If by any chance Bell is wrong about his derivation of the inequalities for EPR-Bohm type experiments it should be demonstrable using a computer simulation. This blog is an attempt to discuss the possibilities and provide easy access to such local realistic models.
Monday, 16 March 2015
Recent activity
I like to mention some recent activity on the subject of this blog. First I like to refer to a (type A) simulation from Michel Fodje in python (1), which very neatly shows how CSHS violation could be obtained in practice while having detectors that operate on 100%. Just like in real experiments one has to match the detector countings afterwards using some timestamp algorithm. Michel shows that just a fraction of 0.01% of single particles leaving the emitter and obscuring the countings can result in a CHSH of 2.828, which is equal to the QM value.
Current discussions on Joy Christians work can be found on the Blog of Paul Snively (2). Paul is intrigued by the theory from Joy, and suggests to validate the formulas Joy uses in 'CAS': software that can resolve (simplify) formulas that contains variables and symbols. Richard Gill, one of the most active opponents of Joy, is recently blocked on the Blog. Paul Snively somewhat motivates this in one of the discussion posts - and of course he owns the blog - but I would say one normally is not expelled from a discussion for the given reasons.
Anyway, the discussions are interesting.
1) https://github.com/minkwe/epr-clocked
2) Blog of Paul Snively http://psnively.github.io/blog/2015/01/22/Fallacy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The real reason why Gill has been banned from Paul Snively’s blog is the same as why he has been banned from Fred Diether’s forum, Wikipedia, and several other internet sites. Gill has a nasty habit of spamming every venue with blatant lies and malicious smears about anyone’s work which he perceives to be a threat to his vested interests and dogmatic beliefs. Not many people can tolerate that kind of unethical and unscientific behavior.
ReplyDeleteWell, quite evidently, Gill has begun to spam this blog as well (see his posts below).
DeleteMeanwhile his own paper has been completely discredited on PubPeer:
https://pubpeer.com/publications/D985B475C637F666CC1D3E3A314522#fb27380
I regret that, because it made the discussions lively. And I wonder whether these post from Gil are really harmful for your case.
ReplyDeletePerhaps it did make the discussions entertaining. But how can the relentless negative propaganda by Gill *not* be harmful for my case? All it takes to destroy a perfectly sound scientific work is polite whisper that perhaps it is not sound. Most physicists do not have time to study a new work themselves. What Gill is doing is making sure that no one bothers to take my work seriously, and even if they do then they look at it through his own distortions of it. Negative suggestions are a very powerful weapon, whether used in politics or science.
DeleteMichel Fodje simulates the "coincidence loophole". Rather than letting some particles disappear if they don't like the settings they see when they arrive at the detectors, he lets them get a larger or smaller delay. So if either particle is unhappy about how it is being measured, the interval of time between its arrival and that of its partner gets so large, that the pair is not recognised as a pair.
ReplyDeleteMichel could have had 100% of all particles detected and reproduced a CHSH of 2 sqrt 2.
In fact, it is not difficult to get a much larger CHSH than 2 sqrt 2
All this has been known for more than 10 years: see Larsson and Gill (2013) http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312035 or even Pascazio (1986). The trick has been used a couple of years ago by de Raedt and Hess. They refer to our paper.
Sorry Larsson and Gill (2003), not (2013)
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I have not been banned from Wikipedia. I did get banned by Fred Diether from his forum, and by Paul Snively from his blog, in both cases because I showed that they were mistaken. They both seem to have an issue with being shown to be wrong on their own website. It seems to me to be an unscientific attitude. Of course, Joy also prevents me from posting on his blog too.
ReplyDeleteI was several times involved in big fights on wikipedia, in which some people did propose that I should be banned. But in the end, sanity prevailed, and other people got banned instead.
ReplyDeleteMore precisely, I said that Fred was wrong twice. Once is allowed, but you are not allowed to say that he is wrong, twice. Especially not if you are right!
ReplyDeleteAnd I did not play along with a game which Paul wanted me to play. He refused to tell me whether or not he agreed that A = -1 and B = +1 or A = +1 and B = -1 implies that AB = -1. He so very badly wanted Christian to be right, yet was not prepared to check one line of algebra.
By the way, what Larsson and showed in our 2003 paper is that the coincidence loophole is much more serious that the detection loophole: one can "fake" an equally large violation of CHSH with a much smaller proportion of rejected measurement outcomes. In fact, the coincidence loophole is twice as bad as the detection loophole and as bad as it gets. In other words, with arbitrary post-selection you cannot create bigger violations than with the detection loophole.
ReplyDeleteI translated Michel's code into R, it may make it easier for some people to understand the approach. http://rpubs.com/gill1109/epr-clocked-full