<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Bilocal versus non-bilocal correlations in entanglement swapping experiments · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1112.4502/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1112.4502/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Bilocal versus non-bilocal correlations in entanglement swapping experiments — mentioned by ttctciyf</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14176212</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1112.4502:14176212</guid><pubDate>Sun, 23 Apr 2017 02:58:49 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;The article seems particularly hermetic, especially wrt &amp;quot;bilocal causality&amp;quot; which doesn&amp;#x27;t seem to occur as a phrase before Dec 2016[1]. The piece tells us &amp;quot;bilocal causality&amp;quot; is &amp;gt; a concept that is related to the more standard local causality, except that it accounts for the precise way in which physical systems are initially generated. and later references &amp;gt; a new type of Bell inequality that accounts for the fact that the two sources of states used in the experiment are independent, the so-called bilocality assumption. If, like me, you find this non-obvious, you may like to get some…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1112.4502/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>quant-ph</category></item></channel></rss>
