Paper detail

The statistical strength of experiments to reject local realism with photon pairs and inefficient detectors

Because of the fundamental importance of Bell's theorem, a loophole-free demonstration of a violation of local realism (LR) is highly desirable. Here, we study violations of LR involving photon pairs. We quantify the experimental evidence against LR by using measures of statistical strength related to the Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence, as suggested by van Dam et al. [W. van Dam, R. Gill and P. Grunwald, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory. 51, 2812 (2005)]. Specifically, we analyze a test of LR with entangled states created from two independent polarized photons passing through a polarizing beam splitter. We numerically study the detection efficiency required to achieve a specified statistical strength for the rejection of LR depending on whether photon counters or detectors are used. Based on our results, we find that a test of LR free of the detection loophole requires photon counters with efficiencies of at least 89.71%, or photon detectors with efficiencies of at least 91.11%. For comparison, we also perform this analysis with ideal unbalanced Bell states, which are known to allow rejection of LR with detector efficiencies above 2/3.

preprint2010arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.