New clocked EPR Simulation with 100% detection.

[gill1109]

Notice that de Raedt, Hess, Michielsen write

To the best of our knowledge, all real EPRB experiments that have been performed up to date employ an operational procedure to decide whether the two detection events correspond to either the observation of one two-particle system or (exclusive) to the observation of two single-particle systems. In EPRB experiments, this decision is taken on the basis of coincidence in time
...
Recalling that the dichotomic character of the variables was essential for the derivation of the Boole inequalities, it is unlikely that similar inequalities hold for the raw data Eq. (126), for an exception see Ref. 58.

Ref 58 is J. A. Larsson and R. D. Gill, Europhys. Lett. 67, 707 (2004).

If you look at the recent work of Adenier (for instance on ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Guillaume_Adenier/publications/
you'll see that his current position is rather different from what he advocated more than ten years ago.

I see no contradiction whatsoever between the claims of de Raedt, Hess and Michielsen and my own. Nor between Adenier's current position and my own.

Please carefully study sections 2 and 9 and the appendix (which contains the proof of Theorem 1 from section 2) of my recent paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5103 and let me know straight away if there is anything you don't understand. Notice application of Hoeffding's inequalities in the appendix, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoeffding%27s_inequality

[minkwe]

Please read sections 2 and 9 of my paper, carefully.

I have read your papers and understand them and I can see the fallacious thinking that resulted in your error very clearly. But you admit that you do not understand my argument so you are not qualified to say anything about it until you actually understand it. Don't you see it is foolishness to vehemently argue against a position you do not understand as I keep saying, yet you keep doing just that?

You think I do not understand and see clearly the underhanded tactics you are attempting to use to drown my argument against your point of view? I did not expect less from you. Anyone who does not agree with you gets misrepresented. Take for example Jaynes, whom you never met yet wrote in your paper that Jaynes admitted he was wrong about Bell, which is a lie. Now you claim that Adenier now believes his earlier paper was false. Even though when I first brought up the paper, you tried to claim that it was saying the opposite (which supported your view). Embarrassing indeed. You can continue your drowning tactics, but count me out of it.

[gill1109]

Please read sections 2 and 9 of my paper, carefully.

I have read your papers and understand them and I can see the fallacious thinking that resulted in your error very clearly.

Please point out the "fallacious thinking". Let's start with section 2. What do you disagree with, there?

Seems that de Raedt, Hess and Michielsen have no difficulties with my work. De Raedt and Khrennikov are inviting me to the next Vaxjo conference. Seems they are not aware of obvious major errors.

[minkwe]

You want to talk about a different paper instead, which BTW I already demolished here viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6&start=20

I have pointed out the logical fallacies in your point of view already and I will summarize it below for anyone who is interested. See this posts for example: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=23&start=30#p651. I'm not expecting a coherent response to any of these points, having given you plenty of opportunity to address the inconsistency in vain:

1) In your LG paper, you admit that the CHSH and Bell inequalities are only valid if the same ensemble is used to calculate every correlation:

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.

2) In your paper, you admit that when 4 different ensembles are being used the inequalities therefore only applies to the common part of the 4 different ensembles:

In effect,the Bell inequality only holds on the common part of the four different ensembles

3) In your LG paper, you attempt to rescue the CHSH for four different ensembles and, you admit that the CHSH can be saved ONLY if the common part is a non-null set,

Theorem 2 (The CHSH inequality with coincidence restriction), The prerequisites (i–iii) of Theorem 1 are assumed to [u]hold except at a null set[/u]
...
The proof consists of two steps; the first part is similar to the proof of Theorem 1, using the intersection
ΛI= ΛAC′ ∩ ΛAD′ ∩ ΛBC′ ∩ Λ BD′
...
This ensemble may be empty, but only when δ = 0 and then the inequality is trivial, so δ >0 can be assumed in the rest of the proof

4) In your paper, relying on the assumption that the common part of the 4 different ensembles is not a null set, and δ >0, you derive a new inequalities below, where γ is the probability of coincidence (aside: somebody should ask Richard what the inequality is for 50% coincidence efficiency, γ=0.5, according to his LG paper).

We now have
δ ≥ 4 − 3/γ
...
Putting this into our modified CHSH inequality we arrive at
| E(AC′|ΛAC′) + E(AD′|ΛAD′)| + |E(BC′|ΛBC′) − E(BD′|ΛBD′)|≤ 6/γ − 4

5) Clearly, your above inequalities are not valid if δ = 0. Which means your new inequality is not valid if there is no common part of the 4 different ensembles.

6) You admit in your other paper that in EPR experiments, the correlations are calculated from 4 different ensembles of particles.

In each run, Alice and Bob are each sent one of a new pair of particles in the singlet state. While their particles are en route to them, they each toss a fair coin in order to choose one of their two measurement directions. In total 4N times, Alice observes either A = 1 or A' = 1 say, and Bob observes either B = 1 or B' = 1. At the end of the experiment, four "correlations" are calculated; these are simply the four sample means of the products AB, AB', A'B and A'B'. Each correlation is based on a different subset, of expected size N runs, and determined by the 8N fair coin tosses.

7) You admit when I specifically asked you, that indeed the 4 ensembles in the EPR experiments are disjoint:

... do you deny the fact that the sets of particles used to measure each correlation are disjoint?

Answer: No.

8) Yet you continue to believe that experiments, measure and calculate correlations from 4 disjoint ensembles have confirmed Bell's theorem, which relies on an inequality using a single ensemble of particles.
9) Yet you continue to believe that QM, which makes predictions for 4 disjoint ensembles particles, violates the CHSH which is derived from a single ensemble of particles.
10) Yet you claim not to understand when I say: the apparent violation of the CHSH by QM and experiment is only due to the error of substituting actual results from 4 disjoint ensembles into an inequality which expects counterfactual results from a single ensemble. In fact you make the jaw-dropping claim that:

"We can not substitute actual outcomes from a different set of particles for counterfactual outcomes of a single set of particles."

Nobody is doing that. There is a substitution of theoretical mean values by empirically observed averages.

11) Forgetting that you have already admitted already that the theoretical mean values are obtained from the same ensemble of particles, while the empirically observed averages are obtained from 4 disjoint ensembles of particles.
12) You continue to believe that statistics, or probability or fair sampling, or random sampling can cause the 4 disjoint ensembles in Bell-test experiments to impart constraints on each other such that the upper bound of the expression based on 4 disjoint ensembles of particles {1}, {2}, {3} and {4}:

<a1b1> + <a2b2′> + <a3′b3′> − <a4′b4>

is reduced below 4.

[gill1109]

You want to talk about a different paper instead, which BTW I already demolished here viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6&start=20

That is indeed the paper I want to talk about. Perhaps you can start up a new thread on the topic.

You think you have demolished it, but you demolished a straw-man. In fact, your "arguments" proved to me that you had not understood a word of what I had said. I was being polite when I said that I did not understand your arguments.

Tell me where there is a mistake in Section 2, please. Do you claim that Theorem 1 is not true?

After that, we can discuss whether the application of Theorem 1 to computer simulation models (Section 9) is correct, or not.

You make very grave accusations. You make them in a very uncivil, discourteous way, quite unworthy of a scientist.

My paper has been heavily refereed by both physicists and mathematicians. No one has disagreed with the mathematics.

Regarding Larsson and Gill: de Raedt, Hess and Michielsen seem to like it well enough. As they should, since they use ideas which come out of it! Which is great. After all, that paper came out of the earlier work of Hess and Philip. Your comments above show to me that you totally misunderstand what we are doing. At least de Raedt did understand it very well. So I am ignoring your nonsense claims numbered from (1) to (12) since I would like to stay polite.

Please let's study something more simple first. Let's analyse models like the one so elegantly implemented in your simulation program https://github.com/minkwe/epr-simple. I propose that we start by finding out if there are any mathematical errors in Section 2 of my paper (and the appendix). After that, we move on to Section 9.

If we manage to get through this mathematics, then I promise you you will learn something to your advantage, when we turn to applying it to your simulation model.

If on the other hand we find a fatal error in the mathematics, I will of course withdraw the paper.

[minkwe]

You want to talk about a different paper instead, which BTW I already demolished here viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6&start=20

That is indeed the paper I want to talk about. Perhaps you can start up a new thread on the topic.

My argument against that paper is clearly stated in the other thread. If you want to respond to it, feel free to start a new thread and post your responses there.

No one has disagreed with the mathematics.

Therefore you must be right. And since you say my claims (1) to (12) above are "nonsense", feel free to ignore them as I predicted. There is no point continuing this discussion then. Anyone else reading this thread can evaluate for themselves whether my claims (1) to (12) above are nonsensical or not. I will suggest that the moderator close this thread then.

[gill1109]

Good idea. Discussion closed.

[Mikko]

The 4 QM correlations are predicted for an experimental situation with 4 disjoint sets of particles, just like in the experiment.

Typical local hidden variable theorems assume that all four sets are random samples from the same population where all measurable quantities have definite values independently of which will be measured. Quantum mechanics does not assume so.