Loophole-free demonstration of nonlocality?

nanosiborg

The abstract is, I think, not properly phrased.
I think it would be better to say that the violation of a Bell inequality is an experimental observation that forces one to abandon a certain way of modelling quantum entanglement, and that this doesn't necessarily inform regarding a local realistic worldview in which physical properties exist prior to detection and physical influences don't propagate faster than the speed of light.

Just a semantic point, but that's often the case with interpretation, or misinterpretation, as the case may be.

zonde

Interesting indeed.

From paper:
"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?

From paper:
"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).

DrChinese

I missed that you had posted this, and started a separate thread on the paper today.