Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Foundations
Testing Bell's Inequality with Cosmic Photons: Closing the Setting-Independence Loophole
arXiv
Authors: Jason Gallicchio, Andrew S. Friedman, David I. Kaiser
Year
2013
Paper ID
32275
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
104
Citations
N/A
Abstract
We propose a practical scheme to use photons from causally disconnected cosmic sources to set the detectors in an experimental test of Bell's inequality. In current experiments, with settings determined by quantum random number generators, only a small amount of correlation between detector settings and local hidden variables, established less than a millisecond before each experiment, would suffice to mimic the predictions of quantum mechanics. By setting the detectors using pairs of quasars or patches of the cosmic microwave background, observed violations of Bell's inequality would require any such coordination to have existed for billions of years --- an improvement of 20 orders of magnitude.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Quantum Foundations research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2013 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- We propose a practical scheme to use photons from causally disconnected cosmic sources to set the detectors in an experimental test of Bell's inequality.
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.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
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.