Quick Navigation
Topics
Entanglement Theory Quantum Correlations
Quantum Foundations
Two-setting multi-site Bell inequalities for loophole-free tests with up to 50% loss
arXiv
Authors: M. D. Reid
Year
2013
Paper ID
32316
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
145
Citations
N/A
Abstract
We consider Bell experiments with N spatially separated qubits where loss is present and restrict to two measurement settings per site. We note the Mermin-Ardehali-Belinskii-Klyshko (MABK) Bell inequalities do not present a tight bound for the predictions of local hidden variable (LHV) theories. The Holder-type Bell inequality derived by Cavalcanti, Foster, Reid and Drummond provides a tighter bound, for high losses. We analyse the actual tight bound for the MABK inequalities, given the measure W=\prod_{k=1}^{N}η_{k} of overall detection efficiency, where η_{k} is the efficiency at the site k . Using these inequalities, we confirm that the maximally entangled Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger state enables loophole-free falsification of LHV theories provided \prod_{k=1}^{N}η_{k}>2^{(2-N)}, which implies a symmetric threshold efficiency of η\rightarrow50%, as N\rightarrow\infty . Furthermore, loophole-free violations remain possible, even when the efficiency at some sites is reduced well below 0.5, provided N>3 .
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 consider Bell experiments with N spatially separated qubits where loss is present and restrict to two measurement settings per site.
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.