersley wrote:
I would be interested in links to similar Bell Violating simulations using local hidden variables that do not communicate.
jtankersley wrote:Karma Peny appears to address similar about 2 months ago on the blog under his video (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOtsEgbg1-s).They call the 2-sided detections 'coincidences' and the 1-sided detections 'singles'. I'm sorry to say that it is not easy to find data about this. You may wish to examine the two 'loophole-free' Bell test experiments perfored in 2015, one led by Marissa Giustina and the other led by Bas Hensen. In the Bas Hensen experiment they use electron spin instead of photon polarisation. It is a very complicated experiment in which they always get a reading, and so there are no 'singles'. However, I spent one evening analysing their results and found statistically significant figures that indicate that the correlation is caused by some influence from the setting used in the previous trial attempt. In the Marissa Giustina experiment I found that they were not using the Eberhard inequality that they claimed to be using. They had derrived a simpler inequality from it and I could easily violate the simpler inequality with local reality detection probability.
jtankersley wrote: This is referred to as the "detection loophole"
an alternate explanation for results of most Bell CHSH experiments prior to 2015
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 87 guests