Quick Navigation

Overview Topics Abstract Importance Paper Tools References Reactions Discussion Publication Related

Topics

Open Quantum Systems Decoherence Quantum Foundations

Random 'choices' and the locality loophole

arXiv

Authors: Stefano Pironio

Year

2015

Paper ID

26931

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

105

Citations

N/A

Abstract

It has been claimed that to close the locality loophole in a Bell experiment, random numbers of quantum origin should be used for selecting the measurement settings. This is how it has been implemented in all recent Bell experiment addressing this loophole. I point out in this note that quantum random number generators are unnecessary for such experiments and that a Bell experiment with a pseudo-random (but otherwise completely deterministic) mechanism for selecting the measurement settings, such as taking a hash function of the latest million tweets with the hashtag #quantum, would be as convincing, or even more, than one using quantum random number generators.

Why This Paper Matters

This paper contributes to the Quantum Foundations research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
It adds a 2015 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
It has been claimed that to close the locality loophole in a Bell experiment, random numbers of quantum origin should be used for selecting the measurement settings.

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:1510.00248 [2] arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.00248 [3] Publisher https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.00248

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0

Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.