7 ms·

It is not about missing detection or not. In your first paper, fig 1 (a), the "ready" box play the role of the "selected". The universe tell you whether to se

It is not about missing detection or not. In your first paper, fig 1 (a), the "ready" box play the role of the "selected". The universe tell you whether to select or not (it's not you missing events). It just tells it to you without giving any info on the underlying state. You can build a ready box without problem, and experimenters did, and that's all that is needed to break CHSH. You've got to see it in an abstract way. Nature's is fuzzy and experimenters will always have to define box boundaries (spatial, temporal, and entanglement-pair selection boxes). This defining create conditioning which makes breaking bell inequalities something totally normal, expected and meaningless. A related concept that may help you see it is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlated_equilibrium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlated_equilibrium : In a game of Chicken, you can get a better correlations between your actions that would seemingly be possible, by using a random variable oracle to coordinate. No information exchange needed. Measurement devices are kind of playing a continuous version of this game.

eigenket 2y ago
Its not remotely the same as the ready box, because the ready box sends its signal before the measurement directions have been chosen. It would be equivalent to the ready box if your filtering happened without any reference to the measurement choices our outcomes. If you're still unhappy with role of the ready box we can instead talk about either of the two purely photonic experiments which didn't use anything similar. > The universe tell you whether to select or not (it's not you missing events). In your numerics it is exactly missing events, there are a bunch of events and you postselect to keep only some of them. If you mean a different model you're going to need a python script which does something else. >Nature's is fuzzy and experimenters will always have to define box boundaries (spatial, temporal, and entanglement-pair selection boxes) Sure, but in each of the experiments I linked the selection in the experiments loses a small enough fraction of the events that the detection loophole is closed.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
eigenket 2y ago
You chose an interesting point to stop replying to these comments!

eigenket 2y ago

Its not remotely the same as the ready box, because the ready box sends its signal before the measurement directions have been chosen. It would be equivalent to the ready box if your filtering happened without any reference to the measurement choices our outcomes. If you're still unhappy with role of the ready box we can instead talk about either of the two purely photonic experiments which didn't use anything similar. > The universe tell you whether to select or not (it's not you missing events). In your numerics it is exactly missing events, there are a bunch of events and you postselect to keep only some of them. If you mean a different model you're going to need a python script which does something else. >Nature's is fuzzy and experimenters will always have to define box boundaries (spatial, temporal, and entanglement-pair selection boxes) Sure, but in each of the experiments I linked the selection in the experiments loses a small enough fraction of the events that the detection loophole is closed.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

eigenket 2y ago

You chose an interesting point to stop replying to these comments!