Experimental loophole-free violation of a Bell inequality using entangled electron spins separated by 1.3 km · HackerPapers discussions

Experimental loophole-free violation of a Bell inequality using entangled electron spins separated by 1.3 km — mentioned by eigenket

Fri, 13 Sep 2024 21:16:25 GMT

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…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Experimental loophole-free violation of a Bell inequality using entangled electron spins separated by 1.3 km — mentioned by GistNoesis

Sun, 09 May 2021 12:18:13 GMT

Replying here due to max comment depth tree, to explain in more detail. About the link between boole's and bell's inequalities : There are tons of paper : A quick search for example https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0406004.pdf (I just skimmed it for a few seconds but it's probably talking about the right thing) In the paper you suggest https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.05949, there is nothing which looks like a probability definition. Assuming the world is using continuous fields, defining the probability for what register as a discrete event like a "blip" must be done carefully, it's not a trivial…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Experimental loophole-free violation of a Bell inequality using entangled electron spins separated by 1.3 km — mentioned by eigenket

Sun, 09 May 2021 11:52:25 GMT

If by Boole's inequality you mean the thing that I know as the union bound, then it is far from obvious to me that it is exactly the same as Bell's theorem. In fact they seem to me to be completely different. Boole's inequality also does not tell you "you're doing the math wrong when defining your measure", it tells you that the probability that either A or B happens is not greater than the sum of the probability of A happening and the probability of B happening. I'm not sure what you mean in the first part of your comment, could you indicate specifically what probability measure is defined…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Experimental loophole-free violation of a Bell inequality using entangled electron spins separated by 1.3 km — mentioned by jmcmichael

Wed, 15 Aug 2018 20:39:36 GMT

Fine, here's another from Ronald Hensen at Delft: Experimental loophole-free violation of a Bell inequality using entangled electron spins separated by 1.3 km 2015 https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.05949v1 "...This result rules out large classes of local realist theories, and paves the way for implementing device-independent quantum-secure communication and randomness certification. "

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Experimental loophole-free violation of a Bell inequality using entangled electron spins separated by 1.3 km — mentioned by jmcmichael

Wed, 15 Aug 2018 19:29:01 GMT

In this instance, the popular understanding corresponds to the latest research better than realist theories like pilot-wave theory. Proponents of realist interpretations of QM have relied for decades on identifying possible classical channels of relativistic communication, or theorizing the existence of hidden variables. The double slit experiment has been used in various forms to, over time, eliminate these channels. I'm not a physicist, but the language that they are using quite a few papers leads me to believe that these channels have been closed, and the realists are out of remaining…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Experimental loophole-free violation of a Bell inequality using entangled electron spins separated by 1.3 km — HN submission

Wed, 21 Oct 2015 19:36:29 GMT

Quantum Theory Experiment Said to Prove ‘Spooky’ Interactions

1 point; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.