The forum discussion centers on the paper by Bernhard Wittmann et al., titled "Loophole-free Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen experiment via quantum steering," published in New J. Phys. 14, 053030 (2012). Participants express skepticism about the paper's claims of being "loophole-free," questioning the validity of the results and the choice of publication venue. The conversation highlights the distinction between quantum steering and Bell tests, emphasizing that while steering tests may exclude certain local realistic theories, they do not necessarily provide a loophole-free demonstration of nonlocality. The discussion also touches on the implications of high-efficiency thermal sensors and the potential biases in publication choices among researchers in the field.
PREREQUISITESPhysicists, quantum mechanics researchers, and students interested in the nuances of quantum theory, particularly those studying entanglement, nonlocality, and experimental physics.
Yes, that's correct.harrylin said:As I understood all discussions until now, "nonlocal" means a correlation that can not be explained without something "spooky" as instantaneous "action at a distance". And I assumed that "Bell-nonlocality" is essentially the same, but with precise arguments that lead to that conclusion as presented by Bell.