Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Foundations
Detection-Loophole-Free Test of Quantum Nonlocality, and Applications
arXiv
Authors: B. G. Christensen, K. T. McCusker, J. Altepeter, B. Calkins, T. Gerrits, A. Lita, A. Miller, L. K. Shalm, Y. Zhang, S. W. Nam, N. Brunner, C. C. W. Lim, N. Gisin, P. G. Kwiat
Year
2013
Paper ID
8398
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
89
Citations
N/A
Abstract
We present a source of entangled photons that violates a Bell inequality free of the "fair-sampling" assumption, by over 7 standard deviations. This violation is the first experiment with photons to close the detection loophole, and we demonstrate enough "efficiency" overhead to eventually perform a fully loophole-free test of local realism. The entanglement quality is verified by maximally violating additional Bell tests, testing the upper limit of quantum correlations. Finally, we use the source to generate secure private quantum random numbers at rates over 4 orders of magnitude beyond previous experiments.
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 present a source of entangled photons that violates a Bell inequality free of the "fair-sampling" assumption, by over 7 standard deviations.
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.