Twitter | Pretraživanje | |
michael_nielsen 3. velj
A question for people who know about Bell inequalities: in the 1982 Aspect paper they present them in this form (a version of the CHSH inequality), with an experimental value (& violation) of S = 0.101
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 3. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
The more commonly stated form of the CHSH inequality is Q := E(AC)+ E(BC) + E(BD) - E(AD) <= 2, where A, B etc are the observables for the polarization (values +- 1). By my calculation, Q = 2+4S, so the experimental value in Aspect corresponds to Q ~ 2.404.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 3. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
This is well short of the maximal violation (Q = 2 sqrt(2) ~ 2.8). But AFAICT the Aspect experiment uses polarization angles that should give the maximal violation What gives? Have I goofed? Or am I missing something? Is it the cryptic remark about solid angles & efficiencies?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 3. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen
I am quite puzzled by this. I half wonder if I've simply messed up in relating Q and S, but I've checked the calculation twice, and I don't see it.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se" More
Matt Leifer 3. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
It can't be detector inefficiencies because they make the fair sampling assumption. My guess is dark counts plus events where they only detect one of the two particles.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 4. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @mattleifer
Thanks Matt.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Andrew M. Webb 3. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
I'm not an expert, but I was able to find this page discussing the paper which says (is Sec. 7.1.3) that while the theoretical maximum is ~2.8, correcting for "instrumental deficiencies" the maximum is 2.448. I can't see where they've got that number from.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Andrew M. Webb 3. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
Well, I guess the number agrees with the 0.112 maximum of S given in the paper, but I can't see any reference to it being a correction for instrumental deficiencies
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Andrew Doherty 3. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
My recollection is that due to detector inefficiencies and source imperfections these experiments were indeed quite far from the maximal violation
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 4. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @andrewcdoherty
Thanks Andrew. Matt makes the following argument, which seems likely right, about inefficiencies:
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Danielle Fong🦠🧬💨🇹🇷🛫🐉💗🕵🏻‍♀️ 3. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
Giving cuckoo’s egg vibes.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"