Significant-loophole-free test of Bell's theorem with entangled photons · HackerPapers discussions

Significant-loophole-free test of Bell's theorem with entangled photons — 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.

Significant-loophole-free test of Bell's theorem with entangled photons — mentioned by elektropionir

Tue, 18 Aug 2020 02:22:58 GMT

I don't think there is consensus that decoherence = measurement. This is a sophisticated experiment that controls the level of position information being "radiated" to the environment. But Born's rule and the measurement postulate are still baked into the fact that you are then measuring the interference pattern. One thing I never quite understood about the decoherence argument for resolving the measurement problem is that it forces the "collapse" to happen with local interactions. This of course makes sense since you want to think of a measurement as a "normal", unitary process. This means…

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