English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

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 Pythonand published on Github. Inspection of the program descriptions showed thatthey made use of the detection-loophole and the coincidence-loopholerespectively. I evaluate them with appropriate modified Bell-CHSH typeinequalities: the Larsson detection-loophole adjusted CHSH, and theLarsson-Gill coincidence-loophole adjusted CHSH (NB: its correctness isconjecture, we do not have proof). The experimental efficiencies turn out to beapproximately eta = 81% (close to optimal) and gamma = 55% (far from optimal).The observed values of CHSH are, as they should be, within the appropriatelyadjusted bounds. Fodjes' detection-loophole model turns out to be very, veryclose to Pearle's famous 1970 model, so the efficiency is close to optimal. Themodel has the same defect as Pearle's: the joint detection rates exhibitsignalling. His coincidence-loophole model is actually a clever modification ofhis detection-loophole model. Because of this, however, it cannot lead tooptimal efficiency.

Event based simulation of an EPR-B experiment by local hidden variables: epr-simple and epr-clocked