Why the De Raedt Local Realistic Computer Simulations are wrong

DrChinese

1. Of course it does. The expectation is cos^2(theta) always. But that is not the case with the De Raedt et al model.

2.Not so! Otherwise it wouldn't be an issue.

billschnieder

1) cos^2(theta) is the expectation value for OUTCOMES. QM does not predict anything other than what is observed!!!!! You change the time window you get a DIFFERENT observation!!! Looking at stuff that is not observed and calling ing "full universe" is simply wrong-headed.
2) This is false. Look at figure 2 in their article in which they analyze the actual experimental data, varying the window: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.2629v1.pdf. QM is violated by 5 standard deviations!

harrylin

While De Raedt et al's simulation did succeed in its intended purpose, it does appear that in principle (and likely also in practice) their model makes slightly different predictions from QM. That may allow for a comparison of both with existing data, as is intended in the thread on "Weih's data" (should have been Weihs' data).

DrChinese

"Full universe" is what they usually call the portion that is not included in a sample (along with the sample itself of course). What do you call that? Because QM makes the same prediction for everything, while the de Raedt et al model does not. In that model, there is always a difference between the sample and the full universe.

billschnieder

I know what "full universe" means, my point is that it does not apply to QM. What does QM predict for the "stuff" that is not sampled (ie, is not measured)? Don't you realize that QM says nothing about what is "there" beyond the measurement results?

The measurement is the sampling, QM predicts what the sample will show, not what exists apart from the sample which you call "full universe".
No. The everything you refer to is "everything that is measured" as far as QM is concerned, not everything that exists apart from the measurement. What you call full-universe in their simulation would be "hidden" if it were a real experiment so you can't compare that with QM.

DrChinese

Groan.

The simulation allows us to include as much as 1 pair from every trial, and in all cases shows us the other 2 pairs from every trial. Which of the 3 is selected for viewing is random and independent of the angle settings. That means it fulfills the local realism requirement. The 2 pairs not selected are then disposed of. That is not part of the full universe I am discussing.

The full universe is the portion we are sampling from. QM says the full universe is cos^2(theta). It is an experimental fact that the sample we actually measure respects that. Again, for QM the full universe does not include counterfactual angles, it only includes the angles we actually measure at.

By way of analogy: GR describes the relative mutual attraction of any 2 objects. The prediction for the full universe is the same as the prediction for any sample. This is normal in science, Bill. We have a theory which describes the full universe, and experiment which measures a sample. So too in this simulation. And the full universe does NOT match QM.

billschnieder

And that is not what I understand you to be discussing either!
Yes, I understand that this is what you mean.
No!!! QM says no such thing. QM predicts, and agrees ONLY with the result of the sampling !!!!!
Yes the sample actually measured respects QM, it agrees with what QM predicted for the sample. The sample from the simulation also agrees with what QM predicted for the sample and it also agrees with the sample from the experiment.
Your suggestion that full universe of the simulation does not match QM's prediction for the sample is the wrong-headedness I'm pointing out to you.
AND again , I understand exactly what you mean by "full-universe". Now you try to understand what I mean when I say QM does not predict any "full-universe".
Your error is to ascribe the prediction of QM to a full-universe not realizing that QM's prediction is for a measurement outcome which is necessarily a sample.

harrylin

I kind of foresaw that issue and didn't get into that (although my reply did imply a middle ground answer) as I think that such arguments like "full universe" automatically disappear when discussing a real experimental data "universe".

DrChinese

This is a useless statement. QM DOES make the same prediction, whether the measurement is performed or not, as long as it is possible in principle to make the measurement. The only thing about QM that is different than other scientific theories is that it makes no prediction for measurements that could not be performed, in principle, such as one counterfactual to an actual measurement.

In the simulation there is a sample and there is a full universe. YOU CAN SEE BOTH, so don't say they don't exist. We can talk about them meaningfully, and we can compare to the QM expectation value for the full universe, which has meaning according to the EPR definition. And the sample is not a faithful representation of the full universe in many cases, and in all cases the universe does not match a QM universe. In accordance with Bell.

You would stick an ice pick in your eye before you would admit how wrong you are, so I am not going to keep going in circles with you.

billschnieder

Of course, that is what "prediction" means. But realize what the prediction is for. It is a prediction "for an experimental outcome". Not a prediction for the full-universe that you are talking about.
No question there. Nobody says they don't exist, in the simulation you can see everything, you can even see photons that get lost, you can even trace the photons one by one and see what happens to each one. The point you refuse to see is that the QM prediction is for the outcome, so you must compare the QM prediction with the outcome of the simulation, not what exists in the simulation beyond the outcome. The only relevant question is: Have they obtained the outcome in a manner that, in principle, is reasonably consistent with the way real outcomes are obtained in the real experiments? If the answer to this question is yes, then you compare the outcome with the outcome of the real experiments, and to the QM prediction for the real experiments. You already agree that their outcomes agree with QM. You already agree that they obtain the outcomes in a manner consistent with Local reallity. So what is the beef? This "full-universe argument does not make sense.

Of course you can.
I've said this too many times already. The QM expectation value is for the outcome. QM is answering the question "What is the expectation value E(a,b) for the outcome IF we measure along a and b"?
I could not be any clearer, what you call "QM universe" is not comparable to what you call "full-universe" in the simulation. They are apples and oranges.

lugita15

billschnieder, this is what I told you in another thread:

billschnieder

Thanks Lugita,
I understand what DrC means by full-universe, the disagreement concerns the fact that he thinks QM predicts a full-universe apart from what is actually measured, and I think QM predicts ONLY what is measured and no more.

Another way of looking at it as per your quote is that DrC thinks in QM coincidence window is infinite, but I think in QM the coincidence window is 0.

lugita15

I still think you're not understanding DrChinese. When he says the phrase "full universe" in the context of de Raedt's model, he is NOT talking about realism. He is talking about the fair sampling loophole, which only exists because of current experimental limitations. If our experimental equipment was good enough, the fair sampling loophole would be closed, and it may be possible to test the differences between standard quantum mechanics. Do you not agree that that's what he's talking about, or do you agree that that's what he's talking about but disagree with him on it?I am using the phrase "coincidence window" in a very precise experimental sense, you are using it with a meaning that I don't recognize. The coincidence window is not something theory-specific, so it makes no sense to ask what the coincidence window is "in QM". The coincidence window is how long you let the photon detectors run, waiting for each entangled particle to hit the respective detector. If we set the window too short, we may miss some of the particles that are still on their way. If we set the window too long, we may get confused as to which photons belonged to which particle pair. This is just a practical experimental problem, and if and when it is resolved the predictions of QM and de Raedt will presumably no longer be experimentally indistinguishable.

billschnieder

You think you know what I understand but you don't. I understand exactly what DrC is talking about.
And this is precisely the "blinders" both of you have on which is preventing you from understanding what I'm saying (and the simulation). You assume that lack of fair sampling is a loophole only due to problems with equipment and we can "fix" it by improving the experiment.
Let us think about your ideal experiment in which the photons paths are exactly the same length and the clocks are exactly synchronized, and no stray photons are present. I presume you mean that in such a case, this "loophole" will not exist because the two photons will have exactly the same time of arrival. Yes? So setting the coincidence window to zero should more accurately represent the QM case right? And increasing it much larger than zero should deviate from QM right? So hopefully now you understand why W=0 is equivalent to the QM prediction for an ideal setup.
Here is what De Raedt says:
So what has "full-universe" got to do with it. What is the full universe in your view that is supposedly violates QM. Now maybe this phrase from their paper addresses exactly what I'm talking about:

So think about a coincidence window of zero. I ask again, what is this full-universe which DrC claims violates QM?
So let me get this straight, you are saying that the simulation agrees with QM and Experiment because the experiments are faulty, but when the experiment becomes ideal, they will continue to agree with QM but not with the simulation? Does that make sense to you?

harrylin

I agree with that. However:
Here I think that you misunderstand the usual experimental set-up, or at least those that De Raedt et al have in mind. The photo detectors run nearly all the time, and anyone who has the data can freely chose the coincidence window for data analysis.