Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1406.6360

Comment on "Lower Bound on the Speed of Nonlocal Correlations without Locality and Measurement Choice Loopholes"

Shoujiang Wang, Xiulan Wang

Published Jun 24, 2014• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The authors claim that they "strictly" closed locality loophole, but their work does not close the locality loophole. there are at least two local transinformation explanations. The two explanations are the counter-examples of their claim. No reason can make a conclusion be right when there are counter-examples of the conclusion. And the two explanations also illustrate that the space-time diagrams of the paper have at least two problems.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1406.6360

Related papers

Lower Bound on the Speed of Nonlocal Correlations without Locality and Measurement Choice Loopholes

Juan Yin, Yuan Wen Cao, Hai-Lin Yong +11 more

Here, we strictly closed the loopholes by observing a 12 h continuous violation of the Bell inequality and concluded that the lower bound speed of spooky action was 4 orders of magnitude of the speed of light.

•Jan 1, 2014•17 citations

Comment on ``A local hidden variable model of quantum correlations exploiting the detection loophole''

Thomas Durt

We study in this short comment the analogies and the differences that exist between several local hidden variable models.

arXiv:quant-ph/9907061•Jul 20, 1999•0 citations

Lower Bound on the Speed of Nonlocal Correlations without Locality and Measurement Choice Loopholes

Juan Yin, Yuan Wen Cao, Hai-Lin Yong +12 more

In their well-known paper, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen called the nonlocal correlation in quantum entanglement a "spooky action at a distance." If the spooky action does exist, what is its speed? All previous experiments along this direction have locality and freedom-of-choice loopholes. Here, we strictly closed the loopholes by observing a 12 h continuous violation of the Bell inequality and concluded that the lower bound speed of spooky action was 4 orders of magnitude of the speed of light if Earth's speed in any inertial reference frame was less than 10(-3) time the speed of light.

arXiv:1303.0614•Physical Review Letters•Jun 26, 2013•121 citations

Yet another comment on "Nonlocal character of quantum theory"

J. Finkelstein

There has been considerable discussion of the claim by Stapp [Am. J. Phys. 65, 300 (1997)] that quantum theory is incompatible with locality. In this note I analyze the meaning of some of the statements used in this discussion.

arXiv:quant-ph/9801011•Jan 7, 1998•10 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Counterfactual entanglement and nonlocal correlations in separable states’ ”

Oliver Cohen

Two objections have been raised to the arguments presented by Cohen [Phys. Rev. A 60, 80 (1999)]. It is pointed out that neither objection has anything to do with the main subject matter of that paper, and shown that both objections are based on misunderstandings of the examples to which they relate.

arXiv:quant-ph/0008080•Physical Review A•Dec 4, 2000•2 citations

Quantum Nonlocality: How Does Nature Do It?

Marian Kupczyński

In his article in Science, Nicolas Gisin claimed that quantum correlations emerge from outside space–time. We explainthat they are due to space-time symmetries. This paper is a critical review of metaphysical conclusions found in many recent articles. It advocates the importance of contextuality, Einstein -causality and global symmetries. Bell tests allow only rejecting probabilistic coupling provided by a local hidden variable model, but they do not justify metaphysical speculations about quantum nonlocality and objects which know about each other’s state, even when separated by large distances. The violation of Bell inequalities in physics and in cognitive science can be explained using the notion of Bohr- contextuality. If contextual variables, describing varying experimental contexts, are correctly incorporated into a probabilistic model, then the Bell–CHSH inequalities cannot be proven and nonlocal correlations may be explained in an intuitive way. We also elucidate the meaning of statistical independence assumption incorrectly called free choice, measurement independence or no- conspiracy. Since correlation does not imply causation, the violation of statistical independence should be called contextuality; it does not restrict the experimenter’s freedom of choice. Therefore, contrary to what is believed, closing the freedom-of choice loophole does not close the contextuality loophole.

arXiv:2402.00725•Entropy•Feb 23, 2024•14 citations
The authors claim that they "strictly" closed locality loophole, but their work does not close the locality loophole. there are at least two local transinformation explanations. The two explanations are the counter-examples of their claim. No reason can make a conclusion be right when there are counter-examples of the conclusion. And the two explanations also illustrate that the space-time diagrams of the paper have at least two problems.
In their well-known paper, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen called the nonlocal correlation in quantum entanglement a "spooky action at a distance." If the spooky action does exist, what is its speed? All previous experiments along this direction have locality and freedom-of-choice loopholes. Here, we strictly closed the loopholes by observing a 12 h continuous violation of the Bell inequality and concluded that the lower bound speed of spooky action was 4 orders of magnitude of the speed of light if Earth's speed in any inertial reference frame was less than 10(-3) time the speed of light.
In his article in Science, Nicolas Gisin claimed that quantum correlations emerge from outside space–time. We explainthat they are due to space-time symmetries. This paper is a critical review of metaphysical conclusions found in many recent articles. It advocates the importance of contextuality, Einstein -causality and global symmetries. Bell tests allow only rejecting probabilistic coupling provided by a local hidden variable model, but they do not justify metaphysical speculations about quantum nonlocality and objects which know about each other’s state, even when separated by large distances. The violation of Bell inequalities in physics and in cognitive science can be explained using the notion of Bohr- contextuality. If contextual variables, describing varying experimental contexts, are correctly incorporated into a probabilistic model, then the Bell–CHSH inequalities cannot be proven and nonlocal correlations may be explained in an intuitive way. We also elucidate the meaning of statistical independence assumption incorrectly called free choice, measurement independence or no- conspiracy. Since correlation does not imply causation, the violation of statistical independence should be called contextuality; it does not restrict the experimenter’s freedom of choice. Therefore, contrary to what is believed, closing the freedom-of choice loophole does not close the contextuality loophole.