Local realism in recent experiments is excluded on condition of freedom or randomness of choice combined with no signaling between observers by implementations of simple quantum models. Both no signaling and the underlying quantum model can be directly checked by analysis of experimental data. For particular tests performed on the data, it is shown that two of these experiments give the probability of the data under no-signaling (or choice independence in one of them) hypothesis at the level of 5%, accounting for the look-elsewhere effect, moderately suggesting that no signaling is violated with 95% confidence. On the other hand, the data from the two other experiments violate the assumption of the simple quantum model. Further experiments are necessary to clarify these issues and freedom and randomness of choice.
Local realism in recent experiments is excluded on condition of freedom or randomness of choice combined with no signaling between observers by implementations of simple quantum models. Both no signaling and the underlying quantum model can be directly checked by analysis of experimental data. For particular tests performed on the data, it is shown that two of these experiments give the probability of the data under no-signaling (or choice independence in one of them) hypothesis at the level of 5%, accounting for the look-elsewhere effect, moderately suggesting that no signaling is violated with 95% confidence. On the other hand, the data from the two other experiments violate the assumption of the simple quantum model. Further experiments are necessary to clarify these issues and freedom and randomness of choice.
Abstract Recently, a group of experiments tested local realism with random choices prepared by humans. These various tests were subject to additional assumptions, which lead to loopholes in the interpretations of almost all of the experiments. Among these assumptions are fair sampling, no signaling, and faithful reproduction of a Bell‐type quantum model. The data from 9 of 13 experiments were examined and occurring anomalies were analyzed in view of the above assumptions. It is concluded that further tests of local realism need better setup calibration to avoid apparent signaling or necessity of the complicated underlying quantum model.
The recent Bell test performed in Delft [B. Hensen et al. Nature 526, 682 (2015), arXiv:1508.05949], claimed as loophole-free, has shown violation of local realism with 96% confidence level. However, the raw data indicate violation of no-signaling principle (microcausality) around 99% confidence level. While violation of local realism is consistent with quantum mechanics, it is not the case of no-signaling. Violation of the latter would be a groundbreaking revolution in physics but also invalidate the conclusion of the Bell theorem, where it no-signaling assumed and must be verified or at least not falsified. If the signature of signaling is believed to be a statistical error, a fair calculation of the Bell parameter gives S = 1.86 < 2, in accordance with local realism. Therefore further experimental tests are urgent to clarify with better confidence level whether local realism or no-signaling is violated or none of them.
Bell's theorem shows that local realistic theories place strong restrictions on observable correlations between different systems, giving rise to Bell's inequality which can be violated in experiments using entangled quantum states. Bell's theorem is based on the assumptions of realism, locality, and the freedom to choose between measurement settings. In experimental tests, "loopholes" arise which allow observed violations to still be explained by local realistic theories. Violating Bell's inequality while simultaneously closing all such loopholes is one of the most significant still open challenges in fundamental physics today. In this paper, we present an experiment that violates Bell's inequality while simultaneously closing the locality loophole and addressing the freedom-of-choice loophole, also closing the latter within a reasonable set of assumptions. We also explain that the locality and freedom-of-choice loopholes can be closed only within nondeterminism, i.e., in the context of stochastic local realism.
Fundamental principle of classical physics -- local realism, means that freely chosen observations can be explained by a local (slower than light) real process. It is apparently violated in quantum mechanics as shown by Bell theorem. Despite extreme efforts experiments have not conclusively confirmed this violation due to loopholes. We propose a new postulate that the description of quantum processes must be consistent with local realism, It also assumes existence of many worlds/copies of the same system, interacting weakly microscopically but strongly macroscopically, whose number can be estimated experimentally.Bell theorem will never address a real experiment because its assumptions cannot be strictly fulfilled. By an appropriate generalization of quantum framework and measurement postulates, in particular taking into account freedom of choice, local realism agrees with quantum mechanics and the performed experiments, also involving single qubit coherence and a weaker version of the Bell test, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steering.
Reliable and loophole-free demonstrations of the violation of local realism (LR) are highly desirable not only for understanding the foundation of quantum mechanics but also for facilitating quantum information processing, such as quantum key distribution and randomness expansion. To date, LR has been experimentally violated, but with loopholes, by testing predetermined Bell inequalities. This thesis presents a framework for verifying and quantifying the violation of LR without relying on a particular Bell inequality.\nFirst, the experimental resources, such as the quantum state, measurement settings, detection effciency, and visibility required for a violation of LR, are studied via a measure called the statistical strength. The higher the statistical strength, the more confidence in a violation of LR one has after a suffciently large number of experimental data. Particularly, we study the minimum detection effciency required to achieve any given statistical strength level in tests of LR with entangled states created from two independent polarized photons passing through a polarizing beam splitter. It is shown that, compared with photon detectors, photon counters make violations of LR easier to detect for any nonzero probability of multiple photons in an output beam of the polarizing beam splitter.\nSecond, to quantify the statistical evidence against LR obtained from a finite number of experimental data, one can choose a test statistic, such as a Bell-inequality violation, to measure the amount of violation of LR. It is desirable to bound the probability, according to LR, of obtaining a test statistic at least as extreme as that observed. This probability is known as a p-value for the hypothesis test of LR. We propose a protocol to bound such a p-value. The bound provided is asymptotically tight, if the prepared quantum state and measurement settings are stable during an experiment. Therefore, the proposed protocol is asymptotically optimal, and the bound provided is a standardized measure of success for experimental tests of LR. One can quantitatively compare different experimental tests based on this bound. Moreover, the bound provided is valid even if the quantum state varies arbitrarily and local realistic models depend on previous measurement settings and outcomes. Hence, this bound facilitates device-independent and nonlocality-based quantum information processing. For comparison, bounds of p-values derived from Bell-inequality violations using the number of standard deviations of violation of a Bell inequality or using martingale theory are studied. It is found that putative bounds derived from the number of standard deviations of violation are not valid and bounds from martingale theory are not tight.\nFinally, a simplified and effcient data analysis protocol using a set of Bell inequalities is proposed and compared with the above optimal and martingale-based protocols. The simplified protocol provides as good as and typically tighter p-value bounds than the martingale-based protocol, and the bounds provided can even be asymptotically tight. Moreover, the simplified protocol can be applied to any test with linear witnesses, such as tests for verifying entanglement, system dimensionality, or steering.