|Dec4-12, 01:52 AM||#35|
Loophole-free demonstration of nonlocality?
Just a semantic point, but that's often the case with interpretation, or misinterpretation, as the case may be.
|Dec4-12, 10:23 AM||#36|
"Eberhard’s inequality, which was proposed almost two decades ago (14), is a CH-type
Bell-inequality (18) that explicitly includes also undetected (inconclusive) events."
Both papers are behind paywall .
But from the paper it seems like this Eberhard’s inequality is the same CH74 inequality. So does it add that stuff about QM predictions for non-maximally entangled state so that this η≈66.7% limit should be enough?
"Quantum-mechanically, the maximal violation is given by J/N = (1–√2)/2≈–0.207 (22)"
So for η≈66.7% it should be J/N=0. And for ηA=73.77% and ηB=78.59% reported in the paper it should be somewhere in between. They report J/N=–0.00524 (but with very low deviation).
|Similar Threads for: Loophole-free demonstration of nonlocality?|
|Loophole-free quantum steering||Quantum Physics||4|
|Has a loophole free test of Bell's inequalties been preformed yet?||Quantum Physics||1|
|Is there a loophole in the 1st Amendment?||Current Events||8|
|Loophole-free Bell tests||Quantum Physics||2|