In this note, I analyze the data generated by M. Fodje's (2013) simulation programs "epr-simple" and "epr-clocked". They were written in Python and published on Github. Inspection of the program descriptions shows that they make use of the detection-loophole and the coincidence-loophole respectively. I evaluate them with appropriate modified Bell-CHSH type inequalities: the Larsson detection-loophole adjusted CHSH, and the Larsson-Gill coincidence-loophole adjusted CHSH (NB: its correctness is conjecture, we do not have proof). The experimental efficiencies turn out to be approximately eta = 81% (close to optimal) and gamma = 55% (far from optimal). The observed values of CHSH are, as they should be, within the appropriately adjusted bounds. Fodjes' detection-loophole model turns out to be very, very close to Pearle's famous 1970 model, so the efficiency is close to optimal. The model has the same defect as Pearle's: the joint detection rates exhibit signaling. Fodje's coincidence-loophole model is actually a clever modification of his detection-loophole model. Because of this, however, it cannot lead to optimal efficiency.
In this note, I analyze the data generated by M. Fodje's (2013) simulation programs "epr-simple" and "epr-clocked". They were written in Python and published on Github. Inspection of the program descriptions shows that they make use of the detection-loophole and the coincidence-loophole respectively. I evaluate them with appropriate modified Bell-CHSH type inequalities: the Larsson detection-loophole adjusted CHSH, and the Larsson-Gill coincidence-loophole adjusted CHSH (NB: its correctness is conjecture, we do not have proof). The experimental efficiencies turn out to be approximately eta = 81% (close to optimal) and gamma = 55% (far from optimal). The observed values of CHSH are, as they should be, within the appropriately adjusted bounds. Fodjes' detection-loophole model turns out to be very, very close to Pearle's famous 1970 model, so the efficiency is close to optimal. The model has the same defect as Pearle's: the joint detection rates exhibit signaling. Fodje's coincidence-loophole model is actually a clever modification of his detection-loophole model. Because of this, however, it cannot lead to optimal efficiency.
In this note, I analyze the data generated by M. Fodje's (2013) simulation programs "epr-simple" and "epr-clocked". They were written in Python and published on Github. Inspection of the program descriptions shows that they make use of the detection-loophole and the coincidence-loophole respectively. I evaluate them with appropriate modified Bell-CHSH type inequalities: the Larsson detection-loophole adjusted CHSH, and the Larsson-Gill coincidence-loophole adjusted CHSH (NB: its correctness is conjecture, we do not have proof). The experimental efficiencies turn out to be approximately eta = 81% (close to optimal) and gamma = 55% (far from optimal). The observed values of CHSH are, as they should be, within the appropriately adjusted bounds. Fodjes' detection-loophole model turns out to be very, very close to Pearle's famous 1970 model, so the efficiency is close to optimal. The model has the same defect as Pearle's: the joint detection rates exhibit signaling. Fodje's coincidence-loophole model is actually a clever modification of his detection-loophole model. Because of this, however, it cannot lead to optimal efficiency.
In this note, I analyze the data generated by M. Fodje's (2013, 2014) simulation programs "epr-simple" and "epr-clocked". They were written in Python and published on Github. Inspection of the program descriptions showed that they made use of the detection-loophole and the coincidence-loophole respectively. I evaluate them with appropriate modified Bell-CHSH type inequalities: the Larsson detection-loophole adjusted CHSH, and the Larsson-Gill coincidence-loophole adjusted CHSH (NB: its correctness is conjecture, we do not have proof). The experimental efficiencies turn out to be approximately eta = 81% (close to optimal) and gamma = 55% (far from optimal). The observed values of CHSH are, as they should be, within the appropriately adjusted bounds. Fodjes' detection-loophole model turns out to be very, very close to Pearle's famous 1970 model, so the efficiency is close to optimal. The model has the same defect as Pearle's: the joint detection rates exhibit signalling. His coincidence-loophole model is actually a clever modification of his detection-loophole model. Because of this, however, it cannot lead to optimal efficiency.
In this note, I analyze the code and the data generated by M. Fodje's (2013) simulation programs "epr-simple" and "epr-clocked". They were written in Python published on Github only, initially without any documentation at all of how they worked. Inspection of the code showed that they made use of the detection-loophole and the coincidence-loophole respectively. I evaluate them with appropriate modified Bell-CHSH type inequalities: the Larsson detection-loophole adjusted CHSH, and the Larsson-Gill coincidence-loophole adjusted CHSH (NB: its correctness is conjecture, we do not have proof). The experimental efficiencies turn out to be approximately eta = 81% (close to optimal) and gamma = 55% (far from optimal). The observed values of CHSH are, as they should be, within the appropriately adjusted bounds. Fodjes' detection-loophole model turns out to be very, very close to Pearle's famous 1970 model, so the efficiency is close to optimal. The model has the same defect as Pearle's: the joint detection rates exhibit signaling. The coincidence-loophole model is actually a clever modification of the detection-loophole model. Because of this, however, it cannot lead to optimal efficiency. Later versions of the programs included an explanation of how they worked, including formulas, though still no reference whatever to the literature on the two loopholes which Fodje exploits, not even to the concept of an experimental (i.e., in principle, avoidable) loophole. The documentation available now does make a lot of the "reverse engineering" in this paper superfluous. I plan to incorporate its results in a new paper with a wider focus.
The aim of this study is to produce a simulation of EPR experiments violating the CHSH-Bell inequalities using physically interpretable objects (properties defined before measurement) and interactions (no supraliminal communication), without influence from any theory. It turns out that the proposed model systematically violates the CHSH-Bell inequalities reaching all the values ( 2 ≤ S ≤ 4 ) . Our simulation reproduces experimental entanglements with greater efficiency. This approach has at least two consequences. First, it demonstrates that violations of the CHSH-Bell inequalities are possible while still verifying the principles of realism and locality, but in a different sense from that of Bell’s theorem. Therefore, Bell’s theorem itself is not called into question, nor are the results of the EPR experiments. However, it is the deduction that leads to the current interpretation (often described as strange because it does not follow one of the principles of realism and locality as defined by Bell’s theorem) that is challenged. Second, it challenges real-world EPR experiments to exceed the efficiency rates of our simulation. Our idealization demonstrates that, between the efficiency rates required to confirm the violation of Bell’s inequalities and the efficiency rates of our idealization, the interpretation of experiments remains possible within a framework of “classical” physical principles (properties defined before measurement and no supraliminal communication). Confirming the strangeness of quantum mechanics would therefore require obtaining efficiency rates higher than those of Bell’s theorem.
I examine data from EPR experiments conducted in 1997 through 1999 by Gregor Weihs and colleagues. They used detection windows of 4-6 ns to identify coincidences; I find that one obtains better results with windows 40-50 ns wide. Coincidences identified using different windows have substantially different distributions over the sixteen combinations of Alice's and Bob's measurement settings and results, which is the essence of the coincidence time loophole. However, wide and narrow window coincidences violate a Bell inequality equally strongly. The wider window yields substantially smaller violations of no-signaling conditions.
The empirical evidence tends to confirm the quantum - mechanically (QM) predicted violation of Bell's - type inequalities. The latter are widely accepted to be correct representation of the objective reality (OR) underlying EPR's gedankenexperiment. Contrariwise, we argue here that the starting premises leading to Bell's and CHSH's inequalities are not appropriate formulations of OR in the EPR context. Indeed, the essence of EPR argument is the correlation between pair of particles travelling with some well defined orientations. To measure such correlation, one requires detectors with high resolution, and some appropriately defined relative orientations. On the contrary, experimental tests of Bell's inequalities typically involve counting the number of particles with some value of spin (or polarisation) using low-resolution detectors and completely arbitrary orientations. Depending upon the relative orientation of good-resolution detectors, we obtain two families of CHSH-type inequalities. One of these families is the most often used version of CHSH inequality, that was derived by Clauser and Horne with the supplementary no - enhancement assumption: here, it is obtained without special provisions. The other family is completely new and refers to coincidence counts from multiple events. Experimental test to distinguish between the QM and OR descriptions of nature should take into account these new constraints.