Quick Navigation

Overview Topics Abstract Importance Paper Tools References Reactions Discussion Publication

Topics

Quantum State Preparation Representation

Data analysis of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm laboratory experiments

arXiv
Authors: H. De Raedt, F. Jin, K. Michielsen

Year

2013

Paper ID

2339

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

89

Citations

N/A

Abstract

Data sets produced by three different Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm (EPRB) experiments are tested against the hypothesis that the statistics of this data is described by quantum theory. Although these experiments generate data that violate Bell inequalities for suitable choices of the time-coincidence window, the analysis shows that it is highly unlikely that these data sets are compatible with the quantum theoretical description of the EPRB experiment, suggesting that the popular statements that EPRB experiments agree with quantum theory lack a solid scientific basis and that more precise experiments are called for.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Quantum State Preparation & Representation research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2013 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • Data sets produced by three different Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm (EPRB) experiments are tested against the hypothesis that the statistics of this data is described by quantum...

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Become a member Sign in
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

[1] DOI https://doi.org/arXiv:1312.6361 [2] arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6361 [3] Publisher https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6361

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #2339

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.