Photon entanglement and fair sampling assumption

[zonde]

The way I see it with your hypothesis you are just moving correlations from observed photon count to your detection efficiency.

When we perform Bell's experiment we see correlations - that is a fact. Now since you want to claim that this is due to unfair sampling and that the experiment would not see any correlations if all the photons were detected you have to introduce the correlation into your sampling efficiency to explain observations. But the only result is that now sampling efficiency is correlated instead of photon counts so why do you think it's an improvement?

Entanglement non-locality is traditionally evaluated with level of Bell inequality violation.
Motivation behind this model is to show that decoherence of entanglement lead to local realism just as well. So hidden variables do not need to be straight forward properties that correspond one to one with observables but might be more subtle matter.
I do not say that this model is much of improvement if viewed strictly but I think it can provide a bit different perspective on the problem of entanglement non-locality.

 

[zonde]

NO, these are models that CLAIM they violate Bell with LR. They don't. That is what we are discussing here. Put forth the model and defend it. I am not going to argue with an empty claim (as these papers are NOT generally accepted science).

Then I can say the same - I am not going to argue with an empty claim (like that - "I claim that for any Sampling Percentage: a Bell Inequality cannot be violated (enforcing realism)")

 

[DrChinese]

Then I can say the same - I am not going to argue with an empty claim (like that - "I claim that for any Sampling Percentage: a Bell Inequality cannot be violated (enforcing realism)")

Hey, I'll be glad to discuss *your* claims - empty or not - with you. No issue there. And I'll be glad to discuss it with the author as well. That is what we are here for, to discuss.

But I won't discuss claims of cold fusion or perpetual motion machines or Bell disproofs that involve one person using another person's speculative article as the source. There are a number of authors out there that think they have "disproven" Bell - amazingly with completely different lines of thinking - but it is not possible to effectively debate THOSE papers because I will dispute one or more of their steps toward their conclusion. For example, I completely dispute 't Hooft's thinking on superdeterminism because it uses arguments that are not generally accepted science. So how can we debate that if you consider it reliable?

If we are going to discuss fair sampling, let's take what you assert and discuss this. I don't mind you using others' ideas IF you will defend them without reference to them being accepted science (unless of course they are). And we can debate anything I assert as well in opposition, all's fair. The point is: it is reasonable for me to cite accepted science while it is not reasonable for you to cite unaccepted science. And vice versa.

 

[zonde]

Well, it took some time to come up with some model that can produce local samples of Bob and Alice that will give sinusoidal graph (so as to "fill" my claims with something touchable).

Justification behind this model is related to Malus law.
If we have sample of photons that are polarized along certain axis then size of subsample (intensity) after passing polarizer follows Malus law I'=I*cos^2(theta).
So I hypothesize that all photons in sample have the same hidden variable - polarization but there is another hidden variable that determines interval of angles where photon will be filtered out by polarizer or will pass through.
Obviously photons in sample have different values of that other hidden variable (I will call it static phase difference in respect to context wave or shortly "phase").
Photon "phase" values then have certain distribution described by function - abs(sin(2theta)).
So next thing is how related is this "phase" for two entangled photons. Here I just hypothesize that "phase" vectors are orthogonal for entangled pair.

Now the model is (pol -polarization HV; ph -"phase" HV; alpha -polarizer angle):

Probability that there is photon with given values of hidden variables:
abs(sin(2*ph))

Polarization of photon i.e. will it pass the polarizer or not (+ sign for it will pass):
sign(sin(alpha + pol)^2 - cos(ph)^2)
this function actualy determines whether polarizer angle falls in "passing" interval or in "absorbing" interval of photon so it can be described with intervals without using sine and cosine functions.

Detection (+ sign for it will be detected):
sign(cos(ph)^2-K) where K=sin(Pi/8)^2
again determines whether "ph" falls in certain interval and so can be described without cosine function.
Without reduced detection the graph is like 1+cos^2(theta) so in order to consider this model I assumed some mechanism for detection that reduces this quasi decoherence.

For Bob formulas are the same but the value of "ph" is different by Pi/4 (insted of Pi/2 because we have two periods for polarization as we rotate polarizer around the clock and "phase" too is adjusted to that periodicity in formulas).

To test this model one has to generate set of evenly distributed random values for "pol" and "ph" in period of 0 - 2Pi and then plug them into formulas (with Pi/4 difference between Alice "ph" and Bob "ph" but the same "pol" value). If probability in first formula is calculated but not turned into "1" or "0" according to probability then of course probabilities from Bob and Alice can be multiplied.

With this model coincidence count compared to singlet count is about 8.5%. Based on assumption that polarizer is filtering half of photons calculated detection efficiency would be 17%.

 

[DrChinese]

Well, it took some time to come up with some model that can produce local samples of Bob and Alice that will give sinusoidal graph (so as to "fill" my claims with something touchable).

Justification behind this model is related to Malus law.
If we have sample of photons that are polarized along certain axis then size of subsample (intensity) after passing polarizer follows Malus law I'=I*cos^2(theta).
So I hypothesize that all photons in sample have the same hidden variable - polarization but there is another hidden variable that determines interval of angles where photon will be filtered out by polarizer or will pass through.
Obviously photons in sample have different values of that other hidden variable (I will call it static phase difference in respect to context wave or shortly "phase").
Photon "phase" values then have certain distribution described by function - abs(sin(2theta)).
So next thing is how related is this "phase" for two entangled photons. Here I just hypothesize that "phase" vectors are orthogonal for entangled pair.

Now the model is (pol -polarization HV; ph -"phase" HV; alpha -polarizer angle):

Probability that there is photon with given values of hidden variables:
abs(sin(2*ph))

Polarization of photon i.e. will it pass the polarizer or not (+ sign for it will pass):
sign(sin(alpha + pol)^2 - cos(ph)^2)
this function actualy determines whether polarizer angle falls in "passing" interval or in "absorbing" interval of photon so it can be described with intervals without using sine and cosine functions.

Detection (+ sign for it will be detected):
sign(cos(ph)^2-K) where K=sin(Pi/8)^2
again determines whether "ph" falls in certain interval and so can be described without cosine function.
Without reduced detection the graph is like 1+cos^2(theta) so in order to consider this model I assumed some mechanism for detection that reduces this quasi decoherence.

For Bob formulas are the same but the value of "ph" is different by Pi/4 (insted of Pi/2 because we have two periods for polarization as we rotate polarizer around the clock and "phase" too is adjusted to that periodicity in formulas).

To test this model one has to generate set of evenly distributed random values for "pol" and "ph" in period of 0 - 2Pi and then plug them into formulas (with Pi/4 difference between Alice "ph" and Bob "ph" but the same "pol" value). If probability in first formula is calculated but not turned into "1" or "0" according to probability then of course probabilities from Bob and Alice can be multiplied.

With this model coincidence count compared to singlet count is about 8.5%. Based on assumption that polarizer is filtering half of photons calculated detection efficiency would be 17%.

Fine, an example for us to work with. A few questions about the terminology:

1. Do unentangled photons have POL, PH hidden variables too? If so, this provides additional testable constraints. You imply the answer is yes, but I want to be sure.

2. I get POL. But you say that PH (phase) is "distributed" according to the function abs(sin(2theta)). What is theta here?

3. Then you say that the probability a photon has a given value of the hidden variables is abs(sin(2*ph)). Can you give an example? The indicated hidden variable is PH and I do not believe this function sums to 100% across a suitable range (as it would need to).

 

[zonde]

Fine, an example for us to work with. A few questions about the terminology:

1. Do unentangled photons have POL, PH hidden variables too? If so, this provides additional testable constraints. You imply the answer is yes, but I want to be sure.

Yes

2. I get POL. But you say that PH (phase) is "distributed" according to the function abs(sin(2theta)). What is theta here?

The same as in Malus law I'=I*cos^2(theta). It's angle between polarization axis of photons and polarization axis of polarizer.
abs(sin(2theta)) is just derivative of cos^2(theta) with dropped sign.

3. Then you say that the probability a photon has a given value of the hidden variables is abs(sin(2*ph)). Can you give an example? The indicated hidden variable is PH and I do not believe this function sums to 100% across a suitable range (as it would need to).

Hmm, not sure how to address this question. Let's try it this way.
If we take out of the sample (of one side) all photons with the same polarization they have to follow Malus law so that when we use "ph" to calculate "passing" and "absorbing" intervals of photons they together should produce characteristic cos^2(alpha) picture (with alpha being angle between polarization axis of photons and polarization axis of polarizer)

About the sum. Integral of function abs(sin(2*ph)) in interval 0 - Pi/2 is 1. So if you take interval 0 - 2Pi then it's 4. But isn't this question about sum being 100% just the matter of normalization? If I give description of distribution I define that integral of this function is whole sample.

But maybe you have on mind the thing about relating two distributions in non-symmetric fashion (when we consider Alice's and Bob's samples together)? In that case yes they do not mach for 100%. So there are always unpaired photons with given setup of photon source.

 

[DrChinese]

Yes

The same as in Malus law I'=I*cos^2(theta). It's angle between polarization axis of photons and polarization axis of polarizer.
abs(sin(2theta)) is just derivative of cos^2(theta) with dropped sign.

...

Just making sure. Now in your previous post you said:

"So I hypothesize that all photons in sample have the same hidden variable - polarization but there is another hidden variable that determines interval of angles where photon will be filtered out by polarizer or will pass through."

If that were true, then placing a polarizing beam splitter into a light stream - which yields 2 streams out - would mean that the 2 output streams do not match (sum to) the intensity of the input beam. Is that what you are saying? Or are you saying that the path out of the PBS is determined by considering both the hidden variables POL and PH?

 

[ajw1]

Well, it took some time to come up with some model that can produce local samples of Bob and Alice that will give sinusoidal graph (so as to "fill" my claims with something touchable).
...
To test this model one has to generate set of evenly distributed random values for "pol" and "ph" in period of 0 - 2Pi and then plug them into formulas .

Have you already done some simulations with the setup mentioned?

 

[ajw1]

This http://msc.phys.rug.nl/pdf/athens06-deraedt1.pdf"

The simulation effectively proves that "Bell's theorem is irrelevant for (quantum) physics"

 

[DrChinese]

This http://msc.phys.rug.nl/pdf/athens06-deraedt1.pdf"

The simulation effectively proves that "Bell's theorem is irrelevant for (quantum) physics"

Claims to, but there are plenty of similar claims around. No way to debate it really, unless you are one of the authors (in which case I would be happy to discuss, but we should start a new thread). I doubt there are many who will waste time with something like this as it is obvious that no dataset can accomplish the intended result without a trick somewhere. In the referenced article, the "trick" is performed with time tags (definition of the coincidence window).

I don't usually bother with authors who intentionally hide key elements of their work, as they do here. If I had a solution as they claimed (I mean they claim the Bell result is wrong for God's sake), I would show everyone exactly how the trick is done because I would be proud of it.

 

[zonde]

Just making sure. Now in your previous post you said:

"So I hypothesize that all photons in sample have the same hidden variable - polarization but there is another hidden variable that determines interval of angles where photon will be filtered out by polarizer or will pass through."

If that were true, then placing a polarizing beam splitter into a light stream - which yields 2 streams out - would mean that the 2 output streams do not match (sum to) the intensity of the input beam. Is that what you are saying? Or are you saying that the path out of the PBS is determined by considering both the hidden variables POL and PH?

Sorry, a mistake. What I intended to say is that photons in pair have the same polarization.
And yes, I am proposing that the path out of the PBS is determined by considering both the hidden variables POL and PH.

 

[ajw1]

Claims to, but there are plenty of similar claims around. No way to debate it really, unless you are one of the authors (in which case I would be happy to discuss, but we should start a new thread). I doubt there are many who will waste time with something like this as it is obvious that no dataset can accomplish the intended result without a trick somewhere. In the referenced article, the "trick" is performed with time tags (definition of the coincidence window).

I don't usually bother with authors who intentionally hide key elements of their work, as they do here. If I had a solution as they claimed (I mean they claim the Bell result is wrong for God's sake), I would show everyone exactly how the trick is done because I would be proud of it.

The 'trick' is completely explained, as the source code of the simulation program can be http://rugth30.phys.rug.nl/dlm/Down7535load.htm" in the Journal of the Physical Society of Japan.

Although I didn't check it line by line yet, it seems to be that when you include a time window for which you assume particles to be entangled (which normally is the case in real experiments) the Bell distribution naturally occurs.

 

[zonde]

Have you already done some simulations with the setup mentioned?

Yes of course. That is why I say that one gets sinusoid using this model.

This article describes a simulation based on local hidden variables assumption that reproduces the quantum predictions correctly. The related presentation provides some further information. The formal publication can be found here

The simulation effectively proves that "Bell's theorem is irrelevant for (quantum) physics"

Some time ago I stumbled on that "coincidence time loophole" myself and after that read some articles about this loophole.
But then I got one sample from Weihs experiment and investigated the real data. However I didn't found the things I expected so I discarded the idea as not applicable to real experiments.

About Bell's theorem. It seems that it's fair to say that Bell's theorem is irrelevant for real experiments if fair sampling assumption does not hold. And that is accepted at least by mainstream experimentalists.

 

[zonde]

If I had a solution as they claimed (I mean they claim the Bell result is wrong for God's sake), I would show everyone exactly how the trick is done because I would be proud of it.

This I do not understand. Why you are saying that "they claim the Bell result is wrong"?
This statement is simply wrong. The claim is merely that Bell theorem is mathematical construct that describes hypothetical situation that does not cover all possible interpretations of real experiments.
If someone is trying to prove that Bell theorem is wrong as mathematical construct then I am with you that it is not worth to consider such claims.

 

[ajw1]

Yes of course. That is why I say that one gets sinusoid using this model.

Can you post the relevant lines of code (to avoid confusion about the model)?

 

[zonde]

Can you post the relevant lines of code (to avoid confusion about the model)?

I used spreadsheets.
So I generated two columns with:
=RAND()*PI()*2
made two identical copies and the used these two formulas:
=(SIGN(SIN(C$2+$B3)^2-SIN($A3)^2)+SIGN(SIN($A3)^2-SIN(PI()/8)^2))/2*ABS(SIN(2*$A3))
=(SIGN(SIN(C$2+$B3)^2-SIN($A3+PI()/4)^2)+SIGN(SIN($A3+PI()/4)^2-SIN(PI()/8)^2))/2*ABS(SIN($A3*2+PI()/2))
C$2 is polarizator angle, columns A and B are generated random hidden variables
then with this formula calculated coincidence probability:
=IF(AND(Alice!$E3>0;Bob!C3>0);Alice!$E3*Bob!C3;0)
then summed the last column.

 

[DrChinese]

The 'trick' is completely explained, as the source code of the simulation program can be http://rugth30.phys.rug.nl/dlm/Down7535load.htm" in the Journal of the Physical Society of Japan.

Although I didn't check it line by line yet, it seems to be that when you include a time window for which you assume particles to be entangled (which normally is the case in real experiments) the Bell distribution naturally occurs.

Well, you have to make the time window be biased for that to happen (obviously cannot be random or else the fair sampling assumption is valid). The bias must be related to the detection events so that the subsample is no longer representative of the entire universe.

These programs trick you because you only see what they want you to see. Like a magician's act, they have you looking one place when you should be looking another. Here is a simple test:

1. Show me the entire universe, not just the sampled items. I want to know what the TRUE function is. This should provide results that match Malus.
2. Show me the sampled universe with 3 - not 2 - angle settings of my choosing.

The above are absolute requirements of any counter to Bell. It becomes clear quickly that there are no settings that are consistent which meet these criteria. Don't be fooled by magic! It doesn't exist.

 

[DrChinese]

This I do not understand. Why you are saying that "they claim the Bell result is wrong"?
This statement is simply wrong. The claim is merely that Bell theorem is mathematical construct that describes hypothetical situation that does not cover all possible interpretations of real experiments.
If someone is trying to prove that Bell theorem is wrong as mathematical construct then I am with you that it is not worth to consider such claims.

Bell does not cover all possible experiments. Or even all interpretations of experiments. (Just reasonable ones. )

Bell is a statement about local hidden variable theories. No LHV theory can make the same predictions about the universe of spin/polarization values as does QM. I think you agree with this (this is simply accepting Bell). Now, a second question is whether it is possible to have the same experimental results as QM when the universe of spin/polarization values is actually different. Clearly, there are some out there who think this is possible.

Now, this is a steep hill to climb! Because on the one hand, you have the champion: QM, which predicts a wide range of phenomena and has stood the test of time for over 80 years. One the other, you have a challenger... oops, no we don't! We have something which is NOT a theory at all, merely a hypothesis about one small aspect of the atomic world (spin/polarization). And that limited view cannot stand full scrutiny (witness Hess, Santos, etc.)

I can set plenty of bars that no local hidden variable theory can pass. Quantum erasers? No hope there, these always violate classical ideas. How about Type II PDC? I would love to see a LHV explain that!

I am happy to review a dataset to show you the problems in your logic, as I would be with anyone who makes claims that the Bell result is not scientifically supported. Keep in mind that you need to show me the values at THREE angle settings of my choosing, not TWO. This is the same mistake many make. If you show me only 2 settings, you violate the Bell reality assumption. Once you see the 3 settings together, it becomes clear that the detection MUST be related to settings of Alice and Bob and they are not independent (thus violating Bell locality assumption).

I think if you review your dataset, you will see that you cannot pass these 2 critical tests. A formula in a spreadsheet is a far cry from a serious disproof of the Bell/Aspect result.

 

[ajw1]

I used spreadsheets.
So I generated two columns with:
=RAND()*PI()*2
made two identical copies and the used these two formulas:
=(SIGN(SIN(C$2+$B3)^2-SIN($A3)^2)+SIGN(SIN($A3)^2-SIN(PI()/8)^2))/2*ABS(SIN(2*$A3))
=(SIGN(SIN(C$2+$B3)^2-SIN($A3+PI()/4)^2)+SIGN(SIN($A3+PI()/4)^2-SIN(PI()/8)^2))/2*ABS(SIN($A3*2+PI()/2))
C$2 is polarizator angle, columns A and B are generated random hidden variables
then with this formula calculated coincidence probability:
=IF(AND(Alice!$E3>0;Bob!C3>0);Alice!$E3*Bob!C3;0)
then summed the last column.

The code seems different from the formulas mentioned earlier: I miss the Cos() functions, or am I overlooking something?
Is the first SIGN(.. function in the C column, and the second in E?

 

[zonde]

Bell does not cover all possible experiments. Or even all interpretations of experiments. (Just reasonable ones. )

Bell is a statement about local hidden variable theories. No LHV theory can make the same predictions about the universe of spin/polarization values as does QM. I think you agree with this (this is simply accepting Bell). Now, a second question is whether it is possible to have the same experimental results as QM when the universe of spin/polarization values is actually different. Clearly, there are some out there who think this is possible.

Now, this is a steep hill to climb! Because on the one hand, you have the champion: QM, which predicts a wide range of phenomena and has stood the test of time for over 80 years. One the other, you have a challenger... oops, no we don't! We have something which is NOT a theory at all, merely a hypothesis about one small aspect of the atomic world (spin/polarization). And that limited view cannot stand full scrutiny (witness Hess, Santos, etc.)

I can set plenty of bars that no local hidden variable theory can pass. Quantum erasers? No hope there, these always violate classical ideas. How about Type II PDC? I would love to see a LHV explain that!

I am happy to review a dataset to show you the problems in your logic, as I would be with anyone who makes claims that the Bell result is not scientifically supported. Keep in mind that you need to show me the values at THREE angle settings of my choosing, not TWO. This is the same mistake many make. If you show me only 2 settings, you violate the Bell reality assumption. Once you see the 3 settings together, it becomes clear that the detection MUST be related to settings of Alice and Bob and they are not independent (thus violating Bell locality assumption).

I think if you review your dataset, you will see that you cannot pass these 2 critical tests. A formula in a spreadsheet is a far cry from a serious disproof of the Bell/Aspect result.

Hmm, who is talking about challenging QM? It seems that it's only you.
If for you QM starts and ends at non-locality then yes, I am challenging QM. But for most people working in the field it is quite different. So I do not see it that way.

About testing with different angles. I am drawing graph using 32 different angles - is it enough?
What is the second critical test? Type II PDC? Simple thing - just make a difference of 90 deg. between POL hidden variables of Alice and Bob with PH keeping the same difference as before.

But it seems to me that you are not caching the meaning about this fair sampling assumption thing.
And the meaning is this - Bell theorem is no-go theorem so there should be no possibility to construct LHV models that violate it's inequalities. But if fair sampling assumption does not hold there are plenty of possible ways how to construct such models that violate Bell's inequalities and it does not matter if experimental results justify them or not.
Bell's inequalities does not prove anything if fair sampling assumption does not hold. And sorry but this IS mainstream view.

 

[zonde]

The code seems different from the formulas mentioned earlier: I miss the Cos() functions, or am I overlooking something?

Well it's statistically the same as the one mentioned earlier.

Is the first SIGN(.. function in the C column, and the second in E?

Well, I copied one of the functions with different polarizator angles (at top of the column) in multiple columns so that multiple angles can be calculated at once.
Just adjust column indexes accordingly.

 

[DrChinese]

1. If for you QM starts and ends at non-locality then yes, I am challenging QM.

2. About testing with different angles. I am drawing graph using 32 different angles - is it enough?

3. What is the second critical test? Type II PDC? Simple thing - just make a difference of 90 deg. between POL hidden variables of Alice and Bob with PH keeping the same difference as before.

4. But it seems to me that you are not caching the meaning about this fair sampling assumption thing. ... But if fair sampling assumption does not hold there are plenty of possible ways how to construct such models that violate Bell's inequalities and it does not matter if experimental results justify them or not.
Bell's inequalities does not prove anything if fair sampling assumption does not hold. And sorry but this IS mainstream view.

1. I only advocate the position that local hidden variable theories are not tenable. I do not advocate non-locality in particular.

2. 32 is NOT enough. Unless of course you are talking about SIMULTANEOUS values. I want to see 3 *simultaneous* values for angles settings I choose. Preferably either 0/120/240 or 0/45/67.5 as these are the most often used examples. If you can only show 2 at a time, you don't have a LHV theory. Sorta like taking the magician at his word when he says, "nothing up my sleeve"...

3. You haven't explained Type II PDC by saying the crystal is rotated in your formula sheet. For a local realist to explain Type II PDC it will take a lot. The reason is that there is NO 360 degree polarization entanglement from a single crystal. The output of either alone lacks that characteristic! Only when the outputs are superimposed does this feature emerge! If the photons emerged from one or the other but not both (as a local realist would insist), then the entanglement is not explainable.

4. Yes, indeed it is the mainstream view that IF the fair sampling assumption were discovered NOT to hold, then Bell test results might be invalidated. So what? If next week the speed of light were discovered to be 4 kilometers per second then a lot of other science might be invalidated too. Fair sampling is the cornerstone of science, my friend, and has absolutely nothing to do with Bell tests in particular. Obviously, there are some cases in which the data points are relatively few and far between and there may in fact be a natural bias. An example would be celestial objects used as "standard candles". But you can't model a theory (such as a LHV) that runs counter to the data and explain it as "supported" and "consistent".
Do you have some data to share? You saw my requested angle settings. Just show me data for 3 simultaneously and we can get on with the main show here.

 

[zonde]

1. I only advocate the position that local hidden variable theories are not tenable. I do not advocate non-locality in particular.

But you do not separate whether LHV theories are viewed as as interpretation of QM or as entirely different things?

2. 32 is NOT enough. Unless of course you are talking about SIMULTANEOUS values. I want to see 3 *simultaneous* values for angles settings I choose. Preferably either 0/120/240 or 0/45/67.5 as these are the most often used examples. If you can only show 2 at a time, you don't have a LHV theory. Sorta like taking the magician at his word when he says, "nothing up my sleeve"...

I suppose you mean that different angles are calculated with the same set of randomly generated HV. Right?
For relative angles 0/45/67.5 and three different angles for Alice (0,45,90) with the same set of HV (65534 rows):
1701/813/227
1654/851/266
1646/805/242

3. You haven't explained Type II PDC by saying the crystal is rotated in your formula sheet. For a local realist to explain Type II PDC it will take a lot. The reason is that there is NO 360 degree polarization entanglement from a single crystal. The output of either alone lacks that characteristic! Only when the outputs are superimposed does this feature emerge! If the photons emerged from one or the other but not both (as a local realist would insist), then the entanglement is not explainable.

Just to understand the question - do you say that model should explain not only measurement process but generation process at source as well for you to consider the model? If that's so it surely will take some time.

4. Yes, indeed it is the mainstream view that IF the fair sampling assumption were discovered NOT to hold, then Bell test results might be invalidated. So what? If next week the speed of light were discovered to be 4 kilometers per second then a lot of other science might be invalidated too. Fair sampling is the cornerstone of science, my friend, and has absolutely nothing to do with Bell tests in particular. Obviously, there are some cases in which the data points are relatively few and far between and there may in fact be a natural bias. An example would be celestial objects used as "standard candles". But you can't model a theory (such as a LHV) that runs counter to the data and explain it as "supported" and "consistent".

Yes, but there are reasons for that particular cornerstone. You can never test everything so you have to make some assumptions to move forward. You have to disregard some information in favor of other information you want to know.
But it does not mean that assumptions can not be revisited later including fair sampling assumption in some particular context.

 

[DrChinese]

1. But you do not separate whether LHV theories are viewed as as interpretation of QM or as entirely different things?


2. I suppose you mean that different angles are calculated with the same set of randomly generated HV. Right?
For relative angles 0/45/67.5 and three different angles for Alice (0,45,90) with the same set of HV (65534 rows):
1701/813/227
1654/851/266
1646/805/242


3. Just to understand the question - do you say that model should explain not only measurement process but generation process at source as well for you to consider the model? If that's so it surely will take some time.

1. I think an LHV will not be an interpretation, it will be a different theory.

2. This needs to be discussed separately because we are getting close to the crux. I believe I understand your numbers as follows:

1701/813/227 means coincidences for 0, 45 and 67.5 degrees (relative to Bob), where Alice is oriented at 0 degrees. Or?

3. My point is that local realists struggle to prove Bell/Aspect wrong, failing to realize that their hypothesis is elsewhere contradicted. That is why the Bell Theorem states that no LHV theory can reproduce ALL of the predictions of quantum theory. Once you understand the full implications of the requirement, it becomes a much larger issue to overcome. That is why Santos, Hess and others have failed, because they have stumbled in postulating a full and consistent LHV hypothesis that actually leads to the predictions of QM.

Explaining Type II PDC is not simple for an LHV theory, so we should take it off the table for now. But that doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

[zonde]

1. I think an LHV will not be an interpretation, it will be a different theory.

Even completely different from pilot-wave interpretation?
I will disagree.

2. This needs to be discussed separately because we are getting close to the crux. I believe I understand your numbers as follows:

1701/813/227 means coincidences for 0, 45 and 67.5 degrees (relative to Bob), where Alice is oriented at 0 degrees. Or?

Yes

3. My point is that local realists struggle to prove Bell/Aspect wrong, failing to realize that their hypothesis is elsewhere contradicted. That is why the Bell Theorem states that no LHV theory can reproduce ALL of the predictions of quantum theory. Once you understand the full implications of the requirement, it becomes a much larger issue to overcome. That is why Santos, Hess and others have failed, because they have stumbled in postulating a full and consistent LHV hypothesis that actually leads to the predictions of QM.

But Bell Theorem does not cover ALL of the predictions of quantum theory. So it is just declarative statement without too much behind it.

Explaining Type II PDC is not simple for an LHV theory, so we should take it off the table for now. But that doesn't mean it isn't there.

It seems that you get polarization entanglement when contexts (pilot waves) of two photons overlap in a certain way. I found this experiment as a very nice and simple demonstration of polarization entanglement creation: http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.1275"

 

[DrChinese]

Even completely different from pilot-wave interpretation?
I will disagree.[/URL]

Pilot wave is not a LHV! L=Local, Pilot wave is non-local. So I am not sure of what you mean. If you are trying to say that a non-local hidden variable interpretation is possible: I would agree and there are lots of supporters of that perspective. That perspective is also considered contextual.

 

[DrChinese]

But Bell Theorem does not cover ALL of the predictions of quantum theory. So it is just declarative statement without too much behind it.
[/URL]

This too is strange. If there was not much behind it, why is it so important? There are over 1000 papers published annually on the subject. In fact, there is enough behind it to be accepted as proven.

 

[DrChinese]

2. This needs to be discussed separately because we are getting close to the crux. I believe I understand your numbers as follows:

1701/813/227 means coincidences for 0, 45 and 67.5 degrees (relative to Bob), where Alice is oriented at 0 degrees.

Reply: Yes

Okay. So out of the SAME 1701 trials mentioned above, there was ALSO coincidences of 813 for 45 degrees and 227 for 67.5 degrees. Correct? (I am not interested in separate trials for the 3 angles because we are not testing the realism requirement in such case.)

 

[DrChinese]

3. You haven't explained Type II PDC by saying the crystal is rotated in your formula sheet. For a local realist to explain Type II PDC it will take a lot. The reason is that there is NO 360 degree polarization entanglement from a single crystal. The output of either alone lacks that characteristic! Only when the outputs are superimposed does this feature emerge! If the photons emerged from one or the other but not both (as a local realist would insist), then the entanglement is not explainable.

OOPS!

I wrote Type II PDC and I meant Type I. Sorry for any confusion this caused.

 

[zonde]

Pilot wave is not a LHV! L=Local, Pilot wave is non-local. So I am not sure of what you mean. If you are trying to say that a non-local hidden variable interpretation is possible: I would agree and there are lots of supporters of that perspective. That perspective is also considered contextual.

If pilot wave will turn from non-local into local I assume that Pilot wave interpretation will not suffer much. That is what I mean.

This too is strange. If there was not much behind it, why is it so important? There are over 1000 papers published annually on the subject. In fact, there is enough behind it to be accepted as proven.

I thought about this a bit and it seems to me that meaning of particular statement is that LHV theories might explain all peridictions of QM except entanglement. And in that case it's only about entanglement after all.

Okay. So out of the SAME 1701 trials mentioned above, there was ALSO coincidences of 813 for 45 degrees and 227 for 67.5 degrees. Correct? (I am not interested in separate trials for the 3 angles because we are not testing the realism requirement in such case.)

No. Otherwise we are not discussing unfair sampling.

OOPS!

I wrote Type II PDC and I meant Type I. Sorry for any confusion this caused.

Well it turned out that as a result I cleared some misunderstanding of mine. I found out that I had wrong picture about Type I PDC as direct source of polarization entangled photon pairs.
So in case of Type I PDC if we talk about polarization entanglement there have to be some more details about the setup how produced (polarization non-entangled) photons are turned into polarization entangled photons.