eigenket

Ok I think I understand your intention with the code now. Sorry I was wrong before. I think what you're talking about here is what gets called the "detection loophole" in most of the literatire. The idea that if we detect only a small enough fraction of the events then they can be a sufficiently unrepresentative sample that we think we violated a Bell inequality even though the full statistics don't.

This has (in my opinion) been comprehensively addressed already. You can check out the references in the section of the wiki article here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test#Detection_loophole

but basically if you detect enough of the possible events in the experiment there is no way for nature to "trick" you in this way, "enough" is 83% for the standard CHSH inequality or 66% if you use a slightly modified. Recent experiments (in the last decade or so) are substantially over the threshold for the detection loophole to be a problem. This is one of the earliest papers where this loophole was closed with space-like seperated detectors from 2015. In this paper they used entangled NV centers in diamond as their qubits of choice, and so essentialy had zero events lost.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.05949

This is a second one from the same time. This one uses a more standard setup with photons and worked with about 75% detector efficiency for each party (well above the 66% required)

https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.03189

And this is a third with an efficiency of 78% for Alice and 76% for Bob

https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.03190

I therefore have a new challenge - break the CHSH inequality, while rejecting fewer than 17% of the events, or break the (easier) modified Bell inequality used in papers 2 & 3 while rejecting fewer than a third.

Edit: This is another, more recent paper where they use superconducting qubits and again lose no events

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05885-0

If I understand correctly what your script is doing, it emphatically does not meet the challenge I gave above (specifically it fails the "but the state is local" part of your comment).

This is because of the post-selection on line 44. This post selection involves information about the measurement settings of both party A and party B, and is therefore a (very strongly) non-local thing.

To give a more explicit example - imagine I am trying to break the CHSH inequality I linked above. My response functions are set up so Alice and Bob return completely random answers (0 or 1) independent of what they get sent and I add a line to the code much like your 44 except it just keeps the lines where xy = a+b (mod 2), i.e. we filter so that we keep only the trials where we won the CHSH game.

Then we have completely trivially "won" the CHSH game with probability greater that 75% entirely due to this magic non-local filtering.

I guarantee you can't break (for example) the CHSH inequality [1] with such a set-up (assuming I've understood your description of what you're proposing), and encourage you to try (with similar python script).

An easy formulation of the inequality is in the CHSH game section of the same article [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHSH_inequality

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHSH_inequality#CHSH_game

I think its more likely this is just an easy way to trick this model. It's seen lots of riddles, so when it's sees something that looks like a riddle but isn't one it gets confused.

"When the doctor sees the boy he says"

Indicates the gender of the father.

The text says "When the doctor sees the boy he says"

The doctor is male, and also a parent of the child.

Ah yeah, if you're not trying to identify all loops but just check if some loops exist then that works. I think you can dispense with the "walking around taking clockwise/anticlockwise edges" part though. If you repeatedly do the "remove all nodes with only 1 edge going to them" step then you've already identified whether or not at least one loop exists.

Everything up to the [spoiler ahead] in this comment is (as far as I can tell) exactly how things work in standard formulations of Bell's inequality. There's nothing weird or crackpot there.

Your numerical code is impossible for me to read without some basic idea of what you're trying to show, but I'd like to point out that numpy has functions like np.radians, and np.deg2rad to convert from degrees to radians, you don't have to make your own.

If I understand your algorithm correctly I think it fails on this graph (drawn on my phone, using an online implementation of Paint).

https://imgur.com/a/ihPrwrX

I think this is roughly the counterexample the person above was suggesting.

> You've got to reframe the problem so that Bell's theorem doesn't apply. When you build your theory, if you manage to define what a measurement is, so that you don't satisfy the hypothesis of the Bell's theorem, you get to avoid having to have its conclusions.

This (in my opinion) a bad way of explaining how the standard reasoning goes. We start with a list of assumptions, we prove this inequality which it turns out is not satisfied, we reject (at least) one of our assumptions. These is no crackpottery here, this is the norm.

> by defining measurement instead as a conditional probability

This sounds like it probably doesn't get you anywhere, but I'll bite - what are we conditioning on? In the standard formulation of Bell's theorem they are conditional on the "hidden variable" we are assuming exists, as well as any relevant measurement settings but it sounds like you're imagining something wilder than that.

You can probably define locality in a way that MWI is nonlocal, but you can also definitely define it in a way such that MWI is local.

For me the most important thing about nonlocality is the lack of any "action at a distance", MWI satisfies this, but if you make more stringent demands it might not satisfy those.

Will you grant me that it is at least possible to derive Bell's inequality by listing out a complete set of assumptions (including assumptions that define what a measurement is and what observations are)?

Of course you personally may disagree with some of these axioms (indeed, if you take Bell's theorem seriously you must), but certainly it is possible to list them, and thereby derive Bell's inequality?

> Hint : Listing the assumptions doesn't work

Why not?

I could see that it might not if you are not clear about your assumptions

> You usually show a pupil the problem with classical probabilities, and show that you can't violate Bell's Inequalities, then you show that Quantum Mechanics managed to replicated the observed probabilities using a non-local way, and therefore you conclude that the world is non-local.

If you do this you're doing a bad job at being a teacher.

The way the argument should go is you start with a list of assumptions (of which locality is one), derive Bell's inequality from them, and determine that as Bell's inequality seems to be false in real experiments at least one of your assumptions was wrong. Then you can talk about quantum mechanics and explain which of these assumption are broken in quantum mechanics. If you have time you can have fun talking about different interpretations of quantum mechanics because (e.g.) Everettian Many Worlds is completely local, but still produces predictions matching quantum mechanics (and therefore breaks Bell's inequality).

You know something has gone horrifically badly when a paper begins with

> This reply paper should be read as a continuation of my previous reply paper [1], which is a reply published in this journal to a previous critique of one of my papers

We're way too deep in replies now, and anyone who values their time should get out now.

The sun's core is overwhelmingly composed of helium and hydrogen, with about 1% oxygen and about %1 everything else. At least according to the standard model, I don't know how much "wiggle room" there is in our understanding

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core

At the edge of the core is about 70% hydrogen 28% helium with the helium fraction increasing up to 66% right at the center.

One thing I think you're missing is how overwhelmingly the cloud that formed the solar system was hydrogen and helium.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the...

The gas cloud that formed the solar system is expected to have been 98% hydrogen and helium, 2% everything else. We don't see these ratios on rocky planets like earth because the gravity here isn't strong enough to hold the hydrogen and helium, so mostly it escaped and we have a wildly non-representative sample of elements left.

What's the main thing that this new website adds over scirate?

It sounds like what you want is scirate. As far as I understand from this post this new thing is just scirate but lacking the interface you're talking about here.

> Does continuity implies differentiability? For almost all practical cases yes, but when you want to be general, thats when you get the Weierstrass function [1], a weird function

Ok I have to jump in and disagree with you. Non-differential continuous functions are far more ubiquitous (and useful) than you're suggesting here. The most obvious examples are the absolute value function and ReLU (rectified linear unit) activation function which turns up in a machine learning/neural network context.

I think you're thinking about being non-differentiable everywhere, but it's very easy to cook up examples of practically relevant functions which turn up to be non-differentiable somewhere.

> I’m unable to comprehend how you got to that assumption.

Because you conflate art in public spaces with the use of images like Jennifer in selling software. To me it seems obvious that these are fundamentally not the same.

The feelings & wishes of the model are the most important, but also important is the impact on people (especially women) in the field, as the links I posted earlier point out, this impact is generally quite negative.

I don't find the Lenna image particularly erotic? I guess shes showing her shoulder which might be particularly risqué where you're from? Certainly for me the Jennifer image is at least comparable.

I think you're assuming that the way people interact with something is independent of its context.

The impact of (to take a random example) a university having a statue of Venus or whatever in the grounds, is not the same as having the Lenna image in a textbook

https://www.cmc.edu/news/every-picture-tells-a-story

Even though the statue might objectively be showing more, people are not automata, so the context is everything.

Theres pretty much exactly as much that is sexual about the Lenna image. Its still not appropriate in the workplace or in research. For a start using images like this has obvious and widely negative impacts on women entering your field

https://www.cmc.edu/news/every-picture-tells-a-story

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-playboy-centerfold...

Ok...you want a scenario where an image of an attractive young woman was shared and used extensively by members of a male dominated field and where women involved in the field have told us what they think of it?

Oh yeah, I've heard that one before - its Lena/Lenna:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna

Here is a random example I found of a women talking about her experience

https://www.cmc.edu/news/every-picture-tells-a-story

And another one

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-playboy-centerfold...

Over the last decade or so journals and professional bodies have been trying to stop people using the Lenna image - Nature essentially banned it in their publications in 2018, and IEEE just this year.

Nothing in this paper is actually new. Its a review. In general understanding various uncertainty principles is pretty foundational in engineering quantum things, for example transistors. They're also an essential part of how we understand electromagnetic waves from radio through WiFi and xrays.

In terms of direct engineering implications I think there are essentially none, but this is in the background of a lot of important stuff.

Yeah it's an editing error. Looks like originally they wrote the theorem down for R^n and later decided to just stick to R.

> The question is - is it you or Michelangelo who is the problem?

Clearly in the context of my comment its neither. Its whoever is bringing the naked statues into my workplace.

This (to me) is such a blindingly obvious third option that I assume you deliberately didn't include it as an option because you're trying to argue a point you know is flawed.

Heads must roll has two meanings to me

1. The original meaning is that people must be killed.

2. The more common meaning these days is that people must be punished in some less dramatic way (usually fired).

It is typical of racists to use phrases with double meanings like this. The idea ia that when their words are quoted back at them they can attempt to avoid consequences by claiming they intended the other meaning.

I am a native English speaker.

There are essentially two "easy" ways to add neutrino mass to the standard model without breaking things too much.

One is to use the Higgs to give neutrinos mass. For technical reasons this only works if there are both right and left handed neutrinos. We have only ever detected left handed neutrinos, so you'd have to also add right handed neutrinos, and just say that they don't really interact with anything else.

The second way you can do it is add a very heavy Majorana particle to your theory for each of the 3 neutrinos we know about. These Majorana particles are their own anti-particle (just like the photon is) and as a result are able to have a non-zero mass without the Higg's mechanism. The three types of neutrinos we already know about would then get their masses as a result of some slightly complicated maths involving the masses of the three new Majorana neutrinos.