Hello all,(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

I'm looking into the single-channel Bell tests, and I'm looking into Clauser and Horne's 1974 bell test.

Apparently they deal with the following inequality:

[tex]S \leq 0[/tex]

For

[tex]S = {{N(a, b) + N(a', b') - N(a', b) - N(a, b') - N(a', \infty) - N(\infty, b)} \over N(\infty, \infty)}[/tex]

Obviously the inequality must have been violated, but I can't find a source for the actual experiment itself. What outcome does QM predict for S, what values have been tested and what was the outcome?

Regarding the values of S QM predicts, I assume it would be:

[tex]N(a, b) = cos^2(b - a)[/tex]

But what does QM predict for [itex]N(a', \infty)[/itex], [itex]N(\infty, b)[/itex] and [itex]N(\infty, \infty)[/itex]?

So this CH74 proofs Bell's theorem better than CHSH: whereas CHSH suffers from the 'fair sampling loophole', CH74 only suffers the 'no enhancement loophole', right? I do wonder though - why assume that QM isn't true because of this loophole? It wouldn't seem too hard to build a set of rules that matches at least the same correlations of measured entangled particles, so why the assumption that something like that the 'no enhancement loophole' doesn't happen?

Thanks in advance

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# CH74 Questions

Can you offer guidance or do you also need help?

Draft saved
Draft deleted

Loading...

Similar Threads - CH74 Questions | Date |
---|---|

I Question about charge | Wednesday at 3:24 PM |

B Questions about Identical Particles | Monday at 3:45 PM |

I Some (unrelated) questions about the measurement problem | Mar 9, 2018 |

B Questions about parity | Mar 8, 2018 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**