--You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/8eca5042-4562-4cbf-8192-cf7fea1c83bbn%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/cac07f58-d9c4-4ea0-8953-7a61b7145f14%40app.fastmail.com.
Thanks Richard - I have not seen these yet (I was trying to avoid the topic, but... it seems I get drawn in again :-).In your opinion, which is *the one* experiment that is the most convincing, the one that clearly has no loopholes and is statistically significant? Is it the one you listed below?(You know, given that people consider all kinds of crazy explanations, including retrocausality, parallel universes, instant communication and so on, I think it is not so crazy to look at these experiments critically :-).Best wishes,ChantalOn Mon, Jan 23, 2023, at 9:58 AM, Richard Gill wrote:
There are repeats and *improvements* of the best experiment. I’ve said this several times before, but here I go again (sorry to those who me say this N times before where N is about 10 or so).
Take a look at:Zhang, W., van Leent, T., Redeker, K. et al.A device-independent quantum key distribution system for distant users.Nature 607, 687–691 (2022).You can find it on arXiv too.I extracted the Bell test part of the experiment and took a look at the data here:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/065F6016-F164-463C-B2E1-F66EE1F84A55%40gmail.com.
... Bell's experiment is a brilliant test to settle the issue (and photon based experiments appear to show that Quantum Theory wins). But computer experiments  that model results with LHV (Local Hidden Variable) models, show that photon based experiments have an un-accounted for "selective detect loophole" (requiring close to 100% detection, not the approximately 70% detection rates currently allowed), and Bell CHSH experiments may actually settle the issue in EPRs favor.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAD%3DV2Ruhy4m-AxBYUMdHOvTTuK%2BS%2BF94FmquGpOVpnYUKsQCUg%40mail.gmail.com.
Bell's experiment is a brilliant test to settle the issue, and computer models show that Bell's inequalities do conclusively detect the difference between QM vs ERP modeled reality. Computer CHSH experiments  with LHV (Local Hidden Variable) models also show that photon loss in polarizing beam splitters using Malus Law distribution, cause a false positive violation of Bell's inequalities at any loss level. This is the "Malus Law Detection Loophole", it is much more strict than the standard detection loophole, and requires CHSH experiments to exclude "Malus Law distribution" photon loss completely. CHSH experiments using polarizing beam splitters suffer from the "Malus Law Distribution Loophole" and always provide false positive violations of Bell's inequalities. Electron spin tests do not suffer from "Malus Law Detection Loophole" and should be conducted with large data sets to settle the Bell's inequalities test.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAKiL4iJwNsPKTmQ2Cur-1KbG8wz-mdP1tT5_Z8Rfz8ReCaoK6Q%40mail.gmail.com.
Dear Alexey,What you are saying is simply wrong. And is refuted by experiments
I've never come across that postulate. It's unnecessary and as you show it is wrong. It may be a good working assumption for systems that are not entangled.
In QM the expected outcome of of an experiment is given by the Trace of the state operator and measurement operator. I'd say that was axiomatic. Try deriving your postulate from the axiom. I think you will find it only follows as a special case.
In EPR the beam is unpolarised. It can be expressed as a classical mixture up/down + down/up The decomposition is not unique. A measurement of one side reveals which of the two it is.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAN%3D2%2Bo1hbT_uLmtfhkf%3DURS1OMbN00-zM4moEXdsUZSRz9GuEA%40mail.gmail.com.