On Sunday, February 26, 2017 at 4:47:58 AM UTC, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:   
   > On Wednesday, 22 February 2017 21:32:07 UTC+1, ben...@hotmail.com   
   > wrote:   
   > ....   
   > > I agree that the maths must agree with the experimental   
   > > observations and I  need to know more about the   
   > > experimental results.   
   > ....   
   > But what is more each different experiment has its own math.   
   >  ....   
      
   Experiments need to be analysed using maths, so OK.   
      
   > The Delft experiment also has its own math to describe its   
   > results.   
      
   OK again.  There is a lot of physics and maths in in the Delft   
   experiment that I have not followed yet. But the maths of the   
   main result is a calculation of a CHSH S statistic which is   
   basically a sum of four correlation coefficients between Alice's   
   and Bob's measurements.  Where each different correlation is based   
   on one pair of magnet angle settings.   
      
   If S=2, that points to an average correlation of 0.5.  If S=2.828,   
   that points to an average correlation of 0.707 in which case the   
   experiment breaks the Bell Inequality.  I am just looking for   
   evidence that loophole-free experiments truly break the inequality.   
      
   > My understanding is that generally speaking you cannot use the   
   > math of one to validate or invalidate the math of an other one.   
   > As such you cannot use the math of an experiment using   
   > electrons (its spin) to (in)validate the math using coins   
   > which can be described using classical mechanics.   
   >   
   > Part of this reasoning stems from the fact that coins are not   
   > correlated (can not be entangled) while electrons (its spin)   
   > can.   
   >   
   > Nicolaas Vroom.   
      
   As I wrote above, the S statistic is based on a simple correlation coefficient   
   and the size of the coefficient determines if the   
   equality is broken (S --> 2.828) or not broken (S --> 2.0).   
      
   I think it is slightly more complicated that that as there may be a   
   feeling that S = 2 does not break the inequality whereas any S > 2   
   does break the inequality.  I have been simulating the CHSH statistic   
   for robustness under experimental error of measurement, and I can get   
   S changing from 2 to >2 through adding error to the simulated   
   measurements.  It is very odd that adding error can increase the   
   correlation! Like decreasing entropy?  But only for small numbers of   
   pairs.  For large numbers of pairs S goes back to 2.  Also my   
   simulation to obtain S=2 for a small number of pairs assumes zero   
   error of measurement and that is also odd.  But I am still working   
   on this.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)